# commentaries

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or are you ignorant of the fact that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?</em>– A common appeal of Paul’s in his letters (<em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:1'>1Co 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:13'>1Th 4:13</a></em>). His earnest desire was that his readership would appreciate the real import of what they knew in theory:&nbsp;</p><p>Galatians was one of Paul’s earlier letters. In it, he speaks of his own baptism: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live” (<em><a href='B:550 2:19-21'>Gal 2:19-21</a></em>). Years later he writes to the Romans about&nbsp;<em>their&nbsp;</em>baptisms, in exactly the same language: “All of us who have been baptized… our old self was crucified with him… the life he lives he lives to God” (<em><a href='B:520 6:1-10'>Rom 6:1-10</a></em>). He clearly seeks to forge an identity between his readers and himself; their baptisms were and are as radical as his in their import. Note how in many of his letters, especially Galatians and Corinthians, he switches so easily between “you” and “we”, as if to drive home the fact that there was to be no perception of distance between him the writer and us the readers. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>We were buried therefore with him through a baptism into his death</em>-</p><p> Gk:&nbsp;<em>dia&nbsp;</em>baptism. It is through baptism, on account of it, that we are “in Christ” and associated with the saving death of the Lord Jesus. This is how, mechanically, as it were, we become “in Christ”. The use of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;here demonstrates the colossal importance of baptism.</p><p>“Therefore we&nbsp;<em>are&nbsp;</em>buried with him by baptism into death... knowing this, that our old man&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;crucified with him" (<em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>). Every time someone is baptized, the Lord as it were goes through His death for them again. And yet baptism is an ongoing process, of dying daily. We are in Christ, connected every moment with the life and living out of His cross. We&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;dying with Him, our old man&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;crucified with Him because His death is an ongoing one. “It is Christ that died... Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?... As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (<em><a href='B:520 8:34-36'>Rom 8:34-36</a></em>). According to Isaiah 53, He on the cross was the sheep for the slaughter; but all in Him are&nbsp;<em>all day long</em>&nbsp;counted as sharing His death, as we live out the same self-control, the same spirit of love and self-giving for others, regardless of their response...</p><p><em>That like as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father</em>-</p><p> This doesn’t mean that some bright light as it were hauled the body of Jesus out of the grave. The glory of God is essentially His character and attributes; when Moses asked to see God’s glory, He heard the essential character of God proclaimed. Christ was raised from the dead&nbsp;<em>dia&nbsp;</em>, for the sake of, this glory. He perfectly revealed it in a life and personality which was totally like God’s, omitting no aspect of righteousness and not committing any sin. He gave His life for us, to become our full representative; and therefore it was appropriate that He be raised again, for the wages of sin is death, but He had done no sin. His same perfection is counted to us, if we believe in Him and into Him through “the obedience of faith” in baptism. And it is on this basis that we too shall rise again. Paul mentions this aspect of the Lord’s resurrection to explain to us something more about&nbsp;<em>how and why</em>&nbsp;immersion into His death and resurrection can lead to&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;resurrection. We must consider that His resurrection is in fact going to be ours exactly because His righteousness is counted to us, and therefore<em>, dia,</em>&nbsp;that, for the sake of it, we took shall be raised to life eternal.</p><p>The theory of Him only ‘acting out’ reaches its nadir when we come- as each Christian must- to personally contemplate the meaning of the dead body of Jesus. That lifeless corpse, in contrast with the immortal God who cannot die, was surely the ultimate testament to Christ’s total humanity. God did not die for three days. The Lord Jesus did. His subsequent resurrection doesn’t in any way detract from the fact that He was really dead for three days. Indeed, His resurrection would also have been a cheap sham if He had actually not been really dead, with all that death means. We too, in our natural fear of death (cp. <em><a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a></em>), come to that dead body and wish to identify ourselves with it, so that we might share in His resurrection. Baptism is a baptism into His death (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>). It’s more than some act of vague identification with the dead and resurrected Jesus. We are “buried with him”, literally ‘co-buried’ (Gk:&nbsp;<em>syn-thaptein</em>) with Him, inserted into His death, sharing the same grave. If His death was not really death, then baptism loses its meaning, and we are left still searching for another Saviour with whom we can identify in order to rise out of the grave. &nbsp;Jesus Himself was baptized in order to emphasize our identity with Him: “Now when&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the people were baptized, and Jesus&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;had been baptized…” (<em><a href='B:490 3:21'>Luk 3:21</a></em>).</p><p>Our experience of grace means “that we should serve in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (<em><a href='B:520 7:6'>Rom 7:6</a></em>). We don’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to serve God in the sense that He grants us salvation by pure grace, not by works. The blessing of the Lord has nothing added to it by human toil (<em><a href='B:240 10:22'>Pro 10:22</a></em> RVmg:). But just because we don’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to do it, we do. This is the power of grace; it doesn’t force us to monotonous service, but should be a wellspring of fresh motivation, to do perhaps the same things with an ever fresh spirit. The pure&nbsp;<em>wonder</em>&nbsp;of it all needs to be felt- that&nbsp;<em>for nothing but pure faith</em>&nbsp;the Lord will grant us eternal redemption for the sake of the Lord’s death and resurrection. Which is why <em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em> says that because of this, and our appropriation of it in baptism, we therefore live in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of life, a quality of life that is ever new. Through His death, a new and living way is opened (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>). We share the ever fresh life which the Lord lived from His resurrection. It does us good to try to imagine that scene- the Son of God, coming out of the grave at daybreak. He would have seen the lights of Jerusalem shimmering away in the distance, a few kms. away, as everyone woke up and went back to work, the first day after the long holiday. Getting the children ready, caring for the animals… it was back to the same old scene. But as they did so, the Son of God was rising to newness of life, standing alone in the fresh morning air, with a life that was ever new, with a joy and dynamism that was to know no end… His feelings are beyond us, but all the same, distorted by our nature, by our spiritual dysfunction, into&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>lives&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>life breaks through.</p><p><em>So we also might walk in newness of life</em>-</p><p> The similar passage in <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em> speaks of how "according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (see note there). This regenerative power is from the Spirit working within our minds, making life ever new as the Spirit is progressively poured out. Paul will develop this further in chapter 8.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:7'>Rom 6:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that has died is set free from sin</em>-</p><p> is virtually quoting Rabbinic writings. However in the Talmud there is the statement that “when a man is dead he is freed from keeping the law” (<em>B. Shabbat</em>, 151 B). Paul provocatively replaces “law” with “sin”. Not that God’s law is sinful in itself, but he has been emphasizing that the Law is associated with sin because it as it were magnifies sin and leads to the conscious crossing over of a Divine line which results in sin being imputed to man. However, “freed” here translates the usual word for “justified” or acquitted. A slave can no longer serve a master after the death of the slave. And this is how God counts us.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your human nature; but as you presented your limbs as slaves of uncleanness and iniquity, now present your limbs as slaves of righteousness unto holiness</em>-</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. It is possible to discern an element of human appeal in some Biblical statements. Thus the Spirit encourages husbands to love their wives as themselves, because effectively they are loving themselves if they do this (<em><a href='B:560 5:29'>Eph 5:29</a></em>). Yet we are also warned that a characteristic of the last days will be a selfish loving of our<em>selves</em>. Paul speaks of how he puts things "in human terms" (<em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> NIV); e.g. he suggests that fear of the judgment alone ought to at least make us sit up and take our spiritual life seriously (<em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>), even though the tenor of Scripture elsewhere is that this shouldn't be our motivator.</p><p>We should note that Paul is almost apologizing for his metaphors, as if he had put something too crudely. His metaphors are ‘humanly’ quite acceptable- from the courtroom, slavery etc. Given the height and wonder of the grace we are considering, any metaphor, any similitude, any language- is inadequate and even borders on the inappropriate. And note that Paul is writing all these things, both the metaphors and the apology for them, under Divine inspiration:&nbsp;</p><p>The changeover from the downward spiral to the upward spiral ought to have begun at baptism; but as with some of the Roman believers in the first century, a believer can slip back into the downward spiral: "Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness" (<em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> NIV). The life of sexual impurity is an "ever increasing" downwards path; the endless quest for new relationships and sexual novelty doesn't need to be described.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> speaks of how the ever increasing downward spiral of obedience to sin is turned around at baptism, so that we begin an upward spiral of obedience to righteousness. God does good unto those that are good, but leads those who turn aside even further astray (<em><a href='B:230 125:4-5'>Psa 125:4-5</a></em>). Those who are "born of God" are able to hear and understand God's words (<em><a href='B:500 8:47'>Joh 8:47</a></em>)- and baptism is surely how we are born of God (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>). This seems to open up the possibility of yet higher growth once we are baptized- it's all an upward spiral, like any functional relationship.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 6:19-23'>Rom 6:19-23</a></em> makes the contrast between how serving sin leads to ever increasing sin, whilst serving Christ results in ever increasing righteousness. We are all too aware of the upward (downward) spiral of sin- we well know the feeling of losing our spiritual grip for an hour, day or week, and sensing how sin is ever increasing its hold over us. But by our union with Christ in baptism it is quite possible, indeed intended, that we should get into an upward spiral of obedience, in which one spiritual victory leads to another.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:2'>Rom 7:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the woman that has a husband is bound by law to the husband while he lives; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law of the husband</em>-</p><p> It’s tempting to interpret this as a reference to the death of Christ ending the Law. But that interpretation runs into problems in <em><a href='B:520 7:3'>Rom 7:3</a></em>, for there the woman- the body of believers- is married to “another man”. See note on <em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>. Or it could be that Paul is seeking to make the simple point that the death of one person can free another person from a law / legal obligation; which is what happened in the death of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:3'>Rom 7:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then if, while the husband lives, she be joined to another man</em>-</p><p> “Be joined” doesn’t translate the usual Greek word for marriage:&nbsp;<em>Ginomai</em>&nbsp;has a wide range of meaning; the idea may be of her sharing with, being with, another husband at the same time as she is married to her first husband. Rather than making any specific point about marriage (see on <em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>), Paul may be showing that it’s not possible for a woman to have two husbands at the same time- “man” as in “another man” is the same Greek word translated “husband”. This is being said in the context of seeking to persuade us how impossible it is for us to be in covenant relationship with the two spheres or positions of law and grace, condemnation and justification at one and the same time. This is both a comfort and a challenge to us.</p><p><em>She shall be called&nbsp;an adulteress; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she is joined to another man</em>-</p><p> “Shall be called” uses a Greek term usually used about a Divine statement, i:e. she will be called&nbsp;<em>by God</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore…</em>-</p><p> connects back to <em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em>. The point being made in <em><a href='B:520 7:2-3'>Rom 7:2-3</a></em> is that death means a person is free from keeping the Law. Paul isn’t here teaching about the nature of marriage nor the conditions under which he considered remarriage could occur; his theme is that death frees us from the Law. And more precisely, it was by the death of another that the woman had been freed from a law- that law no longer applied to her, not because she had died, but because another had died. This is the significance of the death of Christ in freeing us from the Law.</p><p><em>My brothers, you also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ</em>-</p><p> This is to be interpreted in the light of <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em>, which also in a baptism context speaks of the Law being nailed to the cross. But it was the body of Christ which was nailed to the cross. If we are baptized into His body by baptism, nailed and crucified with Him, then the Law is dead to us too:&nbsp;</p><p><em>So that you should be joined to another</em>-</p><p> the metaphor is mixed and almost impossible to consistently interpret- demonstrating if nothing else that logical consistency wasn’t of paramount importance to the Bible writers nor to the God who inspired their words:&nbsp;</p><p><em>To him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring&nbsp;forth fruit unto God</em>-</p><p> We are now freed from the Law, and are free to marry Christ and bring forth fruit, children, unto God. The fruit of the Spirit is what will last beyond the span of our lifetimes, just as the desire for us to have significance beyond the grave is part of the motivating factor in the desire to have children. The Greek for ‘bring forth fruit’ occurs four of its eight times in the New Testament in the parable of the sower. The good seed of the Gospel is to bring forth fruit in us. Yet this doesn’t mean that Bible reading somehow brings forth fruit; it is our active intercourse and union with the Lord Jesus as a person which brings forth the fruit:&nbsp;</p><p>There is a frequent association of sin (the Devil) and the Mosaic Law throughout Romans (this is not to say that the law is itself sinful – it led to sin only due to human weakness). A clear example of this is found in Romans 6 talking about us dying to sin and living to righteousness, whilst Romans 7 speaks in the same language about the Law; thus “he that is dead is free from sin... you (are)&nbsp;<em>dead</em>&nbsp;indeed&nbsp;<em>unto sin</em>” (<em><a href='B:520 6:7'>Rom 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em>) cp. “You also are become&nbsp;<em>dead to the Law</em>” (<em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>). Other relevant examples are tabulated above on <em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>In the parable of the sower, the seed is surely the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>)- our eternal destiny is decided upon our response to Him and His teaching. We are bidden believe in or into Jesus. Belief involves the heart; it doesn't mean to merely give mental assent to some propositions. It must in the end involve believing in a person, with all the feelings and emotions this involves. We are married unto the Lord Jesus, in order that we might bring forth fruit unto God (<em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>). All spiritual fruit is therefore an offspring, an outcome, of a living, daily relationship with the Lord Jesus. This is how crucial it is to know Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:5'>Rom 7:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For when we were in the flesh</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;In the sphere of the flesh. The NIV “sinful nature” is a poor translation; no change of nature occurred when we were baptized. Rather did we cross over from one status to another, from flesh to Spirit. We still possess the same “mortal flesh” as we did before conversion.</p><p><em>The sinful passions, which were through the law, worked in our limbs to bring forth fruit to death</em>-</p><p> The Greek word translated “passions” is usually rendered “sufferings”. Sinful passions are their own suffering. The word is only used again in <em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>, speaking of how “the&nbsp;<em>sufferings</em>&nbsp;s:w. “emotions” of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed”. The sufferings of this life are, for us, the sufferings related to sin.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:6'>Rom 7:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held</em>-</p><p> “Discharged” is the same Greek word translated “loosed” in <em><a href='B:520 7:2'>Rom 7:2</a></em>:&nbsp; the woman is loosed from the law of her husband. The suggestion is that Paul’s audience had been married to the Law and now remarried to Christ because the Law had as it were died. This confirms our suggestion see on <em><a href='B:520 7:8'>Rom 7:8</a></em> that Romans 7 is aimed at Jews who had once been associated with the Law but were now in Christ. The death of the Law is made parallel with the death of Christ, in that He nailed it to the cross, in the sense that He embodied the Law by perfectly obeying and fulfilling it. The intention of the Law was that if fully obeyed, it would lead to a perfect man- the Lord Jesus. In this sense it was “ordained to life”. In this sense “the Law” and the person of Christ can be legitimately presented in parallel as they are by Paul here.</p><p><em></p><p>So that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter</em>-</p><p> Spirit… letter are likewise contrasted in <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 3:6'>2Co 3:6</a></em>. It can be that we perceive even our service of God as the same old scene- the same round of daily Bible reading (although, why not try reading from another version or in another language?), the same cycle of church meetings and Bible schools. The same faces, the same issues. But our experience of grace means “that we should serve in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (<em><a href='B:520 7:6'>Rom 7:6</a></em>). We don’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to serve God in the sense that He grants us salvation by pure grace, not by works. But just because we don’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to do it, we do. This is the power of grace; it doesn’t force us to monotonous service, but should be a wellspring of fresh motivation, to do perhaps the same things with an ever fresh spirit. The pure&nbsp;<em>wonder</em>&nbsp;of it all needs to be felt- that&nbsp;<em>for nothing but pure faith</em>&nbsp;the Lord will grant us eternal redemption for the sake of the Lord’s death and resurrection. Which is why <em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em> says that because of this, and our appropriation of it in baptism, we therefore live in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of life, a quality of life that is ever new. Through His death, a new and living way is opened (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>). We share the ever fresh life which the Lord lived from His resurrection. It does us good to try to imagine that scene- the Son of God, coming out of the grave at daybreak. He would have seen the lights of Jerusalem shimmering away in the distance, a few kms. away, as everyone woke up and went back to work, the first day after the long holiday. Getting the children ready, caring for the animals… it was back to the same old scene. But as they did so, the Son of God was rising to newness of life, standing alone in the fresh morning air, with a life that was ever new, with a joy and dynamism that was to know no end… His feelings are beyond us, but all the same, distorted by our nature, by our spiritual dysfunction, into&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>lives&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>life breaks through.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:7'>Rom 7:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid However, I had not known sin, except through the law. For I had not known coveting, except the law had said: You shall not covet</em>-</p><p> Philo and other Jewish writings taught that covetousness was the origin of every sin. <em><a href='B:660 1:15'>Jas 1:15</a></em> may allude to this idea by saying that covetousness s:w:; AV “desire” gives birth to sin:&nbsp;</p><p>Although sin exists amongst people who don’t know God’s law, we come to “know” sin by the Law. The Greek&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em>&nbsp;translated “know” has a wide range of meaning; the idea could be that Paul had not known sin in the sense of not being responsible to Divine judgment for it- until he knew the Law:&nbsp;</p><p>Clearly perception of sinfulness grew in Paul after his conversion. He considered himself blameless in keeping the law (<em><a href='B:570 3:6'>Phi 3:6</a></em>); and yet chief of sinners (<em><a href='B:610 1:16'>1Ti 1:16</a></em>). He realized that sin is to do with attitudes rather than committed or omitted actions. I'd paraphrase Paul's personal reminiscence in <em><a href='B:520 7:7-10'>Rom 7:7-10</a></em> like this: "As a youngster, I had no real idea of sin. I did what I wanted, thought whatever I liked. But then in my early teens, the concept of God's commandments hit me. The command not to covet really came home to me. I struggled through my teens and twenties with a mad desire for women forbidden to me (AV, conveniently archaic, has "all manner of concupiscence"). And slowly I found in an ongoing sense (Gk:), I grew to see, that the laws I had to keep were killing me, they would be my death in the end". Paul’s progressive realization of the nature of sin is reflected in <em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:21'>Rom 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:23'>Rom 7:23</a></em>. He speaks there of how he came to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that nothing good was in him; he&nbsp;<em>found</em>&nbsp;a law of sinful tendency at work in him; he came to&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;another law apart from God’s law at work in his life. This process of knowing, finding and seeing his own sinfulness continued throughout his life. His way of escape from this moral and intellectual dilemma was through accepting the grace of the Lord Jesus at his conversion. In one of his earliest letters, Paul stresses that he felt like the least of the apostles, he honestly felt they were all better than he was (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>). However, he reminisces that in his earlier self-assurance, he had once considered himself as not inferior to "the very chiefest apostles" (<em><a href='B:540 11:5'>2Co 11:5</a></em>). Some years later, he wrote to the Ephesians that he felt "less than the least of all saints" (<em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>). This was no Uriah Heep, fawning humility. He really felt that he was the worst, the weakest, of all the thousands of believers scattered around the shores of the Mediterranean at that time. As he faced his death, he wrote to Timothy that he was " chief of sinners" (<em><a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a></em>), the worst sinner in the world, and that Christ's grace to him should therefore serve as an inspiration to every other believer,&nbsp;<em>in that</em>&nbsp;none had sinned as grievously as he had done. It could well be that this is one of Paul’s many allusions back to the Gospels- for surely he had in mid the way the publican smote upon his breast, asking God to be merciful “to me&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;sinner” (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em> RVmg:). "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" is rooted in the Lord's words that He came to call sinners and to seek and save the lost (<em><a href='B:470 9:13'>Mat 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:8'>Rom 7:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But sin, grabbing an opportunity through the commandment</em>-</p><p> A military term, referring to establishing a base camp. This continues the image of sin as a military leader (see on <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Worked in me</em>-</p><p> In direct opposition to the common Jewish idea that the Law curbed sin. Indeed the Talmud in&nbsp;<em>b. Qidd. 30b</em>&nbsp;claimed that God said at Sinai: “I created the evil desire but I also created the Torah as its antidote; if you occupy yourselves with the Torah, you will not be delivered into its hand” (1). Paul is arguing from experience- both Israel’s over the years and his own- that the reverse is true. The very existence of commandment tends to lead to that commandment being broken, as every parent soon learns (or re-learns) in the parenting process.</p><p><em>All manner of coveting-&nbsp;</em>AV "concupiscence". In gripping autobiography, Paul relates the innocent days when (as a child) he lived without the knowledge of law and therefore sin. But then, the concept of commandments registered with him; and this "wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (<em><a href='B:520 7:8'>Rom 7:8</a></em>). "Concupiscence" is a conveniently archaic word for lust; and in the thinking and writing of Paul, the Greek&nbsp;<em>epithumia</em>&nbsp;is invariably used in a sexual context. See on <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>For apart from the Law, sin is dead and powerless</em>-</p><p> This connects with the fact that through baptism into Christ, we are “dead indeed unto sin” (<em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em>). Sin depends upon the law for strength; but the Law died with Jesus; He fulfilled it perfectly, He achieved the intention, for Him, the Law was indeed ordained to life (<em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em>). If the law is really dead, then sin is powerless- for those who are in Christ, who fulfilled the Law. It’s almost too good news; that the end of law means the end of the power of sin. This was all especially radical for Jewish ears. The ‘death’ of the Law is a strong concept- and it challenges not only Sabbath keepers, but all of us who think that surely obedience to Divine law must have some role to play in our salvation.</p><p>A case can be made, especially from <em><a href='B:520 7:8-10'>Rom 7:8-10</a></em>, that the whole of <em><a href='B:520 7:7-25'>Rom 7:7-25</a></em> is Paul talking about Israel- we have shown in notes on <em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em> that Paul is speaking in this section specifically to Jews. In this case, Paul would have so identified himself with Israel that he speaks in the first person, as if he personally ‘is’ them. He so loved his people that he saw all Israel’s history personified as it were in himself. Another approach to bear in mind is that it was quite possible in first century literature to use&nbsp;<em>ego</em>, the first person singular, as a literary or rhetorical device without any reference to the author’s personal situation. Thus it could be argued that the “And if I…” phrases in <em><a href='B:530 13:1-3'>1Co 13:1-3</a></em> are an example of this, rather than Paul talking about himself (2):&nbsp;</p><p>The way in which Adam is to be seen as everyman is exemplified by how Paul speaks of his own spiritual life and failure in terms of Adam’s encounter with sin in the form of the serpent. Note the allusions to Adam’s fall in <em><a href='B:520 7:8-11'>Rom 7:8-11</a></em>: “But sin cp. The snake, seizing an opportunity in the commandment singular – there was only one commandment in Eden, produced in me all kinds of covetousness the essence of the temptation to eat the fruit... I as Adam was once alive apart from the law Adam was the only person to ever truly exist for a time without any law, but when the commandment singular – to not eat the fruit came, sin sprang to life and I died as Adam, and the very commandment that seemed to promised life cp. The hope of eating of the tree of life proved to be death to me. For sin cp. the snake seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me s:w. <em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em> about the serpent deceiving Eve and through it killed me”. Note how <em><a href='B:520 7:7-13'>Rom 7:7-13</a></em>, with all the Adam allusions, speaks in the past tense; but in the autobiographical section which follows in <em><a href='B:520 7:14-25'>Rom 7:14-25</a></em>, Paul uses the present tense – as if to suggest that both Paul and by extension all of us live out the essence of Adam’s failure. He was everyman, and his salvation through the seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus, can be everyman’s salvation if he so chooses. But in our context we note the pointed – and it is pointed – omission by Paul of any reference to a Satan figure.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:9'>Rom 7:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I once was alive apart from the law</em>-</p><p> Paul presumably refers to his earliest childhood or babyhood, when he wasn’t accountable to the Law. <em><a href='B:520 7:9-10'>Rom 7:9-10</a></em> appear to be alluding to God giving the Law to Israel. See on <em><a href='B:520 7:8'>Rom 7:8</a></em>. In this case, Paul is speaking of himself in solidarity with Israel; for it could never be really said that a Jewish child was once without the Law. Indeed, first century Judaism emphasized this point- that Jewish children are under the Law (3). Throughout Romans 1-8, Paul is provocatively seeking to answer potential Jewish objections and strengthen the case of Christ’s Gospel against them. We have pointed out many examples of how he alludes to and deconstructs contemporary Jewish writings and opinions, sometimes at the cost of writing in a way which is apparently obtuse and difficult for Gentile readers to understand. And yet he now openly identifies himself with his beloved people. This, surely, is our pattern in seeking to persuade others- to identify with them, rather than merely lecture them. It almost seems that in the same way as Adam is set up as everyman, so Paul wishes himself personally to seen as every Jew. The way he elsewhere describes himself as a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” with impeccable Jewishness would confirm this (<em><a href='B:570 3:5'>Phi 3:5</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:520 7:11'>Rom 7:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>But when the commandment came</em>-</p><p> A reference to Paul’s Bar-Mitzvah, or his attaining the age of responsibility to God.</p><p><em>Sin revived</em>-</p><p> The only other time the word is used in Romans is in <em><a href='B:520 14:9'>Rom 14:9</a></em>, where we read of the Lord’s resurrection as Him ‘reviving’. Clearly the personified ‘sin’ here is being set up as the very antithesis to the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>And I died</em>-</p><p> A reference to being in the dock before God, tried and condemned as a sinner. So certain is that sentence of ultimate death that it was as if Paul had died. This interpretation is, I suggest, in keeping with the previous metaphors in Romans with regard to death. So instead of tending to life and blessing, and curbing sin, the Law instead accented sin and led to the condemnation of death.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the commandment, which was intended to life</em>-</p><p> This presumably implies that perfect keeping of the law would have resulted in a person living the life of God, the kind of life which will be lived in the eternal life (which might also be implied in <em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 10:5'>Rom 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 19:7-10'>Psa 19:7-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:11'>Eze 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>). Death for such a person would therefore be necessary because of their relation with Adam, but would in another sense be unjust, in that they had not sinned. The perfect obedience of the Lord Jesus therefore required His resurrection. His eternal life wasn’t given to Him by grace, but He was entitled to it by obedience. He had no pre-existent eternal life; He was given eternal life because of His obedience. And His life is counted to us who are “in Him” by grace. See on <em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>This I found to be to death</em>-</p><p> “Found” is s:w. <em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:21'>Rom 7:21</a></em>. Paul obviously examined his life and therefore can speak of what he had found / discovered about himself. This level of self-knowledge is surely our pattern… for the unexamined life isn’t life but mere existence:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:11'>Rom 7:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For sin, grabbing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it- slew me</em>-</p><p> Alluding to <em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>: “The serpent deceived me, and I ate”. The allusion is to Adam and Eve in Eden. In chapter 5 (and see on <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>), Paul has repeatedly taught that Adam is everyman. And now he includes himself in this, by applying the language of the failure in Eden to himself. Likewise his finding the commandment ordained to life becoming the means of death (<em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:13'>Rom 7:13</a></em>) may reference <em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em>. Yet whilst Adam is indeed everyman to Paul, Adam was perceived as Israel in much Rabbinic writing; and Paul saw himself as the personification and epitome of Israel (see on <em><a href='B:520 7:9-10'>Rom 7:9-10</a></em>). The Greek translated “deceived” really means to seduce. How did sin seduce Paul through or by means of the Law of Moses? Surely in the sense that Paul fell for the temptation to justify himself by means of obedience to that Law. But because he didn’t keep the Law perfectly, he was therefore condemned to death, and in a sense, received the sentence- and in that sense sin by means of the Law “slew” Paul. The only other time the word for ‘deceived / seduced’ occurs in Romans is in the practical section, which in this case again alludes to this doctrinal section: “the Judaizers by fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple”, as the serpent deceived Eve (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em> s:w:). Just as Paul deceived himself, fell to the seductive idea that we can be justified by works of obedience to the Law, so the Judaizers were teaching the same. By so doing, they were sin personified- they were doing the work of “sin”- using the attraction of obedience to a legal code to seduce believers into a position where they were in fact going to be condemned to death- because under that sphere, there can be no justification, no declaring right, for those who have in even one sense infringed Divine law. It’s all a complicated yet powerful way of saying that we simply must not and cannot be in the sphere of relying upon works; which means we have to just accept the gift of salvation by grace, much as all within us cries out against it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Thus the law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good-&nbsp;</em>Paul hastens here to emphasize that the Law itself isn’t sinful or wrong in itself; it is indeed “holy, just and good” (a common Jewish description of their Law); but the knowledge of any legal code creates accountability for sin. Only in that is there the connection between the Law and sin. The Law was “ordained to life”, and I have suggested under <em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em> that this could mean that perfect obedience to the Law would have led to living the life of God, to moral perfection. The Law could not of itself give eternal life, in that it could not undo the mortality which was to pass upon all Adam’s descendants. The Law sought to inculcate a culture of kindness toward others and devotion to God. Significantly, the Lord Jesus is described in the same words- the Holy and Just One (<em><a href='B:510 3:14'>Act 3:14</a></em>), as if He was such on account of the way His obedience to the Law developed such a character:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:13'>Rom 7:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Did then that which is good become death&nbsp;to me? God forbid But sin was shown to be sin, by the way it worked death in me through that which is good; and thus through the commandment, sin became shown as indeed exceedingly sinful-&nbsp;</em>There was no actual change in the Law, in that it didn’t once offer life and then changed to offer death. The Law was of itself holy, just and good- but it was used by God? to make sin “appear” as sin, to accent and highlight sin for what it is; and through man’s failure to keep the Law, sin was indeed shown to be an exceedingly great sinner (this is how the Greek behind “might become exceeding sinful” can be translated”). I find it significant that in Paul’s sustained personification of sin in these passages, he never once uses the terms “devil” or “satan”. He clearly saw the problem as human sin, which he personifies because one cannot have abstract “sin”, in that according to the Bible, sin is committed by and within the minds of personal beings, and in no other realm or dimension. It’s appropriate therefore that sin be personified:&nbsp;</p><p>We must doggedly hold on to the interconnections of thought within Paul's argument in Romans. Chapters 1-5 convict all of sin, demonstrating that works can in no way save us. Chapter 6 then outlines how we can be saved; through association with Christ through baptism and a life “in Christ", which will result in God seeing us in the exalted way He does. Chapter 7 basically goes on to say 'But, of course, you'll still sin, even though chapter 6 has explained how God doesn't look at that side of you if you truly try to live "in Christ" '. Paul says many things about his life in Romans 7 which seem to consciously connect with his description of life before baptism in Chapter 6&nbsp; (e.g. <em><a href='B:520 7:13'>Rom 7:13</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:14'>Rom 7:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:23'>Rom 7:23</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 6:12-13'>Rom 6:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:24'>Rom 7:24</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 6:16-17'>Rom 6:16-17</a></em>). The reason for this is that after baptism, we have two people within us; the man of the flesh, who totally dominated our pre-baptismal life, is still within us; but (as Chapter 7 so graphically shows) he is now in mortal conflict with the man of the Spirit, with whom we identify our real selves. Chapter 8 then goes on to encourage us that despite this conflict, sin is dead in Christ, and if we are in Him, then this is really how God sees us. Therefore Romans 8 stresses that our state of mind is so crucial; if we are led of the Spirit-man, then we are assured of salvation at that point in time. Romans 9-11 then appeals specifically to Israel to accept the glorious truth of all this, and then Chapters 12-16 show the practical response we should all make. Recognizing the existence of the new and old men within him, Paul can speak in Romans 7 as if he is two different people; “I myself serve the law of God”, but “my flesh” serves sin. Likewise David asked God not to hide His face from him, David&nbsp;<em>personally</em>, (<em><a href='B:230 27:9'>Psa 27:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:17'>Psa 69:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 102:2'>Psa 102:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 143:7'>Psa 143:7</a></em>), but to hide His face from David’s&nbsp;<em>sins&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:230 51:9'>Psa 51:9</a></em>). And one wonders whether the way the records of the Lord’s temptations are written implies some similar recognition by the Spirit of the two ‘men’ within the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:14'>Rom 7:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal</em>-</p><p> But “in Christ” he was not carnal (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em> s:w:). Again he has in mind states, positions, spheres. “Carnal” is literally ‘fleshly’. He points up the contrast between the flesh and Spirit. We cannot get into the ‘Spirit’ sphere by obeying the Law, even though the Law is “spiritual”, given by and of the Holy Spirit. The way to get into the sphere or status of the Spirit isn’t by obedience to a spiritual Law, because we keep failing to be obedient. We enter the sphere of the Spirit by baptism into Christ, “the Lord the Spirit” (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). He is “the Spirit” in that He embodies the Spirit of God- and therefore this is His title in <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>. And Romans 8 will argue further that it is by our acceptance of our new status by grace, believing that we really are “in Christ” and justified by God’s grace, that the Spirit will work in our lives; so that we are indeed in the Spirit and not in the flesh:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Sold unto sin</em>-</p><p> As if he was a slave to the “sin” master. This is how the word is used in <em><a href='B:470 18:25'>Mat 18:25</a></em> and many times in its LXX usage. Yet in chapter 6 he has exalted that in Christ, we died to the power of sin (<em><a href='B:520 6:2'>Rom 6:2</a></em>) and are not under sin (<em><a href='B:520 6:18'>Rom 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:22'>Rom 6:22</a></em>). So what does Paul mean? He may mean that he&nbsp;<em>had been</em>&nbsp;sold under sin; maybe using a literary rhetorical device which is relevant to the unredeemed Jews rather than himself personally; maybe he is at this point totally identified with Israel and is personifying Israel under the Law without Christ; or is it that he is admitting his personal failure to walk the talk he has outlined so eloquently in chapter 6; or is he recognizing that although we have changed status and masters with our real self, the inward man who delights in God’s law (<em><a href='B:520 7:22'>Rom 7:22</a></em>), we are still human and that human side of us still sins? My own suggestion is that Paul is here quoting a phrase from Rabbinic writings, although it would seem that the source has been lost to us. This would be in keeping with his style throughout Romans 1-8. He would then be using the Jewish writings themselves to demonstrate the misery of the human position without Christ; and this would fit in with the way at times in <em><a href='B:520 7:7-25'>Rom 7:7-25</a></em> he appears to be consciously personifying Israel:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:15'>Rom 7:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For why I do what I do,</em>&nbsp;<em>I do not understand</em>-</p><p> Gk. to know, recognize, perceive, approve. The word has a wide range of meaning, so interpretation cannot be too forcefully pressed here, but the idea may be that Paul is sharing his impression that the sinful things he does, he performs almost unawares, almost unconsciously, and he may be alluding to the image of slavery- mindless obedience, actions performed as automatisms. This is not to justify nor minimize human sin, but to rather make the point that it is performed within the context of being a slave to sin; and by status, we have changed masters. Note that Paul concludes this section by saying that in his mind he serves as a slave the law of God, whilst with his flesh he is still the slave of sin (<em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>). Yet all the same, we are ultimately “in Christ”, with no condemnation possible, because we serve Him (<em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>For I do not do what I intend</em>-</p><p> AV “would”, which means ‘to will’, and occurs frequently in this section (<em><a href='B:520 7:15-16'>Rom 7:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:18-21'>Rom 7:18-21</a></em>). Paul is saying that what he wills to do, he simply lacks the will to do; he laments the weakness of his will in being obedient. The interlude about the election of Israel in Romans 9-11 practically exemplifies the theology of Romans 1-8; and this theme of Paul’s weak will is commented upon in <em><a href='B:520 9:16'>Rom 9:16</a></em>: “So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy”. It’s not that salvation is only for he or she who somehow finds within themselves some steel will against sin. It is not of him that wills, but of God’s grace. Were it a question of steel will, it would be a matter of works; but due to our change of status, it isn’t a matter of steel, but rather of God’s grace and our acceptance of it. In fact, <em><a href='B:520 9:18'>Rom 9:18</a></em> goes further, and states that it’s not a question of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;will but of God’s will. Some He has mercy upon, as He wills; others He hardens, as He wills. And we in Christ are for sure those whom He has ‘willed’ to have mercy upon. And as exemplified by the choice of unspiritual Jacob over nice guy, man of the world Esau- that Divine will in election simply doesn’t depend upon works. Otherwise it wouldn’t be grace; indeed, the whole concept of predestination and Divine calling regardless of works is raised by Paul to demonstrate the principle- that it’s not by works or lack of them that we are acceptable to God:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But instead I do what I hate-&nbsp;</em>This contrasts with the triumphant passages in Romans 6 which speak of our change of status from being under sin to being under Christ. That contrast is surely intentional. We could say that Paul is now in chapter 7 talking of our practical experience, of how things are on the ground. They’re bad; sin is strong and we are weak. But he emphasizes this in such a graphic manner in order to point up the wonder of the fact that all this notwithstanding, we are by&nbsp;<em>status</em>&nbsp;justified, declared right before God, have left the sphere of the flesh and are in that of the Spirit. The reality of present failure makes our changed status all the more wonderful. Perhaps another comfort from all this is that if we truly&nbsp;<em>hate</em>&nbsp;sin (cp. <em><a href='B:730 2:6'>Rev 2:6</a></em>) rather than love every moment of it, then we are somehow on the right track and are in fact like Paul within the sphere of the Spirit in our hearts.</p><p>Paul's autobiographical passage in Romans 7, where he describes his sinfulness and the results of it, is actually expressed in terms of Adam's fall in Eden. So many phrases which he uses are lifted out of the LXX of Genesis 3. The evident examples are: "I would never have known what it is to covet, if the Law had not said, You must not covet cp. Eve coveting the fruit... when the command came... sin cp. the serpent beguiled me... to kill me... sin resulted in death for me by making use of this good thing... who will rescue me now from the body of death?". Adam is presented to us as 'every man'; and so Paul applies this to himself, and yet through the allusion to 'every man' in Adam, he sets himself up also as our example.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:16'>Rom 7:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if I do what I would rather not do, then I agree that the law is good</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘to speak together with’. The very fact we struggle against sin, we have a will not to disobey the Law, is in fact speaking together with the Law, agreeing that it is good. Whilst in the primary context Paul is writing to Jewish Christians with the Mosaic Law in view, the principles are the same for any Divine law at any time. The comfort is that if we feel we ‘would not’ sin / break the Law but end up doing so, then actually, we are speaking in unison with the Law, we are not actually in disagreement with it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:17'>Rom 7:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So now it is not I that do it</em>-</p><p> The same Greek as in <em><a href='B:520 6:9'>Rom 6:9</a></em>, where “no more” means ‘not any longer’, as in <em><a href='B:520 7:20'>Rom 7:20</a></em>. For those in Christ, like Paul, our sins are no longer done by us but are considered as committed by the old man, the Adam, the status, sphere and person we are no longer identified with. We are to understand our sins as somehow separate from the real me, the ‘me’ with whom we finally identify. ‘It’s no longer me, but sin who sins’ seems to be the idea… as if Paul is dissociating himself from himself; and that’s a position which surely all true believers can identify with.</p><p><em>But the sin which dwells in me</em>-</p><p> An allusion to the Jewish concept of the&nbsp;<em>yetser ha ra</em>, the inclination to evil. The Rabbis taught that this can be curbed by the Law. But Paul is saying that the Law actually empowers this inclination, and the victory is through God’s gracious counting of us as right in Christ. See on <em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>the good that I would</em>-</p><p> a reference to the supposed good inclination in man, the&nbsp;<em>yetser ha tob</em>. The very idea of sin dwelling within me suggests that “sin” and “me” are different categories, even if they are related:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I know&nbsp;that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing</em>-</p><p> The idea could be ‘I have come to realize’. Do we analyse our own sinfulness as deeply as Paul did? See on <em><a href='B:520 7:7'>Rom 7:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the will to do good is present with me</em>-</p><p> Surely an allusion to the disciples in Gethsemane, with willing spirits but weak flesh (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>). They were in the wrong, their weakness in stark contrast to the watchful, sweating Lord Jesus as He struggled against sin. And Paul invites us to feel the same. The Greek for “present” occurs only here and in <em><a href='B:520 7:21'>Rom 7:21</a></em>. It means literally ‘to lie near’ and could have in mind the language of <em><a href='B:10 4:7'>Gen 4:7</a></em>, where sinful Cain was encouraged that a sin offering lay near him, outside the door, ready for him to confess his sin over and sacrifice:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But to actually do</em>-</p><p> Paul confessed to an inability to translate his will into action. Yet in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em> he will soon rejoice that he had found the answer in Christ, which we have consistently interpreted as a reference to our being “in Christ” by status in Him. The Greek for “perform” occurs later in Romans, where Paul glories of the many things “which Christ has&nbsp;<em>wrought</em>&nbsp;s:w. ‘perform’ by me” (<em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>). For that not to be a statement of pride nor trust in the works which Paul has so often exposed as valueless before God, we must understand Paul as totally committed to the idea of Christ working or performing through him. He has finally found “how to perform” the works he had so wished to- by believing totally in his “in Christ” status, feeling the extent to which he was now at one with Christ, and thereby sensing the extent to which Christ was working His works through him, the works he would love to have performed whilst under the Law, but found himself simply not strong willed enough to perform.</p><p><em>What is good is not present</em>-</p><p> In the context must surely refer to the Jewish Law which was the “good thing” (<em><a href='B:520 7:12-13'>Rom 7:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:16'>Rom 7:16</a></em>). There was no “good thing” within Paul’s flesh, no natural tendency to fulfil that Law; and so he found no way to totally obey that Law as he had so desperately wanted to in his youth.</p><p>When Paul laments that he cannot find “how to perform that which is good”, he is speaking about the Law of Moses. For the context of Romans 7 repeatedly defines the Mosaic Law as that which is “holy, just and good… the law is the good thing”, the law of God in which Paul delighted (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:16'>Rom 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:22'>Rom 7:22</a></em>). The “no good thing” which dwelt within Paul was therefore a description of his inability to keep the Mosaic Law, rather than any reference to human nature- for the “good thing” has just been defined as the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>). But all this was to create the lead in to the realization that now in Christ, there is now no condemnation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the good which I would like to do I do not do</em>-</p><p> A reference to the supposed good inclination in man, the&nbsp;<em>yetser ha tob</em>&nbsp;, which the Rabbis said was strengthened by the Law (see on <em><a href='B:520 7:17'>Rom 7:17</a></em>). Paul seems to be saying that this good inclination is a myth, or if it exists, it has little cash value in the battle against temptation. The way of escape is through God’s grace in Christ. W:D. Davies demonstrates beyond cavil that Paul in this section of Romans is constantly alluding to and critiquing the Rabbinic ideas of the&nbsp;<em>yetser ha tob</em>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<em>yetser ha ra&nbsp;</em>(4). “The good” must connect with the same word being used in <em><a href='B:520 7:12-13'>Rom 7:12-13</a></em> to describe the Law of Moses as “good”. Paul so wished to be perfectly obedient to the Law- but found it impossible.</p><p><em>But the evil which I would not do, that I practice</em>-</p><p> The same words are to be found in Paul’s warning that Divine condemnation, “tribulation and anguish”, awaits every man who ‘does evil’ (<em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em>). Paul was so aware that his sin did in fact merit the term “evil”, and condemnation before God’s judgment; and he practiced it, he is not referring to an occasional slip up. The more we appreciate the extent and implications of our sin, the deeper will be our sense of relief and glory at the wonderful way we are ‘declared right’ by God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:20'>Rom 7:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if do what I would not wish to do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:520 7:17'>Rom 7:17</a></em>. He sees fit to repeat the teaching of v. 17, so important is this- that we are not to identify our real self with our sinful side. The old self is dead in baptism, as explained in chapter 6.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:21'>Rom 7:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So I find then a principle</em>-</p><p> A “law”, which often in the context refers to the Law of Moses. Paul may mean ‘I find then with respect to the Law’. He could conceivably be using “law” merely in the sense of “principle.</p><p><em></p><p>That evil is present, although I wish to do good</em>-</p><p> The same word has just been used in <em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>, where the desire to do good is likewise “present” or lying next to Paul. The impression is of the two desires, to do good and to do evil, are lying next to Paul; he must decide which one to take up, but he almost automatically seems to pick up the “evil”:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:22'>Rom 7:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I delight in the law of God after the inward man</em>-</p><p> Hating the evil, delighting in God’s law, yet finding oneself doing exactly what we don’t wish to do… all this is exactly the experience of believers in Christ today. We really are in Paul’s position, and have every reason to share in his later positivism- for it is based on the fact that we don’t do the works we need to, yet we are saved by grace.</p><p>Paul had an amazing commitment to unity in the brotherhood. One could say that it was this which led him to his death, and certainly to political self-destruction in the politics of the early church. For his desire to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians was humanly speaking a loser- the Jewish converts simply would not give up their allegiance to the synagogue, with all the political and economic benefits this involved; nor would they really accept Gentiles. And Gentiles were never going to accept Jewish observances, indeed Paul knew this to be spiritually wrong. I submit that the whole epistle to the Romans is an exposition of the Gospel which has Jewish-Gentile unity as its underlying burden. This becomes apparent in the opening chapters. This to me is the key to understanding Romans 7. There Paul opens his heart and speaks frankly of his own inner conflicts. He says that he delights in keeping the law of God, yet he has a principle within him which seeks to make him captive to the law of sin (<em><a href='B:520 7:22'>Rom 7:22</a></em>). I suggest he may be referring to his love, as an ex-Pharisee, of the Law of Moses, but this leads him to desire to keep the whole Law, including the&nbsp;<em>halakah</em>&nbsp;the ordinances of the Rabbis. He speaks of his struggle to both ignore the Jewish laws, and yet keep them. He concludes that he cannot keep them adequately, and so he surrenders to justification by faith in Christ alone. I read Paul as saying that he initially accepted justification in Christ, but then after his conversion he went through a period of seeking to keep the Law, and “sin revived”. And so he strongly concluded that he must throw himself solely upon Christ’s grace.</p><p><em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em> speaks of the spiritual man within us as "the hidden man of the heart... a meek and quiet spirit". This confirms that this "man" is the personification of a spirit, or attitude of mind. Thus our real spiritual person is "hidden". The world therefore cannot understand us, or be truly close to the believer who has the spiritual man utmost in their heart. The Gospel itself is a "mystery" ('something hidden'), yet this hidden mystery is the dynamic power in our "hidden man" of the Spirit. All that is hidden will be openly revealed in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>). The inward man of <em><a href='B:520 7:22'>Rom 7:22</a></em> is what is so important; yet the LXX in <em><a href='B:30 3:14-16'>Lev 3:14-16</a></em> uses the same word to describe the fat surrounding the intestines, which God appeared to so value in the sacrifices. It was not that He wanted that fat in itself; but rather He saw that fat as representing a man's essential spirituality, that which is developed close to the heart, unseen by others, but revealed after death.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:23'>Rom 7:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I see</em>-</p><p> Gk. to behold, view. Paul is speaking as it were from outside of himself, or more accurately, from outside of the hopeless sinner whose behaviour and weakness he so laments. This device serves to indicate the degree to which he chose to be identified not with that ‘person’, but with the man Christ Jesus to whom in his mind, in his deepest heart, he belonged and ultimately identified with. Looking at our position this way, it becomes apparent that what I would term ‘ultimate identity’ is the ultimate question of our whole existence- who in our hearts do we identify with, wish to be with, love rather than hate? Christ, or sin? We see in this whole passage the very clear answer in the case of Paul. I can say at this time, it’s clear in my own case. And I know it is in that of so many believers.</p><p><em>A different law in my limbs-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Paul speaks of a battle between two laws. A battle is usually unto death, but in this case, Paul is taken captive, and captives taken in battle if they were spared always entered slavery. So Paul implies he is in slavery- at least, in the flesh. The ‘law’ is perhaps that of <em><a href='B:520 7:21'>Rom 7:21</a></em> - the principle that whenever he would do good, there is another reasoning which appears next to “present” AV that desire to do good. And this principle invariably wins. But we are tempted to see an association between that law / principle and the Law of Moses. For the very same word is used, and if Paul simply meant ‘principle’, he could have used such a word in Greek.</p><p><em>Warring&nbsp;against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my limbs</em>-</p><p> A related word is used in <em><a href='B:660 4:1'>Jas 4:1</a></em>, about lusts warring in our bodies. The existence of such warring isn’t wrong in itself, it’s part of being human; it’s which side wins the battle which counts; and even more so, which side we in our deepest hearts identify ourselves with.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:24'>Rom 7:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Wretched man that I am</em>-</p><p> The Greek word is elsewhere used about the feelings of the rejected before God’s judgment (<em><a href='B:660 5:1'>Jas 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a></em>), likewise in the LXX (<em><a href='B:290 47:11'>Isa 47:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 2:4'>Mic 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 1:15'>Joe 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 1:15'>Zep 1:15</a></em>). Paul feels as if he is even now standing before the judgment seat of God, and is condemned- yet suddenly he rejoices that he is in fact amazingly saved by Christ. This is the very theme of the earlier sections of Romans- that we are suddenly declared right, justified, as we stand condemned in the dock before God. This lends weight to the suggestion that Romans 7 is indeed autobiographical of Paul, declaring the process of his own conversion, yet telling the story, as it were, in terms which present him as personifying every Jew under the Law.</p><p><em>Who shall deliver me</em>– The same word occurs in Romans in the excursus about Israel in <em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em> - where Christ is “the deliverer” who comes to deliver hopelessly sinful Israel, whom Paul embodies in this section in Romans 7.</p><p><em>Out of the body of this death?</em>-</p><p> Yet Paul has argued at the beginning of Romans 7 and elsewhere that just as the body of the Lord Jesus died on the cross, so every believer has already died with Christ. And yet clearly Paul still feels trapped within the body, with all the temptations which are part of being human.</p><p>Romans 7, 8 are so opposed to each on surface level reading. At the end of Romans 7, Paul is lamenting ‘Oh wretched man that I am’. At the end of Romans 8, he is rejoicing in the utter certainty of salvation, apparently lost for words even under inspiration to gasp out the wonder of it all. So huge is the difference of spirit that expositor after expositor has concluded that this must all be read biographically- as if in Romans 7 Paul is speaking of his life before conversion, and goes on in Romans 8 to describe his life afterwards. But Greek tenses unlike Hebrew ones are precise. The tenses in Romans 7 make that a very strained reading. Paul is saying that he&nbsp;<em>right now</em>&nbsp;feels utterly frustrated by his constant doing that which he doesn’t want to do, his apparent inability to do good, and his wretchedness. I submit that the two chapters dovetail together. It was only though the appreciation of personal sin which we meet in Romans 7 that Paul could reason through to the paean of praise and confidence which he reaches by the end of Romans 8:&nbsp;</p><p>The Bible has so much to say about death, depicting us as having a “body of death” (<em><a href='B:520 7:24'>Rom 7:24</a></em>). And yet humanity generally doesn’t want to seriously consider death. Yet death is the moment of final truth, which makes all men and women ultimately equal, destroying all the categories into which we place people during our or their lives. If we regularly read and accept the Bible’s message, death, with all its intensity and revelation of truth and the ultimate nature of human issues, is something which is constantly before us, something we realistically face and know, not only in sickness or at funerals. And the realness, the intensity, the truth… which comes from this will be apparent in our lives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Thanks be to God- through Jesus Christ our Lord</em>-</p><p> In the sense that we can become “in Christ” and all that is true of Him becomes true of us.</p><p><em>So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin</em>-</p><p> The classic statement of personal identity, the climax of the whole exclamation of relief, the answer to all the spiritual frustration and anguish of this chapter. He himself, his real self. Identified with being a slave of God; but his flesh continued to serve sin.</p><p>Notes&nbsp;</p><p>(1) See E:E. Urbach,&nbsp;<em>The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979) Vol. 2 pp. 425-428.</p><p>(2) Other possible examples from the NT and from throughout contemporary writings are given in R:H. Gundry,&nbsp;<em>The Old is Better: New Testament Essays</em>&nbsp;(T<em>ü</em>bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) pp. 229,230 and J. Lambrecht,&nbsp;<em>The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) pp. 73-91:&nbsp;</p><p>(3) See S. Safrai and M. Stern, eds:,&nbsp;<em>The Jewish People in the First Century</em>&nbsp;(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) Vol. 2 p. 771.</p><p>(4) W:D. Davies,&nbsp;<em>Paul</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>Rabbinic Judaism</em>:&nbsp;<em>Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology</em>&nbsp;(New York: Harper & Row, 1948) pp. 19-27.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus</em>– Referring back to the idea of <em><a href='B:520 5:16'>Rom 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em>, which are the only other places in the NT where the word occurs. We have been declared right before God’s judgment; there is now no condemnation any more. Even though in <em><a href='B:520 7:24'>Rom 7:24</a></em> Paul has been saying he feels the wretchedness of condemnation as a sinner (see note there).</p><p><em>Who walk not after the flesh</em>-</p><p> Added by AV. Too easily the wonderful promise that there is no condemnation for those in Christ can become muted by this apparent rider, that we must walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh. Yet Paul has been lamenting throughout the preceding chapter 7 that he walks after the flesh. His argument throughout the letter so far has been that although we continue committing sin, by status we are in Christ. The condemnation, the adverse verdict, has been removed. We are justified, declared righteous. And this is because we are located “in Christ”. Paul is surely aware of the apparent contradictions and tensions within his argument- so he’s surely foreseeing our objection, that we still walk after the flesh. And he states that we who are in Christ Jesus do not walk after the flesh. It’s not a condition- as if to say ‘There is no condemnation for us who are in Christ&nbsp;<em>if&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;we walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh’. For this would make salvation contingent upon our ‘walking’, our works- and his whole argument has been that salvation is by grace and not works. Those who walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh is therefore a description of, rather than an exhortation to, those who are in Christ. His Spirituality is counted to them. By status we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, and this is confirmed by the Spirit dwelling in us (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>). <em><a href='B:520 7:5'>Rom 7:5</a></em> likewise speaks of our being “in the flesh” as something in the past, our previous status. Another possibility is that “walk after” here describes not to a total way of life, but rather a following after, an inclination towards, rather than a final arriving at the destination. And that again fits in so precisely with our position as believers in Christ today- as Paul has been saying in Romans 7, we incline after, follow after, dearly aspire to, the things of the Spirit; even if we don’t attain them as we would wish.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a></em> Paul starts to speak here in chapter 8 about the Spirit. He has explained that we are declared right by God, even as we stand in the dock condemned; he has said that we must believe this, and that faith in this rather than any works is what makes it true for us. He has then started to explore the mechanics of how it all works out- that we believe “into Christ” by baptism into Him, whereby we are counted as Him; and so we have changed spheres, positions, identities, from “sin” to “Christ”. He has observed that this doesn’t mean that we don’t sin, and he laments the power of sin within him, always eager to point out the Law has strengthened sin rather than helped us overcome it, and that therefore grace is the all important basis of our salvation. He characterizes the two positions or spheres in various terms, and in chapter 7 he starts speaking of them as “flesh” and “spirit”. He observes that there is in himself a struggle between the two, but his real self definitely identifies himself with the Spirit rather than the flesh. Being in the Spirit is the same as being “in Christ”, and “the Spirit” is a title of Christ in <em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>. Romans 8 now proceeds to explore the function of “the Spirit” in more depth.</p><p><em>For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free</em>-</p><p> The spirit of life in Christ sets us free from sin (<em><a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a></em>); but <em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em> simply says that “Christ” has set us free the same Greek phrase from sin. The Man Christ Jesus is His “spirit of life”; the man and His way of life were in perfect congruence. They always were; for in Him the word was made flesh. <em><a href='B:520 6:18'>Rom 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:22'>Rom 6:22</a></em> explain simply that we are “made free from sin” by baptism into Christ. Here we are given more detail; we were made free from the principle of sin and death, the law which Paul had observed at work within him in chapter 7, that our sinful desires are stronger than our spiritual intentions, and therefore “in the flesh” we are condemned to death. Our slavery to this principle has been overcome by “the spirit of life in Christ”. <em><a href='B:520 6:18'>Rom 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:22'>Rom 6:22</a></em> says that we were simply freed from sin by becoming “in Christ” by baptism and belief into Him. <em><a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a></em> is saying that this operates, is effectual, by “the spirit of life in Christ”. This could mean that the spirit of life which was in the Lord Jesus Christ as a person- the perfection of spirit or character which was His, which was like God- is counted to us by our status “in Christ”. It could also, or alternatively, mean that this status we have is as it were mechanically made effective by the work of the Spirit, which sanctifies us before God. It’s not so much that the Spirit enters our hearts and makes us righteous, for in chapter 7 Paul has been lamenting how we still sin and are in one sense still enslaved to sin. Rather it could be that “the Spirit” works in our lives to make us sanctified before God, rather than in the realities of daily life. The “sanctification of the Spirit” which we read of elsewhere in the NT (e.g. <em><a href='B:590 5:23'>1Th 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:13'>2Th 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a></em>) would therefore refer to&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;God counts us as righteous, as in Christ, with a spirit like his. In this sense Christ is made unto us sanctification (<em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>). It’s by the working of the Spirit. We can on one hand simply accept that God counts us as righteous, as Christ, because we are “in Him”. But probing further as to how, mechanically as it were, this is the case- the answer is, ‘Through the work of the Spirit sanctifying us, making us holy in His sight’:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul’s writings are packed with allusions to the Jewish ideas about the “ages” ending in the Messianic Kingdom and the destruction of Satan. Paul was correcting their interpretations – by saying that the “ages” had ended in Christ’s death, and the things the Jewish writings claimed for the future Messianic Kingdom were in fact already possible for those in Christ. Thus when 1 Enoch <em><a href='B:520 5:7-8'>Rom 5:7-8</a></em> speaks of ‘freedom from sin’ coming then, Paul applies that phrase to the experience of the Christian believer&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:520 6:18-22'>Rom 6:18-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a></em>).</p><p><em>From the law of sin and death</em>-</p><p> As lamented in <em><a href='B:520 7:23'>Rom 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>. The law of sin there refers to the principle of sin within us that keeps on beating us, winning the struggle against our weak spirituality. But&nbsp;<em>even this</em>&nbsp;has been overcome because of the status we have “in Christ” and by the work of the Spirit this involves.</p><p>The New Testament develops the theme of ‘living in the spirit’. We can often understand ‘spirit’ in the NT to mean the dominant desire, the way of life, the essential intention, the ambience of a man’s life. The idea of life in the Spirit is often placed in opposition to that of living under a legal code. We are asked to live a way of life, rather than mere obedience to a certain number of specific propositions. And yet whilst we are free from legal codes, we aren’t free to do as we like. We are under “the law of the spirit” (<em><a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a></em>), “the law of Christ” (<em><a href='B:530 9:21'>1Co 9:21</a></em>). The law of Christ isn’t only His specific teaching, but the person of the real, historical Jesus. This is the standard of appeal which should mould the spirit of our lives. We must live “according to Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 15:5'>Rom 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:8'>Col 2:8</a></em>), and the character of Jesus is the basis of Paul’s appeals to us to live a spiritual life (<em><a href='B:520 15:3'>Rom 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:7-8'>Rom 15:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:25'>Eph 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:5-11'>Phi 2:5-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:6'>1Th 1:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For what the law</em>-</p><p> Obedience to the Law.</p><p><em>Could not do</em>-</p><p> S:w. in Romans only at <em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em>: “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the&nbsp;<em>weak</em>”, those who ‘can not’. The connections between the doctrinal and practical sections of Romans are so frequent that this link too is surely intended. The “weak” Paul had in mind were therefore the Jewish believers who still trusted in the Law; patience with the legalistic, acceptance of those whose faith in Christ’s grace is weak, bearing with the ungracious, is really the test of our Christ-likeness. For He does this with us so very often.</p><p><em>In that it was weak through the flesh</em>-</p><p> “Weak” is s:w. <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em> “sick”. Our attitude to the weak / spiritually sick is our attitude to Christ personally- because amazingly, they especially represent Him. “Weak through the flesh” is surely alluding to the essence of what Paul has been writing in Romans 7 - that our flesh is so weak. The implication is that our weakness is related to an attitude that keeping the Law would lead to justification. And this in turn confirms my suggestion that Romans 7 is a section specifically written to first century Jewish converts who had once been under the Law of Moses. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> - when we were “without strength”, weak, Christ died for us. Our weakness, our spiritual weakness, is therefore no barrier to God’s love and Christ’s devotion to us. Amazing, but true.</p><p><em>God, sending His own son</em>-</p><p> The connection with <em><a href='B:570 2:7-8'>Phi 2:7-8</a></em> suggests this ‘sending’ was specifically in the crucifixion. Likewise God so loved the world that He gave His Son to die on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>).</p><p><em>In the likeness of sinful flesh</em>-</p><p> This seems to be parallel with “in the likeness of men” and “in fashion as a man” (<em><a href='B:570 2:7-8'>Phi 2:7-8</a></em>). “Sinful flesh” refers therefore to ‘sinful humanity’, rather than implying that we are sinful and offensive to God simply by reason of being human beings. The spotless lamb of God had full human nature, He looked like a man because He was a man, and therefore He looked just like the same men who regularly perform sinful actions. Whatever we say about ‘human nature’, we say about the Lord Jesus- for He bore our ‘nature’ and yet was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. It’s actually very hard to Biblically define what we mean by ‘human nature’; it’s not some intrinsic piece of ‘sin’ that somehow is metaphysically ingrained into us, upon which the wrath of God abides. So I prefer to speak rather of ‘the human condition’ to avoid this impression. In passing, let’s get it clear that <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em> doesn’t speak of something called ‘sin-in-the-flesh’. Students as varied as John Carter and Harry Whittaker in&nbsp;<em>The Very Devil</em>&nbsp;have faithfully pointed out that this is neither grammatically nor contextually correct. The Lord Jesus condemned sin; and where and how did He condemn it? In “the flesh”, in that He too lived within the nexus of pressures and influences of this sinful world. He appeared just another man, so much so that when He stood up and indirectly proclaimed Himself Messiah, those who knew Him were amazed; because He had appeared so very ordinary. Truly He was in “the likeness of sinful flesh”, yet without personal sin. See on <em><a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a></em>.</p><p>It could even be argued from <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em> ("in the likeness of sinful flesh") that the Lord Jesus appeared to be a normal sinful human being, although He was not a sinner (see on <em><a href='B:500 2:5'>Joh 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:10'>Joh 2:10</a></em>). This would explain the amazement of the townspeople who knew Him, when He indirectly declared Himself to be Messiah. Grammatically, "it is not the noun "flesh" but the adjective "sinful" that demands the addition of "likeness" (1). He appeared as a sinner, without being one. Of course we can conveniently misunderstand this, to justify our involvement with sinful things and appearing just like the surrounding world, in order to convert them. But all the same, it was exactly because the Lord Jesus appeared so normal, so closely part of sinful humanity, that He was and is our Saviour and compelling example. I have elsewhere argued that <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em> is alluding specifically to the Lord's death, where He was treated as a sinner, strung up upon a tree like all those cursed by sinful behaviour, although in His case He was innocent. <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em> speaks of the Lord Jesus as being “in the likeness of sinful flesh” in order to achieve our redemption. The Greek word translated “likeness” elsewhere is used to express identity and correspondence- not mere external ‘appearance’ (consider its usage in <em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>). Scholars, even Trinitarian ones, are generally in agreement on this point. Two examples, both from Trinitarian writers commenting upon this word in <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>: “Paul consistently used “likeness” to denote appropriate correspondence or congruity. Thus Paul affirmed Jesus’ radical conformity to and solidarity with our sinful flesh (<em>sarx</em>)” (2). “The sense of the word (likeness) in <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em> by no means marks a distinction or a difference between Christ and sinful flesh. If Christ comes&nbsp;<em>en homoiomati</em>&nbsp;of sinful flesh, he comes as the full expression of that sinful flesh. He manifests it for what it is” (3). The total identity of the Lord with our sinfulness is brought out in passages like <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>, describing Jesus as being “in the likeness of sinful flesh" when He was made a sin offering; and <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>, which speaks of how He “his own self… in his own body" bore our sins “upon the tree". Note that it was at the time of His death that He was especially like this. I believe that these passages speak more of the Lord’s moral association with sinners, which reached a climax in His death, than they do of His ‘nature’.</p><p>“For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin” (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>) – cp. <em><a href='B:550 4:4-5'>Gal 4:4-5</a></em>, “Made of a woman, made under the Law (cp. “sinful flesh”) to redeem them that were under the Law”. The drive of Paul’s argument in its primary context was that having been baptized, they should leave the Law, as that was connected with the sin from which baptism saved them – it introduced them to salvation by pure grace in Jesus. The Hebrew writer had the connection in mind when he wrote of “<em>carnal</em>&nbsp;ordinances” (<em><a href='B:650 9:10'>Heb 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:16'>Heb 7:16</a></em>). To be justified by the Law was to be “made perfect by the flesh”, so close is the connection between Law and flesh (<em><a href='B:550 3:2-3'>Gal 3:2-3</a></em>). “We (who have left the Law)... have no confidence in the flesh (i:e. the Law). Though I might also have confidence in the flesh..." (<em><a href='B:570 3:3-4'>Phi 3:3-4</a></em>), and then Paul goes on to list all the things which gave him high standing in the eyes of the Law and the Jewish system. These things he associates with “the flesh”. See on <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em>.</p><p>“Likeness” is s:w. <em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>, we are planted together in the “likeness” of Christ’s death. His being made like us is to be responded to by our being made like Him, starting in a baptism into His likeness.</p><p>“Sinful flesh” has just been used by Paul in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em> also <em><a href='B:520 7:5'>Rom 7:5</a></em>, in lamenting how in our ‘flesh’ status, we seem to so easily serve sin as our master. The Lord Jesus had our nature, the same struggle against a tendency to unspirituality, egged on by living in a social environment where sin is everywhere and ever present.</p><p><em>And for a sin offering</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>peri hamartias</em>&nbsp;“is the Septuagint’s technical term for the sin offering” (4):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Condemned sin, in the flesh</em>-</p><p> As a judicial action, the passing of sentence, s:w. <em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em> “they all condemned Him to be worthy of death”. This is how and why there is no condemnation for those in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em>). In the earlier chapters of Romans, Paul likened us as standing ashamed and condemned in the dock before the judgment seat of God; but then declared right, justified, by grace. And if we believe in that grace, it shall be true for us at the final judgment. But here the image changes slightly- for it is “sin”, not just ourselves personally, which was condemned on the cross by the fact that Christ died there as a human who never yielded to sin. Remember that someone or something can be “condemned” by someone else in the sense that that person shows the condemned party to be in the wrong in comparison with their behaviour, e.g. Noah condemning the world around him (<em><a href='B:470 12:41-42'>Mat 12:41-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:31-32'>Luk 11:31-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). It was perhaps in this sense that the Lord condemned sin by His sinlessness and obedience unto death. The context of this phrase “condemned sin” in <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em> is to be found in <em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em> - there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ”, and Paul is explaining why- because not only have they been declared right, but as “in Christ”, all that is true of Him becomes true of us. He was not only uncondemned by sin, but He went onto the offensive- and condemned sin.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:4'>Rom 8:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us</em>-</p><p> Paul explores how in fact we have been declared righteous, justified in a legal sense. All that is true of Christ becomes true of those who are in Him. He perfectly fulfilled the Law, and I have suggested earlier that this in a sense entitled Him not to have to die. No longer was Adam literally everyman; there was one Man, the Lord Jesus, who did not sin like Adam did. The righteousness or “requirement” of the Law was ultimately love, love unto death, even the death of the cross. Both “love” and Christ’s death on the cross are elsewhere stated to be the fulfilment of the Law (<em><a href='B:520 13:8-10'>Rom 13:8-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:14'>Gal 5:14</a></em>). We who have broken the Law are counted as in Christ, and therefore we are counted as having fulfilled it to its’ ultimate term- love unto the death of the cross. The passive verb form of “might be fulfilled” suggests that we are reading here about something being done for or in us; the fact it is fulfilled “<em>in&nbsp;</em>us” rather than&nbsp;<em>by</em>&nbsp;us confirms that we aren’t reading here some exhortation to do the righteousness of the Law, but rather a statement about what has been fulfilled in us- by the representative death of Christ for us and our identification with it. Thus we are changed by status from being condemned lawbreakers to being counted as having ultimately fulfilled it. In a clearly parallel passage in terms of thought, <em><a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a></em> says that God made Christ “sin” for us “that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him”. The Law was fulfilled in the perfect character of the Lord Jesus and finally in His death. Baptism into death means that we are counted as having died with Him- and therefore we too fulfilled the Law to perfection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit</em>-</p><p> cannot mean, given the context, that our righteous ‘walk’ fulfils the Law- for we stand condemned by it. Rather is this again a reference to the two spheres of life- flesh and Spirit, Adam or Christ, out of Christ or in Christ, condemned or justified. We are to “walk”, to practically live, in the sphere of the Spirit:&nbsp; I am inclined to interpret the idea of “walk after” as meaning ‘to be occupied with’, as the Greek is indeed elsewhere translated in the AV. If our orientation is around the Spirit and not the flesh, then we are demonstrating that indeed our change of status has been for real. Because we are “in Christ”, the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us insofar as it was fulfilled in Christ and has been counted to us.</p><p>Paul states that because of the Lord's death "as an offering for sin", thereby the 'commandment "requirement" RVmg. of the Law is fulfilled in us' (<em><a href='B:520 8:3-4'>Rom 8:3-4</a></em>). But in the practical part of that same letter, Paul defines the requirement / commandment of the Law to be one thing- simply "love" (<em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>). Love as God understands it is that we keep or fulfil His commandments (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>). What, then, is the connection? How could the Lord's death on the cross lead to the fulfilment&nbsp;<em>in us&nbsp;</em>of the Law's commandment / requirement of love? Quite simply, because it is now impossible for a man to be passive before the cross, and not to be inspired by Him there towards a life of genuine love. Paul isn't simply making some mechanistic, theological statement- that the cross fulfilled the Law, because it fulfilled all the types etc. It fulfilled the Law in that the Law intended to teach&nbsp;<em>love</em>; and the cross and dying of the Lord Jesus is now the means by which we can powerfully be inspired to the life of love which fulfils the entire Law.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:5'>Rom 8:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh</em>– Where our mind is becomes the crucial definition of whether we are in the Spirit status or that of the flesh. The definition of ‘minding’ the things of God or of the flesh is therefore important. The Lord Jesus rebuked Peter for ‘savouring’ the things of men rather than God (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>); <em><a href='B:570 4:10'>Phi 4:10</a></em> translates the word as ‘to care for’, <em><a href='B:580 3:2'>Col 3:2</a></em> as ‘affection’. Being spiritually minded isn’t therefore a question of not sinning- for Romans 7 has made it clear enough that believers do continue sinning after baptism and yet can still confidently rejoice in hope of the final redemption. It’s rather a question of wanting spiritual things, loving them, savouring them, having them in our heart, just as Paul could say that in his heart he loved and rejoiced in God’s law, although in practice he continued sinning. This I believe is where most believers stand. So loving, admiring and delighting in spiritual things, but feeling bad because their flesh still so easily gives way to temptation. That failure isn’t excusable, for Paul began Romans by pointing out that the perfect, sinless Lord Jesus all the same lived in our flesh.</p><p><em>But they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit</em>-</p><p> As in “after the flesh”, the Greek word&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;is used. This really means in this kind of context ‘to be concerned with, to be around, in the sphere of’. This is exactly the idea we have been trying to express- we are to be concerned with, have in our hearts, the Spirit rather than the flesh.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:6'>Rom 8:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the mind of the flesh is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace</em>-</p><p> The definition of ‘walking after’ the flesh or spirit spoken of in <em><a href='B:520 8:5'>Rom 8:5</a></em>. If we are in the sphere or realm of the Spirit, of Christ, then we will think about those things in our hearts. If we have believed, known to be true and felt the truth of those things which Paul has so far explained- we will have these things uttermost in our hearts, be enveloped by them. I take what Paul writes here to be a description of our status, rather than a command to be spiritually minded rather than carnally minded. For by status we are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>). This fits the context of the argument so far in Romans- which has always been about a change of status, and our living in ever growing appreciation of that status change that has occurred. The mind of the flesh “is death”, here and now; whereas the mind or&nbsp;<em>phronema</em>&nbsp;of the Spirit “is life” here and now:&nbsp;<em>Phronema</em>&nbsp;means the inclination, the purpose, the intention. It doesn’t mean that we will consciously think of spiritual things all the time (not that this is any bad aim or desire). Rather our intentions, inclinations, should be to the Spirit and not the flesh.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:7'>Rom 8:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be</em>-</p><p> This is defined in <em><a href='B:520 8:5-6'>Rom 8:5-6</a></em> as the mindset which inclines to flesh rather than Spirit; that reads trashy novels rather than God’s word; than thinks of money and cars and holidays and restaurants and fine clothes and expensive jewellery... rather than the things of God’s people and His service. That willingly thinks about banality rather than the things of Jesus and the Spirit. That doesn’t really think much about the things of God’s Kingdom but rather the things of this world. This kind of mindset is hatred towards God. So says Paul. This is the mindset of those who are in the flesh status, who mind the things of the flesh (<em><a href='B:520 8:5'>Rom 8:5</a></em>). Note that Paul is here talking mindsets, not total sin nor total righteousness. This kind of mindset of the flesh can never be “subject” to God’s law, His principles, His Spirit. It is self-centred rather than God cantered. Yet the same Greek word for “subject to” occurs in <em><a href='B:520 8:20'>Rom 8:20</a></em>, where we read that we have been subjected beneath the state of vanity which there is in this fallen world, and yet we in Christ have been subjected to this in hope. The point is, whatever sense we have of being ‘subjected under’ the things of the flesh and indeed this present world, this is involuntary. It’s not what our real self would wish for. We have subjected ourselves under the righteousness of God (<em><a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a></em>), become servants to that wonderful concept that His righteousness has been imputed to us. We find ourselves therefore in subjection to this righteousness and yet involuntarily living in subjection to the sinful state we find ourselves in.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:8'>Rom 8:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they that are in the flesh</em>-</p><p> Not so much in status, for we are all still “in the flesh” in the sense Paul describes in Romans 7. Paul is surely speaking of being fleshly minded, having a mindset which is of the flesh not the Spirit. This simply cannot please God.</p><p><em>Cannot please God</em>-</p><p> The Greek definitely suggests that God Himself has emotions which can be excited. And this is an amazing idea- that we here on earth, so very far from Him in so many ways, can touch the heart of God. Notice that the other references to ‘pleasing’ in Romans are to pleasing our neighbour (<em><a href='B:520 15:1-3'>Rom 15:1-3</a></em>)- our attitude to God, and His pleasure in us, is related to our attitude to our neighbour and our pleasure in him or her.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 6:12'>Rom 6:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit-&nbsp;</em>By status, by position. Note from <em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em> that believers, even those who have the gifts of the Spirit, can still be “carnal” or fleshly in some aspects of their actual behaviour. Hence Paul must be talking here in positional terms.</p><p><em>If&nbsp;the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his</em>-</p><p> This could imply that Paul doubted whether some of his readership really were in the sphere of the Spirit. However, this would contradict the entire tone of this section and the argument so far- that all those baptized into Christ must be considered by us as unquestioningly “in the Spirit”:&nbsp; It would also jar with the otherwise positive tone Paul takes towards the Roman believers, speaking in <em><a href='B:520 8:12'>Rom 8:12</a></em> as if “we”, he and his readership, are all in the same status. “If so be” can be read quite comfortably as meaning ‘Seeing that’. This is how it is translated in <em><a href='B:600 1:6'>2Th 1:6</a></em>, “<em>Seeing that</em>&nbsp;it is…”. &nbsp;We can be assured that our status is “in the Spirit” rather than “in the flesh” by the fact that the Spirit dwells in us. If we don’t have the Spirit of Christ, then we are not “his”- and the Greek for “his” would I suggest better be translated “Him”, or even “He himself”. We are reckoned as Christ Himself because we are in Him by faith and baptism into Him. His Spirit is counted as our spirit, in the sense that His character, His personality, His totally obedient mind, are counted as ours. So we aren’t so much as reading that we had better ensure we are spiritually minded and have the mind of Christ; we are being assured that we can be sure we are “in Him” because we are counted as Him, His perfect mind and character, His spirit, are counted as ours. Hence Paul can write with such confidence that “we have the mind of Christ” (<em><a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a></em>). We do not in fact think like Him, at least, our mind and spirit are not of themselves like His were and are. But His mind / spirit is counted to us, because of our status in Him. And “the spirit of God” is paralleled with the spirit of Christ in the sense that Jesus was perfectly like God in the way He thought, felt and acted. And this is counted to us. We thereby have also the mind of God counted to us- the family spirit is counted to us as we have been adopted into that family of Father and Son (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:10'>Rom 8:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if Christ is in you</em>-</p><p> Note the parallel with the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>) and “the spirit” later here in <em><a href='B:520 8:10'>Rom 8:10</a></em>. Paul is now exploring what it means to be “in Christ”. It’s not just that we opted into Him through baptism; He is in us as much as we are in Him. “Christ in you” is an idea Paul elsewhere uses (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:19'>Gal 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a></em>). The exposition of the Spirit which follows in Romans 8 is further insight into what it means to be “in Christ”, to be declared right by God, and to believe it insofar as believe into Christ by baptism. The words “in” and “Christ” have been frequently used already by Paul in describing us as “in Christ”. But there’s a mutuality in our position- we are in Him, but He is also in us. Whilst we need exhortation to live as “in Him”, Paul here isn’t exhorting us- rather is he rejoicing in our status, and seeking to persuade us of it. “If Christ be in you” shouldn’t be read as something uncertain- the idea is clearly “Seeing that Christ is in you”.</p><p><em>The body is dead because of sin</em>-</p><p> Because we are in Christ and He is in us, our body is counted as His dead body. The idea has been common throughout Romans 6 - because of our baptism into Him, we are “dead to sin” (<em><a href='B:520 6:2'>Rom 6:2</a></em>), “he that is dead is freed from sin” (<em><a href='B:520 6:7'>Rom 6:7</a></em>), “truly we are dead to sin” (<em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em>). It’s as if the day of judgment has come already for us- it was the day of our baptism into Christ. We have sinned and so were counted as if we had already died. How did we die? In that we symbolically connected ourselves with the death of Christ. In going under the water, therefore, we not only align ourselves with Christ’s death; we also state our recognition that we have sinned, and that sin brings death. Through doing so, we are enabled to rise again with Christ- as if our final, literal justification in resurrection to eternal life will just as surely take place. In this sense, it can be said that baptism is related to salvation. Not that dipping in water as a ritual can itself save anyone, but because that association with the death and resurrection of Christ really does save-&nbsp; involving as it does a willing recognition of our sinfulness and just condemnation, and only thereby resulting in a part in the resurrection. All this indicates the importance of repentance before baptism; it outlaws any kind of infant baptism, and likewise any attempt to claim a consciously performed baptism into the Lord’s death and resurrection, after repentance, is in any sense invalid and requires rebaptism by other hands.</p><p><em>But the Spirit is life because of righteousness</em>-</p><p> This surely uses “righteousness” in the way it has been earlier used in the letter, with reference to the righteousness of Christ which is reckoned to all those in Him. It is from the Spirit that we shall reap life eternal when Christ returns (<em><a href='B:550 6:8'>Gal 6:8</a></em>), but through association with the death and resurrection of Jesus in baptism, His righteousness really is counted to us. But as His spirit is counted to us, so in a sense it does actually become our spirit- as Paul has been saying in Romans 7, although in the flesh we sadly do sin, yet in our spirit, which is the spirit / mind of Christ, we delight in God’s law.</p><p>We feel at home with Paul's matchless confession of his innate tendency to sin, so strong that "When I would do good, evil is present with me... how to perform that which is good I find not". Yet it is no accident that this dire recognition of the seriousness of our spiritual position in Romans 7 should lead straight on to Romans 8, one of the most positive passages in all Scripture. It is instructive to trace the parallels between these two chapters. For example, Paul's lament "I am carnal" (<em><a href='B:520 7:14'>Rom 7:14</a></em>) is matched by "To be carnally minded is death" (<em><a href='B:520 8:6'>Rom 8:6</a></em>). His argument in Romans 6-8 runs along these lines: 'We are all carnally minded by nature; but Christ had our nature, yet achieved perfection. If we are in Christ by baptism and by His spirit/disposition being seen in us, then God will count us as Christ, and will therefore raise up our bodies to immortality, as His was'. The fact we still retain the old nature in this life means that we will be aware of the tremendous conflict within us between flesh and spirit. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin" (<em><a href='B:520 8:10'>Rom 8:10</a></em>). Paul obviously didn't mean that we would not have the power of sin active in our natures any more- the preceding chapter 7 makes that crystal clear. The obvious connection with <em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em> explains the point: "Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin". The apostle recognized his own innate sinfulness and spiritual failures which were solely his own fault ("When I would do good...", Romans 7), yet he was confident of salvation (Romans 8). This was because he intensely believed in Christ's perfection, and that he was in Christ, and that at baptism he had received the condemnation of death which he deserved. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (<em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em>). There is the certainty of salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if the Spirit</em>-</p><p> Seeing Paul is talking about positions, status, and rejoicing so positively about it all, it seems appropriate to choose the equally valid translation “Seeing that the Spirit…”.</p><p><em>Of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you</em>-</p><p> As often in the NT, the Spirit of God is paralleled with the spirit of Christ which was mentioned in v. 10 and previously. Interpretation becomes difficult largely because of the very wide range of meaning in the word “spirit”. I don’t mean so much that the same word has many different meanings, but rather that within that one word is a range of meaning. God’s “spirit” refers to both His power and His mind, His thinking, His attitude, His character, personality. All He does is a reflection of His mind, just as human actions, the use of human ‘power’, is a reflection of the spirit within the person. Hence to think thoughts is judged by God as if the action has been done. The spirit of God and the spirit of Jesus are therefore parallel- because Jesus was at one with the Father. Yet as His prayer of John 17 demonstrates, that unity of spirit between the Father and Son is now shared with us who are in Him. It was the Spirit of God which raised up Jesus from the dead, and that same spirit / disposition of mind is counted to us, and is indeed in us- Paul has said this in Romans 7, where he rejoices that despite his lamentable practical failures, in his heart, in his spirit, in his deepest person, he is without doubt with God and delights in His ways. Paul, and all true believers, have a heart or, a spirit for God- despite the failures of the flesh. So the spirit / personality of Jesus- which is and was the very essence of righteousness- is counted to us, as if we are Him; and yet in our deepest selves, as believers, His spirit&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;in fact&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;spirit. Because this spirit within us is the spirit of Jesus and God, we can be assured of a resurrection like Christ’s- for the spirit of God raised up Christ from the dead, and we have identified with that hope through baptism into His death and resurrection. The spirit / mind of God is also His power; not naked power, like electricity, but a power which is at one with His mind, which acts in congruence with what He really thinks and is, without posturing or hypocrisy. It’s therefore the case that since that spirit dwells in us- because we are in Christ and His spirit is counted as ours, and because we have a spirit / heart for God as outlined in Romans 7 - therefore we shall surely be raised from the dead as Christ was. This is what Paul has said in Romans 6; but he explains here on what basis that happens. It happens on the basis of the spirit of God, or the spirit of Christ, which is counted as ours, and which is in fact actually ours within our deepest heart, the weakness of the flesh notwithstanding. The spirit of God is not just a mental attitude, it is also His power, and it was that same spirit which raised the dead body of Christ from the dead. And it shall do the same for us at the last day. The Spirit of Jesus, His disposition, His mindset, His way of thinking and being, is paralleled with His words and His person. They both ‘quicken’ or give eternal life, right now. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth present tense… the words that I speak unto you, they are right now spirit, and they are life… thou hast right now the words of eternal life” (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:68'>Joh 6:68</a></em>). Yet at the last day, God will quicken the dead and physically give them eternal life (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:36'>1Co 15:36</a></em>). But this will be because in this life we had the ‘Spirit’ of the eternal life in us: “He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by on account of his spirit that dwelleth in you” (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>). The NT describes our final redemption as our "soul" and "spirit" being "saved"; our innermost being, our essential spiritual personality, who we&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;are in spiritual terms, will as it were be immortalized (<em><a href='B:670 1:9'>1Pe 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>). This means that our spiritual development in this life is directly proportional to the type of person we will be&nbsp;<em>for evermore</em>. If, for example, we develop a generous spirit now, this is "a good foundation" for our future spiritual experience (<em><a href='B:610 6:19'>1Ti 6:19</a></em>). This is a stupendous conception, and the ultimate fillip to getting serious about our very personal spiritual development. Our mortal bodies will be changed to immortal, Spirit nature bodies according to the Spirit which&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;dwells in us (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em> Gk:). The attitude which we have to the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;will be the attitude we have to Him at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em>).</p><p><em></p><p>He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>through His Spirit that dwells in you</em>-</p><p> Paul’s expectation and assumption seems to have been that Christ would return in the lifetime of his readership, and that instead of dying and being resurrected, they would come before the judgment seat of Christ in their current mortal bodies, and then be changed. He hints at the same when he speaks of how mortality shall be swallowed up of life, and our present “vile body” shall be “clothed upon” but not, he hopes, dissolved in death (<em><a href='B:540 5:4'>2Co 5:4</a></em>). How could Paul, writing under inspiration, make an apparent mistake like this? I suggest that he was writing&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;the return of Christ was imminent, because that is how we should live; part of the Christian life is to live as if we expect His return imminently. Another option is that perhaps the second coming was indeed scheduled for the first century; but the failure of various human preconditions resulted in this not happening and it being deferred perhaps issues like the repentance of Israel, the spiritual maturity and unity of the body of Christ, or their spreading of the Gospel and making converts from all nations.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:12'>Rom 8:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then brothers, we are debtors</em>-</p><p> Note the positive tone Paul takes towards the Roman believers, speaking here as&nbsp;if “we”, he and his readership, are all in the same status. Given the wonderful certainty of our salvation, we can’t be passive. The Greek translated “debtor” is usually translated ‘sinner’ in the sense of having a debt to God. Paul has said that his debt is to preach the Gospel to others <em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em> s:w:. The fact we truly shall be raised to eternal life, have been counted right, as having the spirit of Christ Himself- cannot be merely passively accepted. We have a debt to live appropriately, and one aspect of that debt is to share the great hope with others. And in our personal lives we likewise cannot be passive to this great salvation. We must make some realistic effort to bring our life spirit into conformity with the spirit and works of the Father and Son. We cannot go on living for the flesh, just indulging ourselves.</p><p><em>But not to the flesh, to live after the flesh&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> This verse is really saying the same as <em><a href='B:520 6:1'>Rom 6:1</a></em> - we cannot continue living fleshly lives on the basis that we shall be saved by grace anyway. This is a repeated concern of Paul’s- that his bold, positive message that we who are in Christ shall be saved by grace regardless of our works could so easily be misunderstood, leading to passivity and sin rather than the vigorous, joyful practical response which is really the only thing we can do if we really ‘get it’. The practical section of Romans uses the same word in saying that Gentile believers have a debt to help their poorer Jewish brethren (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>). Be it in preaching the Gospel or in practical care for others, we are paying back our debt to God through paying to others- as if the debt to Him has been transmuted, and we are to pay Him back through giving to others, both spiritually and practically.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:13'>Rom 8:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if you live after the flesh</em>-</p><p> Paul happens to use this same phrase ‘to live after’ in describing his life ‘living after’ Judaism (<em><a href='B:510 26:5'>Act 26:5</a></em>). As he has implied elsewhere in his argument, to live according to law, hoping for justification by works, is in fact not spiritual but fleshly. Again, the point is made that legalism doesn’t defend the law and curb sin, rather does it encourage unrighteousness and spiritual failure.</p><p><em>You must die</em>-</p><p> Note the change from the otherwise positive spirit earlier in this section “we”. As all believers have the “mortal body” of which Paul spoke in <em><a href='B:520 6:12'>Rom 6:12</a></em>, it would seem that Paul is here threatening some kind of spiritual death; or, ‘you shall die eternally at the coming day of judgment’. He starts to balance out all his positive talk with this warning that we cannot just continue in sin, unaffected by the change in status and justification we have received by grace. Perhaps Paul here is alluding to the serpent’s lie: “You shall&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;surely die”, and putting the record straight again.</p><p><em></p><p>But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>led by the Spirit</em>.</p><p><em>You shall live</em>-</p><p> Yet the whole tenor of Paul’s argument has been that it is not by steel willed battle against the flesh that we shall attain the life eternal. He laments in Romans 7 that we simply don’t have that strength of ourselves, but rather are we saved by our status in Christ. We “shall live” only because of the life of Christ being given to us at our resurrection, because we are in Him. The deeds of the body are therefore ‘mortified’ not in our own strength- as Paul makes clear in Romans 7, we simply lack the power to do this- but on account of the Spirit. We are made dead to the law by our participation in the body of Christ (<em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em> s:w:). Here in <em><a href='B:520 8:13'>Rom 8:13</a></em> we learn that we mortify the flesh by “the Spirit”. The spirit of Christ in this sense&nbsp;<em>is&nbsp;</em>Christ personally. Hence “the spirit” is used as a title of Christ later in this chapter (<em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>). “The spirit” isn’t defined, i:e. as to whose spirit it is- because the spirit / mind of God is that of Christ and is that which is to be found in the believers. So I suggest the idea is that we shall live “if”, or ‘because of the fact that’, the Spirit- the Lord Jesus- puts to death the deeds of the flesh in that we are in Him, and in Him was no sin, no deed of the flesh. His death on the cross is counted as our death- several usages of the Greek verb “mortify” used here are actually speaking of the death of Christ on the cross (<em><a href='B:470 26:59'>Mat 26:59</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:1'>Mat 27:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>). And significantly, the word occurs a little later in Romans 8 - “For Christ’s sake we are killed ‘mortified’ all day long, we are counted s:w. imputed, reckoned as the sheep for the slaughter i:e. Christ on the cross” (<em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em>). So we are counted all day long as mortified, put to death, with Christ; for we are counted, 24/7, as being in Him, counted as the sacrificial lamb. His dead body becomes ours. It is in this way that through / on account of our being in “the Spirit”, “the Lord the Spirit” (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>), we have the deeds of our flesh put to death. As Romans 7 labours, this doesn’t mean that we will not commit the deeds of the flesh. But we have identified ourselves with Christ, with His body, and in this sense those deeds of the flesh are rendered meaningless.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as many as are led by the Spirit of God</em>-</p><p> The Greek may not imply mere guidance but something stronger- the Spirit leading us where&nbsp;<em>it</em>&nbsp;chooses. The same word is used about animals being led. It is the Spirit which mortifies the deeds of the body (<em><a href='B:520 8:13'>Rom 8:13</a></em>) more than us doing so. We want to know, of course, whether we really are “in Christ”, whether we really have His spirit. The phrase “led by the spirit” is found only in <em><a href='B:490 4:1'>Luk 4:1</a></em>, where the Lord Jesus was led by the spirit into the place of testing. Perhaps the connection is intentional. As Jesus the son of God, the prototypical child of God, was led by God, into testing, to the cross, and to resurrection- so it will operate in our lives and lead us, who are also the sons of God. The overall impression may be of allowing the Spirit, which operates in the lives of all in the sphere of the Spirit, to lead us and do things in our lives. We who have a heart for God have surely sensed God leading us, over and above our own will; and as Paul goes on to develop, this may involve elements of predestination and Divine calling which were over and above our own will to control. Sensing these things, this Divine leading, is an encouragement that truly we are God’s sons, as Jesus was supremely- for the spirit of the Father works in us His children. In the context, Paul has been arguing that for those in Christ, His death becomes theirs. The Greek word for “led” is repeatedly used about the ‘leading’ of God’s Son to His death (<em><a href='B:490 22:54'>Luk 22:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:1'>Luk 23:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:32'>Luk 23:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:4'>Joh 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>), “led as a sheep to the slaughter” (<em><a href='B:510 8:32'>Act 8:32</a></em>). We have commented under <em><a href='B:520 8:13'>Rom 8:13</a></em> that <em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em> speaks of all those in Christ as likewise being “the sheep for the slaughter”. Every detail of the Lord’s death and sufferings becomes ours. “Led by” could just as well be rendered “led&nbsp;<em>in&nbsp;</em>the Spirit”, with reference to Christ as “the Lord the Spirit”. This would suggest that our status “in Christ” means that we are going to be treated like Him- led as He was, to testing, to the death of the cross, to resurrection. Paul many times during his trials was “led”, just as Christ was. This same Greek word occurs many times in the Acts record regarding Paul. He wrote here from personal experience.</p><p><em>These are children of God</em>-</p><p> not in the sense that the Spirit makes us sons of God, but that the children of God are characterized (among other things) by the Spirit leading them. “Sons of God” would’ve been understood by the Jewish readers and hearers as a phrase referring specifically to Israel (<em><a href='B:20 4:22'>Exo 4:22</a></em>; Jer. <em><a href='B:300 3:19'>Jer 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:9'>Jer 31:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>); Paul’s emphasis is that now all in Christ and within the sphere of the Spirit are now God’s children, regardless of their ethnicity. But above all, all who are “in” the Son of God (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>), in Christ by baptism, are likewise therefore “sons of God”. The spirit that was in Christ must therefore be in us, or rather, be allowed to work in and with us. This phrase is preparing the way for the appeal to be conformed to the image of God’s Son which is coming up in <em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em>.</p><p>Jesus was led of the Spirit at His time of testing (<em><a href='B:490 4:1'>Luk 4:1</a></em>); and Paul uses just those words of us in our present experience of trial (<em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em>). &nbsp;His victory in the wilderness therefore becomes a living inspiration for us, who are tempted as He was (<em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again</em>-</p><p> “Bondage” is associated with the Mosaic law in <em><a href='B:550 4:24'>Gal 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a></em>. They received the Spirit at baptism, as all believers do; but it was not a spirit of fear.</p><p><em>To fear</em>-</p><p> The contrast is between bondage slavery and adoption; and therefore between fear and ‘crying Abba, Father’. The fear Paul has in view must surely be the fear of not being good enough, the phobia about rejection at the day of final judgment. This fear of rejection is associated with bondage to a legalistic system, of obeying rules in order to seek acceptance with God. Such a system is itself bondage, slavery. And the image of slavery has been used by Paul with reference to slavery to sin. Once again, he associates sin with legalism and attempted justification through obedience to the Law- for this is where that mindset leads in practice. The implication seems to be that although Paul’s readership had received the “spirit of adoption”, yet they still feared. Paul is seeking to convince them of their high status in Christ, and to perceive, to the point of it affecting their feelings e.g. of fear or otherwise, that really- it’s all true. The good news that seems too good to believe is really as good as it sounds.</p><p><em>But you received the spirit of adoption</em>-</p><p> The fact we have become sons of God see on <em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em> by means of being in Christ, the Son of God, means that God will send His Spirit into our hearts, to make us more natural members of the family we have now joined by status:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em> thus speaks of how “God sent forth the spirit of&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>Son into&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>hearts”. Thus&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>hearts have to become transformed to be like that of&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>Son. This can be so successful that we even call to God as Abba, daddy. Note that the Spirit and our hearts are connected- this Spirit works on the human heart, miraculous gifts aren’t in view here. The NRSV renders: “When we cry, ‘Abba Father’, it is that very spirit bearing witness” (<em><a href='B:520 8:15-16'>Rom 8:15-16</a></em>). The feeling we have toward God as Abba is proof enough that He has sent His Son into our hearts. The obvious question is begged: Is that how we feel? God wants us to feel like that towards Him. We can and should be able to This is one of the most bottom line questions for us as believers; not what theological position we have on this or that point, not what precise statement of faith we follow with what clarifications or caveats, addendums or amendments; not whom we fellowship; not how smartly we have lived our lives even. But whether we really feel to God as Abba, Father. If it takes a woman three divorces or another <em>Man_1:10</em> years in prison or another a lifetime’s battle with alcohol- this is the end point to which we are being brought. This is the “witness” that we really are God’s dear children, if we feel like that toward Him, if we can call Him “Abba, daddy” just as the Son of God did in prayer. If we do, then “the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God” (<em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em> becomes so true of us: “God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. Roman law legislated that the adopted child took over the full identity of the adoptive father; what was true of that family became legally true of the adopted person- a concept which was apparently foreign to Greek and Jewish culture, but the concept would’ve been appreciated specifically by the Romans. The idea is similar to the concept of righteousness being “imputed”.</p><p>There is only one Spirit- the spirit of God, of Christ, of the true believer, of adoption- is all the same. The statement here that those in Christ received “the spirit of adoption” must therefore surely be paralleled with the frequent comments elsewhere in the NT that the believer has “received” s:w. the Spirit at conversion, just as the apostles “received the Holy Spirit” (<em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:15'>Act 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:17'>Act 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:2'>Act 19:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:2'>Gal 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em>). Whilst the apostles had their receipt of this gift confirmed by miraculous displays of Holy Spirit gifts which have now been withdrawn, the assumption is clear from that list of verses that after “the hearing of faith” and baptism into Christ, the Spirit was “received” (<em><a href='B:550 3:2'>Gal 3:2</a></em> etc:). Baptism was seen as bringing about the receipt of this gift (<em><a href='B:510 19:2'>Act 19:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> cp. 27-29). When we became “in Christ” at baptism, we were counted as Christ. Just as He called God “Abba”, so we can. The way Jesus addressed God in this way is wonderful, indeed beautiful. It almost seems inappropriate that this personal relationship of the Son to the Father, calling Him “Daddy”, should be observed by us even; and yet now Paul says that it has been applied to&nbsp;<em>us</em>, seeing we are truly “in Him”. We have received such an extraordinarily realistic “spirit of adoption” that really, as Jesus was God’s Son, so are we. Through the work of the Spirit, even the virgin conception and birth of the Lord Jesus is now no barrier between Him and us; for in essence, our spiritual rebirth and adoption as God’s children is such that we too are God’s very own children just as He was. Our excuse for not fully following Him is that ‘Well He was a bit different to us, you know… virgin birth and all that’. If we grasp what Paul is saying, this now has far less validity. For the same Spirit which caused the virgin conception is what has birthed each believer, and through the spirit of adoption we too can feel towards God as “Abba”, just as His Son did. The unity between Father and Son has now been realized between the Father and all His children; the prayer of John 17 to this effect has now been answered. At least, potentially, and if we will accept the answer. And yet, it has to be said that we do not feel to God as Jesus did. The Lord Jesus could not have written the bitter lament about spiritual failure which we find in Romans 7. As we have often concluded, the answer is that we are asked to believe that really we are indeed “in Christ”, and seen, counted and felt towards by God as if we really are His beloved Son.</p><p><em>Whereby we cry</em>-</p><p> “Whereby” can be rendered “in whom”. Because we are in Christ, we have His spirit, God’s Spirit. We “cry”- in allusion to how in Gethsemane, the Son of God “cried” to God as “Abba”. He there really can be our pattern. The Greek for “cry” really means to scream or croak- the idea is very much of a baby or young child crying out to “daddy”.</p><p><em>Abba, Father</em>-</p><p> In prayer, we address God as Abba, Father- precisely because “God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, whereby we cry, Abba, Father” (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>). I take these passages to refer to the way successful prayer involves the spirit / will of a believer becoming united with the Spirit / will of the Father and Son. <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em> says that it is the Spirit of Jesus who prays to God “Abba, Father”; but <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em> says that it is us of course who pray to God “Abba, Father”. We are not slaves but God’s very own dear children. The spirit / will / mind of the Lord Jesus is therefore seen as the mind of the believer. And thus Paul could write that it was no longer he who lived, but Christ who lived in him (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>). The whole of the new creation groans or sighs in our spirit; and Jesus, the Lord the Spirit groans in prayer for us too. God’s Spirit is to dwell in us, right in the core of our hearts (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>)."We cry Abba, Father" (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>), as our Lord did then (<em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>). We can, we really can, it is possible, to enter into our Lord's intensity then. Paul saw his beloved brother Epaphroditus as "heavy" in spirit (<em><a href='B:570 2:26'>Phi 2:26</a></em>), using a word only used elsewhere about Christ in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:33'>Mar 14:33</a></em>):&nbsp;Luke and other early brethren seemed to have had the Gethsemane record in mind in their sufferings, as we can also do (<em><a href='B:510 21:14'>Act 21:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>). 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>). Biblical prayers rarely request things; if we ask according to God's will, we will receive (<em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>); and yet if God's word dwells in us, we will ask what we will, and receive it (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>). Thus if our will is purely God's will, we will receive answers to every prayer. That our will can be God's will is another way of saying that our spirit can be His Spirit. This is why several passages speak of how God's Spirit witnesses with our spirit (<em><a href='B:520 8:15-16'>Rom 8:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:13'>1Jn 4:13</a></em>). It's why the early church sensed that not only were they witnessing to things, but the Holy Spirit of God also (<em><a href='B:510 5:32'>Act 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:28'>Act 15:28</a></em>). His Spirit becomes our spirit. Who we are as persons is effectively our prayer and plea to God. This conception of prayer explains why often weeping, crying, waiting, meditating etc. are spoken of as "prayer" , although there was no specific verbalizing of requests (<em><a href='B:230 5:1-2'>Psa 5:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 6:8'>Psa 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 18:1-3'>Psa 18:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 18:6'>Psa 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 40:1'>Psa 40:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 42:8'>Psa 42:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 64:1'>Psa 64:1</a></em> (Heb:); <em><a href='B:290 65:1-2'>Isa 65:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:17-20'>Isa 66:17-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a></em>). The association between prayer and weeping is especially common: <em><a href='B:90 1:10'>1Sa 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 39:12'>Psa 39:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 55:1-2'>Psa 55:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:41-42'>Joh 11:41-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>, especially in the Lord's life and the Messianic Psalms. "The Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord hath heard my supplication; the Lord will receive my prayer" (<em><a href='B:230 6:8-9'>Psa 6:8-9</a></em>) crystallizes the point:&nbsp;<em>Desire</em>&nbsp;is also seen as effectively praying for something (<em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:9'>Col 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:14'>2Co 9:14</a></em>). Weeping, desiring, waiting, meditating etc. are all acts of the mind, or 'spirit' in Biblical terminology. There is therefore a big association between our spirit or state of mind, and prayer. The spirit (disposition) of Christ which we have received leads us to&nbsp;<em>pray</em>&nbsp;"Abba, Father" (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>). "Praying in the holy spirit" (<em><a href='B:720 1:20'>Jud 1:20</a></em>) is to be seen in this context. Prayer is part of the&nbsp;<em>atmosphere</em>&nbsp;of spiritual life, not something hived off and separate- it is an expression of our spirit. Thus there are verses which speak of many daily prayers as being just one prayer (<em><a href='B:230 86:3'>Psa 86:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 86:6'>Psa 86:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 88:1-2'>Psa 88:1-2</a></em>); prayer is a way / spirit of life, not something specific which occurs for a matter of minutes each day. The commands to "pray without ceasing" simply can't be literally obeyed (<em><a href='B:590 5:17'>1Th 5:17</a></em>). "Watch and pray&nbsp;<em>always</em>" in the last days likewise connects prayer with&nbsp;<em>watchfulness</em>, which is an attitude of mind rather than something done on specific occasions. This is not to say that prayer&nbsp;<em>in no sense</em>&nbsp;refers to formal, specific prayer. Evidently it does, but it is only a verbal crystallization of our general spirit of life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>spirit of adoption</em>. The Greek can be read as “The Spirit himself bears witness&nbsp;<em>to</em>&nbsp;our spirit, that we are the children of God”. But the idea seems to be of a joint witness- our spirit is in fact<em>&nbsp;the</em>&nbsp;Spirit, and bear witness in a legal sense that we are really God’s children. As we have observed several times, there is only essentially one Spirit- God’s, Christ’s, the believer’s, are all the same spirit. Paul uses the same idea in <em><a href='B:520 9:1'>Rom 9:1</a></em>, where he asserts that his conscience and he may as well have said his spirit, for the idea of essential, inner personality is the same bears joint witness s:w. <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em> with the Holy Spirit. God’s personality, His Spirit, is congruent with the person who has a spirit / heart for God. This meeting of minds between God and the believer is what confirms to us that we really are His children. Being His beloved children isn’t dependent upon our moral perfection- we must keep remembering that we are reading the words here in their context as the extension of what Paul was saying throughout <em><a href='B:520 7:15-25'>Rom 7:15-25</a></em>.</p><p>Paul here reverts to the image he used in chapter 3, of us for a moment acting as the judge (<em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em>), deciding whether God’s promises and claims about us are in fact true, or lies. Our own spirit and God’s Spirit bear legal witness- to whom? To us as the judges. They both testify, that really we are the children of God. Not only is the spirit of Christ, His righteousness, counted as ours; but God’s spirit / mind really is ours in experienced reality. Thus we are joint witnesses in the box together, and v. 17 will develop this theme- joint heirs, joint sufferers, and thus jointly glorified together. All because of our connection with Him, we are counted as Him. Note how Paul seems to be aware of the huge doubt there would be about these things in the hearts of the baptized believers to whom he writes; and such doubt is with us today. Hence the enormous relevance and power of what he writes, and the need he felt to appeal to detailed intellectual argument in order to prove his point time and again:&nbsp;</p><p>Imputed righteousness is given us on the basis of our faith. This means that insofar as we can believe all this is true, so it will be. In this sense “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (<em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>). We are His dear children (<em><a href='B:560 5:1'>Eph 5:1</a></em>), the pride and joy of Almighty God, counted as wonderful and righteous by Him. Personal Bible reading and reflection are so important; for there the individual finds the essence of God’s will and strives to make it his or her very own. This is how we can come to understand <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>, which says that in prayer, God’s Spirit bears witness with our spirit that is within us. Thus even although “we do not know how to pray for as we ought, the Spirit himself intercedes for us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). The Spirit of the Father and Son speaks in us when we pray (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>), if our will / spirit is theirs. To put this in more technical but I think very telling terms: “The subject-object scheme of ‘talking to somebody’ is transcended; He who speaks through us is he who is spoken to”. It’s perhaps the thought behind <em><a href='B:470 10:20'>Mat 10:20</a></em>: “It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you”. This is why Paul can thank God that he finds himself praying constantly for Timothy (<em><a href='B:620 1:3'>2Ti 1:3</a></em>)- because he recognizes that not only can we influence God by our prayers, bur He influences us in what we pray for.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if children, then heirs- heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ</em>-</p><p> Very much the ideas of <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>, where Paul taught that baptism makes us the children of God and join-heirs with Christ of what God promised Abraham. For all that is true of Christ becomes true of us. If He was the seed of Abraham, then so are we; and what was promised to the seed personally thus becomes true for us all. Again, Paul is seeking to explain to the Romans the significance of their baptisms. The law taught that the firstborn was to have a double portion above his brethren. But we are made joint-heirs with Christ, the firstborn (<em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>). This is yet another paradox of grace. Likewise in the parable of the prodigal son, both sons receive equal inheritance, rather than the elder son getting more.</p><p><em>If so be that we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with him</em>-</p><p> Again, “if so be” is a misleading translation. This phrase is common in this part of Romans. It an indeed mean “if so be”, but the idea is equally of “seeing that…”, “although…”- and this is how it is commonly translated elsewhere. The good news Paul is teaching is almost unbelievable, too good news- and it was for the translators too, who for the most part have chosen to give a ‘conditional’ feel to the message by inserting all these “if…” statements as if they are conditions. But this impression contradicts the colossal positivism which Paul has, positivism expressed in the face of his own admission of failure in Romans 7; and such translation also fails to give due weight to the idea of positions, status “in Christ” as opposed to in Adam, which is so fundamental to Paul’s argument. Because we are in Christ, we are joint heirs with Him; and seeing that we suffer with Him, we shall be also glorified with Him in that we will share in His resurrection. This is the very teaching of <em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>; baptism into His death and resurrection means that for sure we will be resurrected as He was. Note that we co-suffer with Christ right now- which suggests that He also in some sense suffers in this life, the essence of His cross is lived out in His experience even now, as He suffers with our sufferings, and we with his. The only other time this Greek word for co-suffering occurs is in <em><a href='B:530 12:26'>1Co 12:26</a></em> - we co-suffer with the sufferings of other members of the body of Christ. This is one way in which “we suffer with Him”- to have an empathetic mind. Whilst we must strive for this, Paul’s point is more that we do suffer with Him, because we are in Him; just as in Romans 6 he has demonstrated that we suffered, died, were buried and rose again with Christ, because we are “in Him”. The suffering and groaning of which Paul speaks in <em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:22-26'>Rom 8:22-26</a></em> could have specific reference to the ‘groaning’ he has just been making about his inability to keep the Mosaic Law. Our helplessness to be obedient, our frustration with ourselves, is a groaning against sin which is actually a groaning in harmony with that of the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, who makes intercession for us with the same groanings right now (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). Indeed, those groanings are those spoken of in <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> as the groanings of strong crying and tears which the Lord made in His final passion. In this sense, the Spirit, the Lord the Spirit, bears witness with our spirit / mind, that we are the children of God (<em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>). This clinches all I am trying to say. Our inability to keep the Law of God leads to a groaning against sin and because of sin, which puts us into a unity with the Lord Jesus as our Heavenly intercessor in the court of Heaven. But that wondrous realization of grace which is expressed so finely in Romans 8 would just be impossible were it not for the conviction of sin which there is through our experience of our inability to keep the Law of God. Our failure and groaning because of it becomes in the end the very witness that we are the children of God (<em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>). God thereby makes sin His servant, in that the experience of it glorifies Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For</em>&nbsp;<em>I reckon-</em></p><p>&nbsp;S:w. to count, impute. As God counts us as in Christ, imputing us as having suffered and died with Him, we too in our turn must impute this to ourselves; and if we do, then we will realize that if our present sufferings are in fact seen by God and imputed by Him as being a part in the sufferings of Christ- then we can truly rejoice in the certainty that we will surely share in His resurrection life. If God counts us as He does, we should count ourselves that way too, and have feelings and emotions which are appropriate to such an exalted position.</p><p><em>That the sufferings&nbsp;of this present time</em>-</p><p> Elsewhere Paul emphasizes that if we are “in Christ”, then His sufferings become ours in the same way as His glory and victory become ours too. The tribulations of <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em> could therefore be understood specifically as aspects of Christ’s sufferings, with <em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em> likening us in our sufferings to the sheep for the slaughter, which spoke of Christ facing the cross. See on <em><a href='B:520 7:5'>Rom 7:5</a></em>. The only other time in Romans that Paul uses the word here translated “sufferings” is in <em><a href='B:520 7:5'>Rom 7:5</a></em>, where he speaks of “the motions s:w. sufferings of sin”. He may be implying that even the sufferings caused by our sins are part of the sufferings which connect us to Christ- for His sufferings were directly because of His bearing of our sins. This is a very profound thought- that even the sufferings of our sins serve only to connect us to the sufferings of Christ, in a mutual bond; for He suffered because of our sins. And for those in Him, our connection with His sufferings is the guarantee of our resurrection to glory with Him.</p><p><em>Are not worthy to be compared with the glory</em>-</p><p> The contrast between present suffering and future glory is common in Jewish texts. But they all tended to emphasize that the individual who does righteousness will receive personal glory (e.g. Apocalypse of Baruch, 2, 15:8). Paul is saying that the glory to which we look forward is a sharing in the glory of Christ in a material way. This glory exists now in that Christ exists glorified, but that glory must yet be revealed in us literally (<em><a href='B:670 5:1'>1Pe 5:1</a></em>).</p><p><em>Which shall be revealed in us</em>-</p><p> The “glory” is something internal, rather than referring to some unusually Divine light or cloud of shekinah glory, as imagined by 1st century Judaism and many others today. The Greek for “revealed” carries the idea of revealing, taking the lid off something to expose it. We are in Christ and He is thereby in us- the whole thing has a mutual quality to it. He dwells in us not only in that His righteous character, His spirit, is counted to us- but in actual fact, it is placed within us. This is the “spirit” which Paul will go on to claim is in fact within us. It doesn’t mean we are thereby made righteous in our actual thoughts and actions- for he has bitterly lamented in Romans 7 that this isn’t actually the case. At the day of judgment, when we share in the Lord’s resurrection just as surely as we have in this life shared in His sufferings, that glory, that spirit, that personality within us shall be revealed openly. Perhaps Peter uses flesh and spirit in the same way that Paul does, when he says that believers are “judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (<em><a href='B:670 4:6'>1Pe 4:6</a></em>), just as Jesus was likewise judged (<em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>). We are considered by our peers as mere human beings, they may even judge us for the kind of failures in the flesh which Paul admits to in <em><a href='B:520 7:15-25'>Rom 7:15-25</a></em>. But God judges us according to the “spirit”, the fact that the spirit / character of Christ is counted to us, and in some hard-to-define sense is in fact latently placed within us. And this of course is how we should seek to perceive our weak fellow believers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:19'>Rom 8:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the earnest expectation of the creation awaits the revealing of</em>&nbsp;<em>God's children</em>-</p><p> This could imply that the believers aren’t really revealed for who they are in this life. This shouldn’t encourage our hypocrisy nor the idea that we can be a believer whose faith is invisible to the world; but it’s some comfort too. Because we look, smell, speak and act identically, for the most part, to the unbelievers around us. The huge difference in status and position has to be perceived by faith alone in this life. This “manifestation” is the same word as used in <em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>, “revealed”- see notes on <em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>. The whole of creation is somehow looking forward to the revelation of the Christ that is within us. Christ, the spirit of Christ, is concealed deep within our flesh and will be manifested at the last day, even though we as it were feel the baby kicking, as Paul describes in <em><a href='B:520 7:15-25'>Rom 7:15-25</a></em> when he speaks of the two persons struggling within him. On a different scale, we are as it were concealed deep within the creation, as the seed, the germ, which will sprout forth into the full Kingdom of God when Christ returns. All that is material and fleshly, this present system, will no longer conceal the Christ within us personally, and on a global scale it will no longer conceal&nbsp;<em>us</em>, who we really are. This element of hiddenness explains why we simply cannot judge others. Here in this closing section of Romans 1-8 there also seems a connection of thought with the opening section of Romans 1-8, where Paul wrote of how the invisible things of God which were as it were hidden within creation are in some sense declared to those who know God (<em><a href='B:520 1:20'>Rom 1:20</a></em>)&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:20'>Rom 8:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 8:7'>Rom 8:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the creation</em>-</p><p> Given the way Paul writes of “they” as opposed to “ourselves” in <em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>, the creation here perhaps refers to all peoples (or maybe even, all created things) apart from the believers.</p><p><em>Was made subjected to vanity</em>-</p><p> The connection with the opening of the entire section in Romans 1 continues. There Paul used the same word to describe how sinners ‘become vain’ (<em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>). They willingly glory in the fallen state of creation, seeking out every opportunity to gratify sinful desires. Although we are indeed “subject to vanity”, we don’t need to in our own turn ‘become vain’. If we can be made free from the daily grind in order to serve God, let us chose it. Let’s not fill our minds and lives with the things of basic human existence, gathering food, reproducing, indulging sexual desire. In one sense, as part of God’s creation, we are subject to vanity- and perhaps that’s why Paul uses the same word in the practical section of Romans to say that we “must needs be subject” to worldly powers (<em><a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:5'>Rom 13:5</a></em>). By doing so we accept how things are in creation at this time. The idea of submission is quite a theme in Romans. Our natural mind, the status / person “in Adam”, isn’t submissive to God’s law and never can be (<em><a href='B:520 8:7'>Rom 8:7</a></em>); the natural creation, of which our fleshly, human side is a part, is subject, in submission to, vanity. Yet we are to submit ourselves- our real selves- to God’s righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>Not of its own will</em>-</p><p> This continues the parallel between the believer in Christ’s fallen and weak state, and the state of the entire creation. Again, this is a development of the theme of <em><a href='B:520 7:15-25'>Rom 7:15-25</a></em> - that we sin because of our weakness in dealing with the state we find ourselves in, but our sin isn’t wilful- it is in fact committed not willingly, “that which I would / will not” (<em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em>).</p><p><em>But by reason of Him who subjected it in hope</em>-</p><p> A reference to God. This is a major deconstruction of the popular idea of ‘Satan’, who was and is supposed by many to be the one who has tied the world down under the consequences of sin. But it is&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;who has done the subjecting, and therefore He has done it “in hope”, which He will be the One to bring to realization.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The creation itself also</em>-</p><p> Ultimately, the creation will share the deliverance which we personally experience now and shall experience in its final term at the Lord’s return. The&nbsp;<em>whole</em>&nbsp;of creation earnestly looks forward to the manifestation of the sons of God. The whole of creation was made "subject to vanity, not willingly" - it was not their fault that the curse came upon them. "The&nbsp;<em>whole</em>&nbsp;of creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together", longing to share in the manifestation in glory of God's spiritual creation. The sadness and bitterness of the animal creation is due to their longing for that day of "the glorious liberty of the children of God" in which they will share.</p><p><em>Shall be delivered</em>-</p><p> the same word has been used by Paul in speaking of how even now, we have been delivered from slavery to sin and death by becoming “in Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 6:18'>Rom 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:22'>Rom 6:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a></em>). The same word is also used about our having been made free from slavery to the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em>), which connection could suggest that the “creation” here has some specific reference to the entire Jewish system.</p><p><em>From the bondage</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘slavery’. The idea of being in slavery to sin and the Law has been common in Paul’s argument so far. The believer in Christ is saved from such slavery- and God’s long term plan is that the entire creation will share in this redemption too.</p><p><em>Of corruption</em>-</p><p> Used by Paul in <em><a href='B:580 2:22'>Col 2:22</a></em> with special reference to the Law of Moses. But he also uses the word in explaining how our present corruptible body shall be changed to incorruption when Christ returns (<em><a href='B:530 15:42'>1Co 15:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:50'>1Co 15:50</a></em>). The whole creation will be changed and redeemed as we personally will be. In this sense the work of the Lord Jesus will bring about the creation, or re-creation, of a new earth without the results of Adam’s sin. His achievement on the cross in this sense saved the world and not just the believers.</p><p><em>Into the liberty of the glory of the children of God</em>-</p><p> The redemption and freedom from corruption which the believers shall experience will be experienced by all of creation. When at the end of Romans 11 Paul appears to rejoice in the totality and universality of Divine redemption in Christ, he may well have this in mind. Not that all human beings who have ever lived will be saved, but rather that the whole of creation, in a physical sense, will be saved / delivered just as the believers will have been. Our freedom is ‘of glory’ in the sense touched upon in <em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em> - the glory of the character of Christ which is latent within us but which is yet to be revealed openly. Paul always uses the Greek word used here for “liberty” to exalt how believers in Christ have been set free from the Jewish law (<em><a href='B:530 10:29'>1Co 10:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:17'>2Co 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:13'>Gal 5:13</a></em>). He clearly has this at least as a subtext in his argument here, encouraging us to wonder whether by ‘all of creation’ he has in view “all Israel”. In this case, his argument would be brought to its full term in <em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>, when he exalts that finally “all Israel shall be saved”. When Paul speaks of “all AV “the whole” creation” in <em><a href='B:520 8:22'>Rom 8:22</a></em>, this is the same word translated “all” in <em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>. They will finally share in the blessed redemption made possible by the Messiah whom they crucified, they will also experience the glorious liberty from sin and the Law which was the strength of sin, which was exalted in by those like Paul whom they persecuted and reviled. For it is those who received Jesus as Christ rather than rejected Him as did the Jews, whom the NT styles “the children of God” (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>). In this sense, Paul in this very context notes that the Jews under the Law are not the true “children of God”- but the believers in Christ are (<em><a href='B:520 9:8'>Rom 9:8</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>This “liberty” in which the NT so frequently exults (<em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:29'>1Co 10:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:13'>Gal 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:12'>Jas 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:16'>1Pe 2:16</a></em>) will be fully revealed in the freedom of the Kingdom: “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>). As it will be then, so now: we will not be free to do what we like morally, but within the context of God’s covenant, we are free, totally and utterly free, in our service of Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:22'>Rom 8:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we know that the whole creation</em>&nbsp;– Gk. “all” creation, s:w. <em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em> “all Israel”. See on <em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>.</p><p><em>Has been groaning together&nbsp;in the pains of childbirth until now</em>-</p><p> Groans together with whom? Perhaps the idea is that creation together, all parts of it, groan together. But I suggest the groaning is together with us and the Lord Jesus. The Greek for “groan” is used about the groaning of the Lord Jesus in intercessory prayer in <em><a href='B:480 7:34'>Mar 7:34</a></em>. The believers in Him likewise groan in awaiting the change of our nature which shall come at Christ’s return (<em><a href='B:540 5:2'>2Co 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:4'>2Co 5:4</a></em>). This is the groaning we have heard throughout <em><a href='B:520 7:15-24'>Rom 7:15-24</a></em>, groaning at the hopelessness of our position as sinners. Paul perceived “for we&nbsp;<em>know</em>”, Gk. ‘perceive’ that he wasn’t alone in his groaning, but there is even within the natural creation some premonition that a redemption is yet to come, and a groaning in discontent at the present situation. Thus he didn’t perceive nature as at peace with itself, as many today naively imagine. Rather is it groaning with us. And if we follow up Paul’s hints that “all creation” has some reference to “all Israel”, their groaning which he perceived would have been in terms of ‘not having found that which they sought after’, as he put it in <em><a href='B:520 11:7'>Rom 11:7</a></em>; they sought righteousness but didn’t find it (<em><a href='B:520 9:31'>Rom 9:31</a></em>). They were looking for the right thing in the wrong places and by the wrong way. And yet their groaning, our groaning, the groaning perceived in the natural creation, are in fact but birth pangs- we groan and travail in pain together. The birth which this leads to is the new day of God’s Kingdom, the final birth of the Spirit which believers in Christ have experienced in prospect through baptism. And again, Paul’s sub textual reference to the bankruptcy of the Law to save is still there, for the only other time he uses this word for “travail” is in his allegorical comment that Judaism is barren and doesn’t travail, and yet the true Zion is in travail, groaning to bring forth many children (<em><a href='B:550 4:19'>Gal 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:27'>Gal 4:27</a></em>). And yet he is perhaps hinting that just as the Jews subconsciously knew that Jesus was Messiah “this is the heir, let us kill him”, so the Jewish system was in fact groaning and travailing towards the bringing forth of faith in Christ. The same idea of travailing in birth pangs is to be found in the descriptions of the situation just before the return of Christ (e.g. <em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>). The significance of Paul’s emphasis that this is happening ‘right up until now’ might then be a hint that he expected the return of Christ imminently. However, as previously touched upon in this exposition, it could be that Paul believed we should live as if the return of Christ is imminent; he therefore interpreted prophecy, Scripture and contemporary situations in that manner, just as we should. The groaning of creation and of ourselves also is therefore but the prelude to something far better- the actual birth at the second coming of Christ. My own interpretation of the radical changes in natural phenomena on earth at this time is that it’s all an indication that creation is indeed groaning, now as never before, in a subconscious pleading for the Lord’s return.</p><p>The groaning and travailing could be a reference to natural disasters and the animal violence which there is within this fallen world. Our groanings, our struggling in prayer, is transferred to God by the Lord Jesus groaning also, but with groanings far deeper and more fervently powerful than ours (<em><a href='B:520 8:22-23'>Rom 8:22-23</a></em> cp. 26). See on <em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>. Romans 8 teaches that there is in fact just one Spirit; the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God, and is "the Spirit" in the believer (<em><a href='B:520 8:9-11'>Rom 8:9-11</a></em>). There is "one Spirit" (<em><a href='B:560 4:4'>Eph 4:4</a></em>). If the will of God is in us, if His will is embedded in our conscience, we will ask what we will, what our spirit desires, and it will be granted. This is because if our Spirit is attune with the Spirit of God and of Christ, our desires, our wish, is transferred automatically to Him. Whatever we ask being in the name of Christ, being&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;His character and the essence of His spirit, will therefore be done (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). It doesn't mean that saying the words "I ask in the name of Christ" gives our request some kind of magical power with God. It must surely mean that if we are in Him, if His words abide in us, then we will surely be heard, for our will is His will. We are guaranteed answers if we ask in His name, if we ask what we will, if the word dwells in us, if we ask according to God's will... all these are essentially the same thing. If we are truly in Him, if the word really dwells in us, if our will has become merged with God's will, then we will only request things which are in accordance with His will, and therefore we will receive them. Thus the experience of answered prayer will become part of the atmosphere of spiritual life for the successful believer. The Lord knew that the Father heard Him always (<em><a href='B:500 11:42'>Joh 11:42</a></em>). It is for this reason that the prayers of faithful men rarely make explicit requests; their prayers are an expression of the spirit of their lives and their relationship with God, not a list of requests. It explains why God sees our needs, He sees our situations, as if these are requests for help, and acts accordingly. The request doesn't have to be baldly stated; God sees and knows and responds. This is why Romans 8 appears to confuse the spirit of God, the spirit of Christ in the believer, and Christ himself as "the Lord the Spirit". Yet what Paul is showing is that in fact if we are spiritually minded, if our thinking is in harmony with the Father and Son, prayer is simply a merger of our Spirit with theirs; the idea of prayer as a means of requesting things doesn't figure, because God knows our need and will provide. The whole creation&nbsp;<em>groans</em>; we ourselves&nbsp;<em>groan&nbsp;</em>inwardly; and the Spirit makes intercession with&nbsp;<em>groans</em>&nbsp;that can't be uttered. Clearly enough, our groans are His groans. He expresses them more powerfully and articulately than we can. It has been observed: "As I read Paul's words, an image comes to mind of a mother tuning in to her child's wordless cry. I know mothers who can distinguish a cry for food from a cry for attention, an earache cry from a stomach-ache cry. To me, the sounds are identical, but the mother instinctively perceives the meaning of the child's nonverbal groan. It is the inarticulateness, the very helplessness, of the child that gives her compassion such intensity". In deep sickness or depression it can simply be that we find formal, verbalized prayer impossible. <em><a href='B:230 77:4'>Psa 77:4</a></em> speaks of this: "I am so troubled that I cannot speak" (formally, to God). It's in those moments that comfort can be taken from the fact that it is our spirit which is mediated as it were to God. Tribulation is read as prayer- hence even the Lord's suffering on the cross, "the affliction of the afflicted", was read by the Father as the Lord Jesus 'crying unto' the Father (<em><a href='B:230 22:24'>Psa 22:24</a></em>). This is sure comfort to those so beset by illness and physical pain that they lack the clarity of mind to formally pray- their very affliction is read by the Father as their prayer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And not only the creation but we ourselves</em>-</p><p> A fair emphasis by Paul on the fact that our groaning are in some sort of harmony with the groaning of all creation. If we understand ‘all creation’ as “all Israel”, Paul’s emphasis on the commonality of our groaning together would be as if to say ‘Jews and Christians aren’t that far apart really; we are united by our groanings’. And he argued the same at the opening of his argument in Romans 1-3; that Jew and Gentile are united by the desperation of their sinfulness, their common need for redemption.</p><p><em>Who have the firstfruits of the Spirit</em>-</p><p> I have explained earlier that Paul is teaching that the spirit or personality / mind of Christ is counted to us by imputed righteousness; but more than that, the Spirit of Christ is actually placed within us, although that spirit of Christ which dwells within us is latent, hidden beneath the flesh and failures of which Paul speaks in Romans 7. As we are in Christ, so He is in us, indwelling us by His Spirit. Clearly enough, the resurrected Christ is the firstfruit (<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 we shall only be the firstfruits “afterward... at his coming”. Yet because all that is true of Christ is true of we who are counted in Him, we too are the firstfruits. “The Spirit” could refer to Christ personally, “the Lord the Spirit” (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RVmg:).</p><p><em>Groan inwardly</em>-</p><p> Paul writes this in explanation of his groaning within himself which is outlined in <em><a href='B:520 7:15-24'>Rom 7:15-24</a></em>.</p><p><em>As we wait eagerly for</em>-</p><p> The Greek rather carries the idea of expecting. For if we are in Christ, His sufferings counted as ours and ours as His, then our ultimate salvation is assured. We are therefore expecting it, rather than waiting to see what shall happen at His return.</p><p><em>Adoption as children and the redemption of our bodies</em>-</p><p> Continuing the image of adoption which was introduced in <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>. We have already received the spirit of adoption. We are adopted unto God for the sake of our being in Christ, the supreme Son of God (<em><a href='B:560 1:5'>Eph 1:5</a></em>). We are God’s adopted children in that we are in Christ, the ultimate child of God. But as has been lamented in Romans 7, our body, our flesh, is still as it is, unredeemed, and in practice unable to be subject to God’s law. We with Paul and with all creation, groan for redemption from this situation. <em><a href='B:550 4:5'>Gal 4:5</a></em> speaks of the death of Christ as being required “to redeem that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons”. The ideas of redemption, adoption and “sons” are repeated. So although we have attained such adoption as God’s sons in that we are in His Son by status, we long for the physical manifestation of that redemption which we have received- and we groan for it. Note that “the adoption of&nbsp;<em>sons</em>” isn’t sexist language; it is as sons that we are adopted rather than as daughters or androids because we are counted as in God’s Son, Jesus, who happened to be male. We are counted as Him. The status we have received in Him is one of redemption, we are labelled as it were “redeemed”. We in Christ have already received this redemption by grace (<em><a href='B:520 3:24'>Rom 3:24</a></em>). He is “redemption” and we are in Him (<em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>). Consistently Paul speaks of ‘redemption’ as being “in Christ” (<em><a href='B:560 1:7'>Eph 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:14'>Col 1:14</a></em>), and we have been baptized into Him and are counted in Him, as Paul has laboured throughout Romans so far. But our bodies still need that redemption, and we await / expect it at the Lord’s return. <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em> likewise speak of “the day of redemption” as the second coming of Christ, and yet urge us to believe that we “sealed” by our receipt of the Spirit, as a guarantee, that this day will really come for us. The “spirit” referred to is the same as here in Romans 8 - the indwelling of Jesus personally within all them who are “in Him”, and the counting of His spirit to them by imputed righteousness.</p><p>Just as our minds have received the spirit of adoption, so our bodies will be transformed at the final judgment into a body like that of Jesus (<em><a href='B:570 3:20-21'>Phi 3:20-21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:24'>Rom 8:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For in hope were we saved; but hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?</em>-</p><p> “In hope were we saved” is better translated as “saved in hope”. God’s grace and the blood of Christ, believed in by faith, are what saves, rather than hope of itself. We have been saved, but in hope- for the fullness of salvation will only be revealed when Christ returns. As commented under <em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>, we have been redeemed, but the redemption of the body is our expectation at the second coming. Note that the Greek for “hope” means a confident expectation- the English ‘hope’ tends to carry a somewhat less confident flavour of meaning, the implication being that we ‘hope for the best’ rather than confidently await. But because we are saved in Christ, our hope is certain. Likewise the Greek translated in this section as “wait” better translates as ‘confidently await’. We’re not waiting to see what happens, but rather awaiting with confidence what must surely come for us- the redemption of our body. Anything less than this approach wouldn’t have left Paul pulling out of his groaning within himself of Romans 7 with the confident cry of rejoicing, the scream in the night, of <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em> - that he has indeed found the way of escape and deliverance through Christ. Jesus personally is “our hope” (<em><a href='B:610 1:1'>1Ti 1:1</a></em>). And we are in Him. But we don’t physically see Him yet, nor physically have we seen the redemption of our bodies. We therefore wait, or await confidently, the fulfilment of the hope which is now reserved for us (<em><a href='B:580 1:5'>Col 1:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:25'>Rom 8:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if we hope for what we do not see, then we with patience wait for it</em>-</p><p> Why does Paul labour his point here- that we don’t have “see” what we know is coming for us, therefore we must patiently wait for it? Maybe to encourage patience in the waiting- perhaps the crux of his argument in these verses is on the word “patience”. But maybe he is back to addressing the old worry which he know lurks in every reader: Why, then, am I still such a sinner right now, today? Given that reality, how then can I so confidently await the future redemption? And Paul’s answer is that yes we have been redeemed, but no we don’t see that redemption physically, no, we don’t yet see it, but we are patiently awaiting it in confidence. Despite all our weakness and failure in the flesh:&nbsp;Our waiting is paralleled with the awaiting of all creation for the manifestation of God’s children the same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 8:19'>Rom 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:25'>Rom 8:25</a></em>. The New Testament associates this ‘waiting’ with the faithful awaiting of Christ’s return (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 1:7'>1Co 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:5'>Gal 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:20'>Phi 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:28'>Heb 9:28</a></em>). Yet here in Romans we are awaiting the manifestation of ourselves as the sons of God (<em><a href='B:520 8:19'>Rom 8:19</a></em>). Christ is us and we are Him, if we are in Him and He in us. His manifestation or ‘coming’ (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 1:7'>1Co 1:7</a></em>, we wait for the manifestation / coming of Christ) will be the same as the manifestation of the sons of God, all those who are in Him. His manifestation will therefore be ours; His glory shall be manifested in us in that day s:w. <em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em> just as He personally shall be manifested. And thus we read that in a sense, Christ shall return with all those who are in Him with Him; for the faithful shall be snatched away to meet Him in the air, as clouds (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>), and then He shall come to earth with clouds, of the faithful believers (<em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em>). In this sense the second coming of Christ is likened to the new Jerusalem, the spotless bride of Christ, coming down from Heaven to earth (<em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>). His manifestation is ours, for all that is true of Him is true of us. Our&nbsp;<em>hupomone</em>&nbsp;‘joyful endurance’, AV “patience” in awaiting the return of Christ is therefore possible because we are awaiting our redemption. We can only joyfully await His coming and&nbsp;<em>hupomone</em>&nbsp;can carry an element of ‘joy’ within the wide flavour of its meaning if we are confident that His coming means our redemption rather than our judgment to condemnation. If our attitude to the return of Christ is that we shall only then find out, only then will our destiny be sorted out- then we are of all men most fearful and uncertain. But clearly enough for those in Christ, His revealing physically to the world shall be our revealing. His coming is going to be ours. “For thee he comes, His might to impart, to the trembling heart and the feeble knee”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And in like manner</em>-</p><p> A phrase hard to interpret in this context. The sense may be more of “And even moreover”, “even so”; “And now guess what, even more..." might be the dynamic sense. That apart from us having a wonderful hope which we confidently await, it’s not all jam tomorrow. The spirit, both as the Lord the spirit, i:e. Jesus personally, and also as His spirit which indwells us, is actively at work even now.</p><p><em>The Spirit also</em>-</p><p> A title for Christ personally. See on <em><a href='B:520 7:14'>Rom 7:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>Helps our infirmity</em>-</p><p> “Helps” occurs in the LXX of <em><a href='B:20 18:22'>Exo 18:22</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a></em>, where Moses is the one helped. Paul is suggesting that each believer can rise up to the pattern of Moses; he was no longer to be seen by Jewish believers as some distant, untouchable, stellar example of devotion. He was a pattern that through the Spirit could be realistically attained; although the point is being cleverly made that he too had weakness that needed Divine help. Paul made it a credo of his own life, and urged other believers to follow his example in this, that he would labour to support s:w. help, <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> the weak (<em><a href='B:510 20:35'>Act 20:35</a></em>). For we are all weak, and helped only by grace. But the Greek word Paul uses for ‘helps’ also carries the meaning of ‘to participate it’. It clearly has this sense in <em><a href='B:610 6:2'>1Ti 6:2</a></em>, “partakers participators in the benefit”. The Spirit participates in our infirmities and thus helps us; just as we should seek to empathize as far as we can in the infirmities of others, both practical and moral. The “infirmities” Paul has in mind would seem to be the infirmity of spirit he laments in <em><a href='B:520 7:15-24'>Rom 7:15-24</a></em>; our moral weakness. The same word is used of how the Lord Jesus in His ministry fulfilled the prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em> that on the cross He would ‘take our infirmities’ (<em><a href='B:470 8:17'>Mat 8:17</a></em>). These “infirmities” according to <em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em> were our sins, but sin’s effect is manifested through sickness. The moral dimension to these “infirmities” has already been established by Paul in Romans, for in <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> he uses the word to describe how “when we were yet&nbsp;<em>weak</em>&nbsp;s:w. ‘infirm’, Christ died for the ungodly; and he explains his sense here as being that “when we were yet&nbsp;<em>sinners</em>” (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>). Jesus as the Lord the Spirit engages with our infirmities, on the plane of the spirit, the deep human mind and psyche. What He did on the cross in engaging with our moral infirmity He did in His life, and He continues to do for us in essence. He does not turn away in disgust at our infirmities, rather through His Spirit within us He engages with them, perhaps deep within our subconscious, beneath our conscious will:&nbsp; The allusion to <em><a href='B:470 8:17'>Mat 8:17</a></em> seems certain- for there we read the same word for “infirmities” and “took” is&nbsp;<em>lambano</em>, a form of which is used by Paul in saying that the Spirit “helps” our infirmities. We are therefore led to understand “the Spirit” as a title of Christ personally. That title is used, however, because of the fact that in this context, His Spirit, His personality, is within us, He personally indwells us within our spirit; as we are in Christ so He is in us. His strength is perfected through our weakness (s:w. “infirmities”; <em><a href='B:540 12:9'>2Co 12:9</a></em>). He knows even now the feeling of our infirmities (<em><a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>). If the Lord Jesus so engages with our weaknesses, we therefore ought to unhesitatingly “support the weak” s:w:, <em><a href='B:590 5:14'>1Th 5:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>For we do not know how to pray-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>. This is an example of where appreciating the links with the Gospels opens our understanding of Paul's letters. Paul is implying that we are like the mother of Zebedee's children, in that when we pray, we know not what we ask for in the sense that we don't&nbsp;<em>appreciate</em>&nbsp;what we ask for. I know what to pray for: my redemption, and that of others. Read wrongly, <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> implies we haven't the foggiest what on earth to ask God for. But we&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;know what to ask for; the point is, we don't&nbsp;<em>appreciate</em>&nbsp;what we are asking for, just as that woman didn't appreciate what she was praying for when she asked that her two boys would be in the Kingdom.</p><p>A related word for “pray” is used in this same context by Paul in <em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>, where he says that he “could wish”, s:w. “pray”, that he himself were condemned by God so that Israel might be saved. His allusion is to Moses’ prayer that he would be excluded from God’s book rather than Israel be excluded from the Kingdom. But Paul learnt the lesson from how God responded to Moses- that He doesn’t accept substitutionary sacrifice. Paul is admitting he too doesn’t know how to pray for Israel as he ought, but he leaves their salvation in the hands of their Saviour, whilst so earnestly desiring it in his own spirit.</p><p><em>As we ought</em>-</p><p> We don’t seem to have within us to pray as we&nbsp;<em>ought</em>, i:e. as we s:w. ‘must’. It’s not that we just don’t know what to pray about; we don’t pray as we ought to / must, and yet our gracious Mediator makes intercession with unutterable groans. And the older Paul can lament his failures to preach as he “ought", as he&nbsp;<em>must</em>, and therefore he appeals for prayer that he will witness to the Gospel as every believer of it&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:560 6:20'>Eph 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:4'>Col 4:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>But the Spirit Himself</em>-</p><p> A clear reference to Christ, whose spirit indwells us and is in dialogue with&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;spirit on some unconscious level. Our innermost spiritual desires are thereby transferred to God by our Heavenly mediator. And our innermost desire is to be right with God, to obtain salvation, deliverance from this body of death and life of spiritual failure. Now we can better understand why all we are reading here flows on naturally from his groaning of spirit in Romans 7. The Lord Jesus indwells us, His spirit perceives the spiritual groaning of our spirit, and transfers it as it were to Himself; for if we are in Christ, then He is in us. And His intercession for us is in that sense successful; our salvation was obtained on the cross thanks to His own groaning in spirit there, and this guarantees that He will obtain it for us the idea of ‘intercession’, we have noted, includes that of ‘obtaining’.</p><p><em>Makes intercession for us</em>-</p><p> A return to the legal metaphors. The Lord Jesus is our interceder, the counsel for the defence, and also an emotional witness, pleading with groanings to the judge in support of our case. The Greek for “intercession” cannot be taken too far, but it is derived from the verb ‘to obtain’. The obtaining of our salvation, the winning of our case, was achieved on the cross, in the groanings of Jesus in Gethsemane and on the stake; but in essence, He groans for us still in intercession, and in doing so, His groaning are in sympathy with our groaning for salvation. The type of groanings of spirit of <em><a href='B:520 7:15-24'>Rom 7:15-24</a></em> become the groanings of our Heavenly intercessor. He is not separate from our frustrations at our failures; He takes them fully on board. The crucial thing is that we have them; that we can read <em><a href='B:520 7:15-24'>Rom 7:15-24</a></em> with empathy and know that ‘That’s me’. Which I believe most readers of these words can indeed say.</p><p><em>With groanings</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> comments that&nbsp; Christ prayed "with strong crying and tears". These words are certainly to be connected with <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>, which speaks of Christ making intercession for us now&nbsp;with "groanings which cannot be uttered". One might think from <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> that the Lord Jesus made quite a noise whilst hanging on the cross. But <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> says that his groaning is so intense that it cannot be audibly uttered; the physicality of sound would not do justice to the intensity of mental striving. No doubt the Lord Jesus was praying silently, or at best quietly, as he hung there. The point is that the same agonizing depth of prayer which the Lord achieved on the cross for us is what he now goes through as he intercedes for us with the Father. <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> describes Christ on the cross as a priest offering up a guilt offering for our sins of ignorance. He did this, we are told, through "prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears". This must surely be a reference to "Father forgive them". Those were said with a real passion, with strong crying, with tears as He appreciated the extent of our sinfulness and offence of God. There is a connection between these words and those of <em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>, which describes Christ as our High Priest making intercession for us "with groanings". "Groanings" is surely the language of suffering and crucifixion. It is as if our Lord goes through it all again when He prays for our forgiveness, He has the same passion for us now as He did then. Think of how on the cross He had that overwhelming desire for our forgiveness despite His own physical pain. That same level of desire is with Him now. Surely we can respond by confessing our sins, by getting down to realistic self-examination, by rallying our faith to truly appreciate His mediation and the forgiveness that has been achieved, to believe that all our sins, past and future, have been conquered, and to therefore rise up to the challenge of doing all we can to live a life which is appropriate to such great salvation. The suffering and groaning of which Paul speaks in <em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:22-26'>Rom 8:22-26</a></em> is in my view a reference to the ‘groaning’ he has just been making about his inability to keep the Mosaic Law see on <em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>. Our helplessness to be obedient, our frustration with ourselves, is a groaning against sin which is actually a groaning in harmony with that of the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, who makes intercession for us with the same groanings right now (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). Indeed, those groanings are those spoken of in <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> as the groanings of strong crying and tears which the Lord made in His final passion. In this sense, the Spirit, the Lord the Spirit, bears witness with our spirit / mind, that we are the children of God (<em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>). This clinches all I am trying to say. Our inability to keep the Law of God leads to a groaning against sin and because of sin, which puts us into a unity with the Lord Jesus as our Heavenly intercessor in the court of Heaven. Because of this, we are declared justified, there are no credible accusers, and the passionate intercessor / advocate turns out to be the judge Himself. Thus through our frustration at our own failure, we are led not only to Christ but to the certainty of an assured salvation. But that wondrous realization of grace which is expressed so finely in Romans 8 would just be impossible were it not for the conviction of sin which there is through our experience of our inability to keep the Law of God. Our failure and groaning because of it becomes in the end the very witness that we are the children of God (<em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em>). God thereby makes sin His servant, in that the experience of it glorifies Him. How God works through sin is revealed in the way that although God always provided food for Israel in the wilderness, He ‘suffered them to hunger’ for 40 years, in order to try to teach them that man lives not by bread alone, but by God’s word (<em><a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a></em>). The Jews in the wilderness despised the food God gave them as worthless (<em><a href='B:40 21:3'>Num 21:3</a></em>); they went hungry not literally, but in the sense that they despised the manna of God’s provision. And He allowed them to have that hunger, in order that He might try to teach them about the value of His word. He didn’t simply punish them for their ingratitude. He sought to work through it in order to teach them something. Even the process of rejection results in the victims coming to ‘know the Lord’.</p><p><em>Which cannot be uttered</em>-</p><p> In the same way as our inner groanings for salvation, for deliverance from how we are, are unspoken, rarely verbalized (although <em><a href='B:520 7:15-24'>Rom 7:15-24</a></em> is a fine exception), so His intercession for us isn’t in human words, it’s a dialogue of the Spirit with God, a meeting of innermost minds. Our sinfulness and desire to be free from it is articulated through the spirit of God’s perfect Son, to the mind or spirit of God Himself. Intercession, therefore, isn’t a question of translating words which we say in prayer into some Heavenly language which is somehow understandable to God, rather like a translator may interpret from one language to another. It is our spirit which is perceived for what it is and articulated before God. This explains why both in Biblical example and in our own experience, our unspoken, unformulated desires of the spirit are read by God as prayers and responded to. I devote a whole chapter in my analysis of “Prayer” to exemplifying this Biblically, but we should also know it from our own experience. Desires which we had, above all we asked or thought, are read by God as prayers and responded to. Paul gives an example of this in saying that Elijah made intercession to God&nbsp;<em>against</em>&nbsp;Israel (<em><a href='B:520 11:2-3'>Rom 11:2-3</a></em>), when clearly it was his thoughts in this context which were being interpreted as prayer. Perhaps the statement that the Lord Jesus intercedes for us without human words, in terms which “cannot be uttered”, is intended as a comfort to those who feel they’re ‘not good at praying’ because they don’t know how to put it all in words. Verbalization skills are hardly a prerequisite for powerful prayer- because some people are more verbal, better with words, than others. Romans 8 speaks of the importance of being spiritually minded, and then goes on to say that our spirit, our deep inner mind, is transferred to God by Christ, called by His title "the Lord the spirit" ,&nbsp;<em>without</em>&nbsp;specifically spoken words. This is surely proof enough that the Lord does not mediate our prayers as an interpreter would, from one language to another, matching lexical items from one language with those from another. "We know not what to pray for", so the Lord Jesus reads our inner spirit, and transfers this on a deep mental level, without words, to the Father. The whole process of mediation takes place within the Lord's mind, with the sort of groanings He had as He begged the Father to raise Lazarus (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 11:38'>Joh 11:38</a></em>), and as on the cross He prayed with strong crying and tears for our redemption (<em><a href='B:650 5:5'>Heb 5:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>). The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday and today. That same passion and intensity of pleading really is there. This is why the state of our mind, our spirit, is so vitally important; because it is this which the Lord Jesus interprets to the Father. The Lord's Spirit struggles in mediation with crying and groaning (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>), as He did for the raising of Lazarus. There is a further connection with <em><a href='B:650 5:5'>Heb 5:5</a></em>, where we learn that the Lord prayed on the cross with a like intensity. And this Lord is our Lord today. He can be crucified afresh, therefore He has the capacity for struggle and mental effort. The Greek for "groanings" in <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> also occurs in <em><a href='B:480 7:34'>Mar 7:34</a></em>: "Looking up to heaven, he&nbsp;<em>sighed</em>&nbsp;and saith unto him, Ephthatha". The sighing of intense prayer by the Lord was His more spiritually cultured reflection of the number one desire of that man's spirit, as was His groaning and tears for Martha's desire to be granted, and Lazarus to be raised. It has been wisely observed that the language of Christ's mediation can be quite misunderstood. The picture we should have "is not that of an orante,&nbsp;<em>standing</em>&nbsp;ever before the Father with out-stretched arms... pleading our cause in the presence of a reluctant God... but that of a&nbsp;<em>throned</em>&nbsp;Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father who always hears and grants His request”. The description of Christ groaning in spirit to transfer our spirit to God (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>) is a reflection of the fact that we groan for redemption and the coming of the day of the liberty of God's children (<em><a href='B:520 8:22-23'>Rom 8:22-23</a></em>), when what is guaranteed by "the firstfruits of the Spirit" which we have, will at last be realized. "All things work together for good" to this end, of forgiveness and salvation. It certainly doesn't mean that every story ends up happily-ever-after in this life. "We know not what we should pray for as we ought" (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>) seems to be some kind of allusion back to the mother of Zebedee's children asking Christ to get her two sons the best places in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>). He basically replied 'You know not what you pray for', in the sense of 'you don't appreciate'. It may be that Paul in Romans 8 is saying that in our desire for the Kingdom, in our groaning for it, we don't appreciate what we ask for as we ought, yet Christ nonetheless makes powerful intercession for us to this end. Because there is only "one Spirit", even the terms "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" can be paralleled because they are manifestations of that same one Spirit: "Ye are... in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you... the Spirit is life... if the Spirit of (God) that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you... the Spirit (Christ, <em><a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> R:V:) maketh intercession for us" (<em><a href='B:520 8:9-11'>Rom 8:9-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:27'>Rom 8:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he that searches the hearts</em>-</p><p> A clear reference to God, whom many Bible passages present as the One who searches human hearts. God knows and recognizes what the Lord Jesus is ‘saying’ because He Himself anyway knows the true state of our hearts, searching our motives and the inner thoughts which lay behind the external actions and words which are judged by men. Hence we can be judged harshly by men according to the flesh, but justified by the God who knows our spirit (<em><a href='B:670 4:6'>1Pe 4:6</a></em>). The ‘searching’ of human hearts is also done by the Lord Jesus (s:w. <em><a href='B:730 2:23'>Rev 2:23</a></em>), as well as by God. And their findings are of course congruent. In this sense, the intercession of the Lord Jesus is “according to God” Gk:, or “the will of God” AV, or to fill out the ellipsis another way, ‘according to the searching of God too’.</p><p><em>Knows what is the mind of the Spirit Jesus, because he makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God</em>-</p><p> God who knows our minds knows the mind of Christ too. Because His mind is our mind, His Spirit is intertwined with, in dialogue with, reflective of, our deepest spirit in our inner, spiritual person. The hearts / minds of the believers are in this sense the mind of Christ; for due to our status in Him, “we have the mind of Christ” (<em><a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a></em>). Thus the mind of Christ as He comes before the Father in intercession for us is at one with God’s mind, as well as at one with our mind. In this we begin to see the profound depths, or something of them, of what it means to be “in Christ”, and how, mechanically, if you wish, reconciliation is achieved between God and man through Christ. The Lord Jesus does not just transfer our words to God as pieces of language. Seeing that we do not know how to properly express ourselves to God, He transfers the thoughts of our spirit to God (<em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>). It is in this context that Paul encourages us to have a spiritual mind in our daily life; because that is relayed to the presence of God by the Lord Jesus, "the Lord the Spirit”. Therefore our whole lives can be a life of prayer, lived out in the presence of the Lord God. However, we are encouraged to pray with our human words as well; indeed, Scripture is full of examples of men doing just this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:28'>Rom 8:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And we know that to them that love God, to them that are called according to His purpose- all things work together for good</em>-</p><p> A reference to the eternal “good” of the Kingdom age, i:e:, ‘so that we might enter the Kingdom’? The future Kingdom is called “good things” in <em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em> (quoted in <em><a href='B:520 10:15'>Rom 10:15</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:300 8:15'>Jer 8:15</a></em>.<em>&nbsp;All things work together for good</em>&nbsp;doesn’t mean that somehow everything will work out OK for us in this life- for so often they don’t. We are asked to carry the Lord’s cross, to suffer now and be redeemed in glory later at His return. “All things” may refer to “all creation” in <em><a href='B:520 8:22'>Rom 8:22</a></em>, as if to say that everything in the whole of creation works together for our ultimate “good”. But that “good” must be defined within Paul’s usage of the term in Romans; and he doesn’t ever use it in the sense of material good in this life. Consider how he uses the word: “Doing good”, righteous behaviour (<em><a href='B:520 2:7'>Rom 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:10'>Rom 2:10</a></em>); “a good man”, a righteous man, maybe in reference to the moral purity of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 5:7'>Rom 5:7</a></em>); “no good thing dwells within me... the good that I would do, I do not” (<em><a href='B:520 7:18-19'>Rom 7:18-19</a></em>). Remember that Paul is writing Romans 8 in commentary upon and extension to his lament in Romans 7 that he cannot do the good that he would. Now he is taking comfort that in the bigger picture, man is not alone in creation; all things in this world are somehow working together within God’s master plan so that we shall in fact do good, be righteous; both in our lives in Christ today and ultimately for eternity in God’s Kingdom. For those who “love God”, who in their innermost beings delight in God’s law, somehow life works out, albeit in a very complex way, so that we may do that which is good, and have the goodness of Christ’s righteousness eternally counted to us. Despite having lamented that he himself fails to “do good” as he would wish (<em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em>), Paul urges us all to “do good” in the practical section of Romans. We are to cleave to the good, overcome evil with good, do good, be wise to that which is good and simple concerning evil (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 12:9'>Rom 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 12:21'>Rom 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:3'>Rom 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:19'>Rom 16:19</a></em>). Clearly Paul doesn’t wish us to understand his frustration with his human condition as any excuse for giving up the effort. And the indwelling spirit of Christ seeks to orchestrate all things in the whole of creation to work together so that we may succeed in that doing of good. Snow in Latvia or flash floods in Australia may be brought about by cosmic forces which operate exactly so that we may... help up that old man who has slipped on the ice, take in that family who lost their home. And of course it all works out far more subtly than this, hour by hour. God has begun a “good work s:w. in us” and will bring it to completion in the day of Christ’s return (<em><a href='B:570 1:6'>Phi 1:6</a></em>). And all things in the whole of creation are somehow orchestrated to that end. Thus at baptism we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). And He gives us “all sufficiency to abound to every good work” (<em><a href='B:540 9:8'>2Co 9:8</a></em>), we are sanctified and prepared Gk. ‘provided for’ to perform every good work God intends for us (<em><a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a></em>); fully equipped by God to do every good work in His purpose for us (<em><a href='B:620 3:17'>2Ti 3:17</a></em>). Each time in these verses, the Greek word for “good” is the same as in <em><a href='B:520 8:28'>Rom 8:28</a></em>. All this puts paid once and for all to the idea that we can do no good work because we don’t have the money, the life situation, the resources. We have every sufficiency to do those good works intended for us; but we must “be ready to every good work” (<em><a href='B:630 3:1'>Tit 3:1</a></em>), prepared to grasp the moment, living in the spirit of&nbsp;<em>carpe diem</em>. And thus we shall be ‘established’ in every good work we put our hands to (<em><a href='B:600 2:17'>2Th 2:17</a></em>), none shall ultimately harm us if we follow after performing these good works (<em><a href='B:670 3:13'>1Pe 3:13</a></em>), we shall be made perfect or completed “in every good work in the doing of His will” (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em>). All things work together for good especially when the “good works” are in the context of assisting others towards the Kingdom. Paul’s concise summary of us in this verse as those who “love God” recalls <em><a href='B:690 4:20-21'>1Jn 4:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:2'>1Jn 5:2</a></em> - we only love God when we love others. The uncommon Greek word translated ‘work together’ is to be found in the great preaching commission in <em><a href='B:480 16:20'>Mar 16:20</a></em>, where it is observed that the Lord Jesus ‘worked together with’ those who sought to preach the Gospel in all the world. This appears to be a comment upon the Lord’s promise that in this work of preaching the Gospel, He would be with His preachers unto the end of the world (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). Whilst this can be understood as the end of the age, it seems to me that the Lord is saying that in taking the Gospel to the whole world, He will be with them in it, right to the ends of the world- be it in witnessing to Amazonian Indians or to your unbelieving family in a run down apartment block in Moscow or London or New York. We are workers together with Him in the work of saving others (<em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>); yet all things in all creation are also working together to this end. By becoming part of that huge operating system, dynamized as it is by God’s Spirit, we will experience God working with us. Somehow, resources become available; somehow we meet the right people:&nbsp; But all this happens if we are those who “love God”. If our love for Him and the furtherance of His glory in human lives is paramount, then we will naturally find ourselves part of this positive, triumphant system which always is lead in triumph in Christ. Paul uses the same Greek word translated ‘work together’ in the practical section of Romans, where he three time speaks of his brethren as his ‘workers together’, or co-workers (<em><a href='B:520 16:3'>Rom 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:9'>Rom 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:21'>Rom 16:21</a></em>). I suggest that Paul has in view here that he was co-working with those brethren as co-workers with God. The co-working he refers to doesn’t simply mean that these brethren worked together with Paul. They were co-workers in the sense of being like Paul, co-workers- with God. All this isn’t only encouragement to those faced with decision making on a large scale- e.g. a mission organization wondering if they have the resources to open a new front of work, or provide significant care to a needy group. More personally, it applies to each of us. We each have good works before ordained that we should walk in them, live a way of life which achieves them (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). We need to ask the Lord to reveal what they are, to review our station and place within life’s network and perceive them, remembering that “the unexamined life isn’t worth living”, and seek to go for them. The idea is commonly expressed that for now, I shall work in my career, in my business, and then I shall have the resources to serve God as I vaguely imagine I could in some specific way. Manic capitalism has succeeded in commodifying everything, turning everything into a price tag. But the good works God has in mind for us aren’t usually of that nature. Kindness, acceptance, comfort, forgiveness, interest in others’ needs and sufferings... these are the essence of being as Christ in this world. This is Christianity, Christ-ness, being like Christ. For He achieved all He did “with a minimum of miracle” as Robert Roberts put it, and with hardly any cash behind Him. And so all this working together towards ultimate “good” shall be possible and is possible, for those who in the core of their hearts truly “love God”. This is another allusion, surely, to <em><a href='B:520 7:15-24'>Rom 7:15-24</a></em>, where Paul is saying that in his heart he loves God, but is frustrated by his flesh. I have no doubt that most of you my readers are in this category- of loving God. The Jewish mind would’ve been jogged by the reference to ‘loving God’ to the classic definition of loving God- to love Him with our heart and mind (<em><a href='B:470 22:37'>Mat 22:37</a></em>). And this is exactly what Paul is saying he does in Romans 7, delighting in God’s law in his mind, despite serving sin in his flesh.</p><p>Here Paul starts to introduce the concept of calling, election according to God’s purpose. He doesn’t just start talking of Divine calling and predestination without a context. His whole message in Romans 1-8 is that we are saved by grace; and the fact there is some element of predestination and calling over and above our will and works is solid proof that salvation is by grace- and that we who know we have been called, in that we have heard the call of the Gospel which contains that call, really are those who have been chosen to live eternally. Again and again, the message Paul preaches here is too good news. We struggle to qualify what he is saying, to allow our works and obedience a greater factor in the final algorithm of Divine salvation. But time and again we return to the question- why do I know all this, why am I reading these words, hearing this call, when so many others have lived and died without it? Why is it that I ‘get it’ about God, but my brother or my sister was never interested from babyhood? Why me, why her, why you, and not the guy next door? For all our philosophy, wise cracks and clever words, there is no abidingly satisfactory answer. It is of God’s grace and not of ourselves. Paul specifically connects our calling with God’s grace in <em><a href='B:620 1:9'>2Ti 1:9</a></em>: “Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace”. Note how the ideas of calling, grace and God’s purpose all run together here as they do in <em><a href='B:520 8:28'>Rom 8:28</a></em>. The “purpose of God” is further defined in <em><a href='B:520 9:11'>Rom 9:11</a></em> as not depending upon human works. We were called because we were called, by grace, quite independent of what works we would or would not do. <em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em> says that we are “predestinated according to the purpose of God”. The whole idea of calling according to a predetermined Divine purpose means we are predestinated. We need not struggle over whether we have been called or not. The call, the invitation to the Kingdom, is in the Gospel. Any who hear it have been called. If I invite you to an event, you are invited, you are called to it. Lest there be any doubt, Paul began Romans by assuring us that we are called just as surely as he was (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:6-7'>Rom 1:6-7</a></em>). He opens 1Corinthians the same way- speaking of his calling and then using the same word to describe how his readers are likewise the called (<em><a href='B:530 1:1-2'>1Co 1:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>). The calling of God is “without repentance” in the sense that we can never be disinvited, become ‘uncalled’ (<em><a href='B:520 11:29'>Rom 11:29</a></em>):&nbsp; And if we are called, then we are predestinated (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>). Whilst calling doesn’t mean final acceptance with God- for we must make our calling and election sure (<em><a href='B:680 1:10'>2Pe 1:10</a></em>), to not be saved at the last day would require us to have wilfully fought against the predestined desire of God to save us, to have reasoned against destiny. Paul’s great theme in Romans 1-8 is that we are “in Christ” by status through having believed into Him by baptism. This connects with this theme of calling according to the Divine purpose, because God ‘purposed His eternal purpose in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (<em><a href='B:560 3:11'>Eph 3:11</a></em>). If we are in Him, then we are in God’s eternal purpose, we will continue eternally because God’s purpose for us is eternal. We would have to wilfully reject that status if we are to somehow come out of that eternal purpose. Being “in” God’s purpose means that His purpose, His will, His Spirit, is to become ours- hence Paul can use the same word to speak of his “purpose” in life (<em><a href='B:620 3:10'>2Ti 3:10</a></em>).</p><p>“According to His purpose” can be applied to the first clause of the verse, “all things work together for good” within the overall purpose of God to save us. It doesn’t have to modify the idea of our calling. Joseph stands as a pattern for us all. When Paul wrote that all things work together for our good (<em><a href='B:520 8:28'>Rom 8:28</a></em>), he was echoing how in all the grief of Joseph's life, the rejection by his brethren, the cruel twists of fate as they seemed at the time…&nbsp;<em>God meant it for good</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a></em>). This same wonderful process will come true in our lives- for they too are equally directed by a loving Father. God's whole purpose, according to Paul, is that we should become like His Son-and to this end all things are directed in God's plan for us (<em><a href='B:520 8:28-29'>Rom 8:28-29</a></em>). To achieve the "measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" is the 'perfection' or maturity towards which God works in our lives. As we read of Him day by day, slowly His words and ways will become ours. The men who lived with Jesus in the flesh are our pattern in this; for the wonder of the inspired record means that His realness comes through to us too. Time and again, their spoken and written words are reflective of His words, both consciously and unconsciously.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained</em>-</p><p> We are called for sure, therefore we were predestinated for sure, and therefore we personally were foreknown. To the Jewish mind, it was the prophets and Messiah who were personally foreknown. And Paul uses this shockingly exalted language about each of us, reasoning back from the basis that we know we have been called. His logical path is irresistible, at least intellectually. But in practice it amounts to an almost too good news. We were predestinated to be saved, to be part of God’s eternal purpose, a plan for us which shall last for ever. It would require a battle of wills against God, a conscious, wilful desire&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to be in that purpose any more, to make us no longer a part of that purpose. No wonder we should strive to spread the invitations to that Kingdom far and wide, to call people to the Kingdom. We who have heard and accepted that call are even now part of a plan, a purpose, which shall last eternally- this is the significance of God’s purpose with us being an “eternal purpose” (<em><a href='B:560 3:11'>Eph 3:11</a></em>). This may explain why often we feel that God is indeed working with us, that we are part of some far bigger cosmic plan, but we’re not sure exactly where it’s going to end. All we can do is to play our part in that purpose as enthusiastically as possible, knowing that we are playing a part in some unseen purpose, which shall have eternal consequences. Why was the train cancelled, the airport closed by snow? So that for those who wish to be part of God’s purpose, who “love God”, we had time to make a phone call to brother X or pay a visit to sister Y or stay the night with family Z, so that we might play some part in encouraging them towards God’s Kingdom? We cannot see it clearly, but we sense something of God in these things, even in death itself. The situation gets the more complex, the waters muddied, in that both we and others can at times and in some ways not respond as God intends, or not as far as He intended. And so the eternal purpose is in a sense thwarted, God’s intentions delayed or forced by human failure to be rescheduled, reinterpreted, fulfilled in other ways or at other times. But all the same, we continue to play our part as best we can, as far as we can, loving God with our whole heart, soul and mind, not on a hobbyist, part-time level; and so we shall eternally continue.</p><p><em>To be conformed to the image of His Son</em>-</p><p> This is parallel to our being fully born into the family of God, of which the Lord Jesus is the firstborn. Whilst the process of being formed after the image of Christ is ongoing in this life, it will come to full term only at our final birth of the Spirit when we enter God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>). The Greek for “conformed” is used only in one other place, in <em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>, where we read that at Christ’s return, our vile body shall be “fashioned like unto” s:w. ‘conformed’ the now glorious body of Christ. The conforming is therefore referring to our final change of nature at Christ’s return, even though the conforming process begins in this life (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>). The end point, therefore, isn’t so much eternal life, but to be like Christ, the Son of God. Paul has been arguing that we are counted as Christ now, His character, personality and spirit are counted to us. But finally we shall be changed into persons like unto Christ Himself. But the form of Jesus to which we shall be con-formed in that day is the “form” which He had on earth- for <em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em> speaks of the Lord Jesus as having “the form of God” at the time of His final spiritual climax in the death of the cross. This&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;or “form” refers not to His ‘very nature’, as Trinitarians wilfully misinterpret this passage, but rather to the image of God mentally. Who Jesus was in His time of dying was in fact “God”; not that He ‘was God’ then, but in that His character and spirit finally matured to an exact replica of who God is in essence. And this is who or what we are counted as today- for all in Christ are counted as Him. And this is who we shall be conformed to in the final triumph at the day of His coming. Our calling is to be like Him; not simply to have eternal life in God’s Kingdom. More essentially, the call of the Gospel is a call to be like Him in this life, and to then be finally made like Him. The parables which explain the good news of the Kingdom therefore speak of how life can be lived now, in forgiveness, service, kindness etc. This is the good news of the Kingdom life; the good news isn’t simply an invitation to live eternally in a future Kingdom on earth; rather is it the good news of a form of life that can be lived now and shall eternally be lived to its intended fullness. When Paul writes of our being transformed into “the image of Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:49'>1Co 15:49</a></em>) he seems to have in mind <em><a href='B:330 1:28'>Eze 1:28</a></em> LXX: “The appearance of the image of the glory of the Lord”. “The glory” in Ezekiel is personified-&nbsp; it refers to a person, and I submit that person was a prophetic image of Jesus Christ. But Paul’s big point is that we&nbsp;<em>each&nbsp;</em>with unveiled face have beheld the Lord’s glory (<em><a href='B:540 3:16'>2Co 3:16</a></em> to <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>); just as he did on the Damascus road, and just as Ezekiel did. It follows, therefore, that not only is Paul our example, but our beholding of the Lord’s glory propels us on our personal commission in the Lord’s service, whatever it may be:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:510 9:3'>Act 9:3</a></em>. Martial described a crucifixion victim in&nbsp;<em>Liber Spectaculorum</em>: “In all his body was nowhere a body’s shape". We are to be “conformed to the image of God’s son" (<em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em>)- to share His&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>, which was so marred beyond recognition that men turned away in disgust (<em><a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>). The mind that was in Him then must be in us now (<em><a href='B:570 2:5'>Phi 2:5</a></em>).</p><p><em>That He might be the firstborn among many other children</em>-</p><p> Because we shall be made like Him morally, we will have the essential family characteristic: moral perfection. We will thereby become God’s children also, as He was and is. We shall become His “brothers” in that we have been counted as Him now, and then shall be made like Him. So the language isn’t thoughtlessly sexist, rather is it reflective of how we shall be made like Him. Through the resurrection, Christ became “the firstborn of all creation” (<em><a href='B:580 1:15'>Col 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:18'>Col 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a></em>); the same Greek phrase for “all creation” is to be found in <em><a href='B:520 8:22'>Rom 8:22</a></em>. The idea may be that ultimately all creation somehow will follow this same path to glory, to ultimate reconciliation with God. And yet <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em> uses the same phrase in this context to speak of how the Gospel has been preached to “all creation”, in fulfilment of the great commission to take the Gospel to “all creation” (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em> same phrase). “Firstborn among many brothers” here in <em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em> therefore becomes parallel to being the firstborn of “all creation” in Colossians 1. In the end, “all creation” will be God’s redeemed children. And we will only be there because someone went out into our world and preached the Gospel to the “all creation”. In this lies the eternal significance of calling others to that Kingdom by obeying the great commission.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:30'>Rom 8:30</a></em>&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;whom He foreordained, those He also called, and whom He called, these He also justified, and who He justified, these He also glorified-&nbsp;</em>This is partially a recapitulation of the argument of <em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em>; a repeating for emphasis of something which is almost too good news to believe. We were called because we were predestinated; and Paul has earlier outlined in his argument that we who are in Christ have been “justified”, declared right, at the judgment seat of God. We haven’t yet been glorified, in that our bodies haven’t yet been changed, the final day of judgment hasn’t yet come. But Paul uses the past tense as if it has already happened. This ‘prophetic perfect’ was a Hebrew style which was quite grammatically acceptable, even if it may seem strange when translated into other languages such as Greek or English. Paul’s point is that if we are in Christ, declared right before God’s judgment right now, then we can be assured of final salvation, the glorification of the body- should Christ return at this moment, or if we should die at this moment. For tomorrow of course we might throw it all away. But we are not to worry about tomorrow in that sense; we can rejoice here and now that we are saved and are as good as ultimately saved and in the Kingdom. We have already been predestinated, already called, already justified- and therefore in prospect, already glorified. Yet again, Paul succeeds in making us gasp for breath, struggling as we do with the too good news of the Gospel. It is the Lord Jesus who has now been “glorified” (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em>); and seeing that all that is true of Him is now true of us who by status are now “in Him”, it can be also said that we have been in this sense already glorified. Perhaps the practical section of Romans connects to this verse when we read in <em><a href='B:520 15:6'>Rom 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:9'>Rom 15:9</a></em> that the Gentiles shall glorify God for His mercy; because He has glorified us, we are to glorify Him.</p><p>“Also glorified” is true from God’s standpoint, outside of our kind of time. For that glory has yet to be revealed in us (<em><a href='B:670 5:1'>1Pe 5:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What then shall we say to these things?–&nbsp;</em>Paul returns to the rhetorical, legal style which he used earlier in Romans. The phrase could be an allusion to a legal one; as if to say to the accused or to the jury: ‘What then do you say to these things?’. We are invited to be the jury at our own trial. The evidence that we shall be saved is devastating; nothing can be said against it. Or it could be that Paul is in the place of the defence, going on the attack against the prosecutor. What can be argued against all this evidence? And there would have to be silence. The case is set in concrete. The arguments simply cannot be answered. Paul has previously thrown down the challenge after some of his previous depositions of evidence in this very public case of God’s Gracious, Certain Salvation vs. All Human Doubts And Fears. Four times he has challenged: What then shall we say to this (<em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:1'>Rom 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:1'>Rom 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:7'>Rom 7:7</a></em>)? And there can only be silence. But Paul’s rhetorical style is almost aggressive; he is the counsel for the defence who is on the offensive rather than the apologetic and defensive. But it seems Paul isn’t satisfied with winning the case. He drives it home now in the final verses of this chapter in a kind of&nbsp;<em>tour de triumph,&nbsp;</em>a victory lap before all of creation. He is exalting, both intellectually and emotionally, in God’s grace and the certainty of our salvation. But he’s not exalting just for the sake of it; he is aware of his own cries of frustration with his own failure which he voiced in Romans 7, and he is aware of how cautious and weak in faith are we his readers, who struggle to believe the goodness of this good news, this Gospel of grace. And so he has to hammer it home. "What shall we then say to these things?"- i:e. 'what form of words, of 'saying', is adequate response to them?' (<em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em>; Paul uses that phrase seven times in Romans, so beyond words did he find the atonement wrought in Christ). Words aren't symbols sufficient for our experience of God's grace and love; all commentary is bathos, like trying to explain a symphony in words; we experience a collapse of language. What remains, I suppose, is to live, to exist, in the sober knowledge of this grace, to never lose sight of them in our hearts; and all the rest, the rest of life and living and all the decisions and responses we are supposed to make, will somehow come naturally.</p><p><em>If God is for us, who can be against us?</em>-</p><p> The songs of the suffering Servant are applied to us in <em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em>, where Paul exalts that "if God be for us, who is against us?"- alluding to <em><a href='B:290 50:8'>Isa 50:8</a></em> "The Lord God is helping me- who is he that would convict me?". If we are in Christ, we like Him cannot be condemned. In the legal context, if the judge of all is legally “for us”, then there effectively is no accuser, nothing and nobody standing against us. It’s as if Paul has rightly guessed his readers’ response: ‘OK Paul, I have nothing to say against your argument, but all the same you don’t know what a sinner I am, what a line of sins I have waiting there to condemn me’. And Paul’s exultant answer is that if God is “for us”- and he has demonstrated this time and again, that God quite simply wants to save us- then nothing and nobody, not even our own sins, can ultimately stand against us. The idea of God being “for us” is repeated twice elsewhere in Romans. In <em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em> we read that God commended His love toward us in that Christ, His Son, died “for us”. This is the extent to which God is “for us”. And in <em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>, Christ makes intercession “for us” to God the judge; and yet God the judge is also “for us”. All this legal language is only metaphor, and all metaphors break down at some point if pushed too far. If in this case we push it too far, we would end up saying that God is somehow unjust, His sense of legal justice lacks integrity and so is worthless in an ethical, moral sense. However, the broad brush impression is that in the highest, ultimate court analysis of our case, both the judge and the counsel for the defence are passionately “for us” on a personal level. In God’s case, He was “for us” to the extent of giving His Son to die “for us”, for the sake of our sins and failures for which we are in the dock. <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em> uses the same phrase to describe how the Mosaic Law which was “against us” has been taken out of the way through Christ’s death; and Paul has argued that the strength of sin is in the Law. If that is taken away, then sin will not have power in the lives of those who are “in Christ”, in whom such law and legality is now no more. As an aside, it should be noted that when the Lord told John to “Forbid not; for he that is not against us is for us” (<em><a href='B:490 9:50'>Luk 9:50</a></em> Gk:), He could have been referring to God; as if to say that we don’t need to as it were defend Him against possible impostors, because&nbsp;God Himself is the One who is not against us but for us. In this case, here in <em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em> we would have yet another of Paul’s allusions to the Gospels; his point would be that if God is for us and not against us, then nothing at all nor anybody, not even ourselves and our sins, can be against us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that spared not His own son</em>-</p><p> Perhaps alluding to how God commended Abraham for not having spared his son (<em><a href='B:10 22:16'>Gen 22:16</a></em>). As noted on <em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em>, God our judge is “for us” in that He gave His own Son to die “for us”, for our sins. The idea of God not sparing people is usually used in the sense of ‘not sparing them from condemnation’, and it is used like this twice elsewhere in Romans (<em><a href='B:520 11:21'>Rom 11:21</a></em> twice; <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:4-5'>2Pe 2:4-5</a></em>). The Lord Jesus bore our sins in that He identified with them; and the Old Testament idea of sin bearing meant to bear condemnation for sin. As the representative of we who are sinners, He in some sense died the death of a condemned man; His final cry “Why have You forsaken me?” (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>) was surely rooted in the Old Testament theme that God will forsake sinners but never forsake the righteous. He felt&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;a sinner, although He was not one. The language of God not sparing His own Son could be read as meaning that God treated Him as condemned, in the sense that the Lord Jesus was to such an extent our representative. If this is the correct line of interpretation, then Paul would again be tackling our objection that we are such awful sinners that perhaps his fantastic news of grace still doesn’t apply to us personally. And he would be answering it by saying that because we are in Christ and Christ in us, Christ died as our representative, deeply identifying with us as characters and persons and thereby with the sinfulness and failure which is such a significant part of us. And therefore as our representative He died and rose again, so that we might be able to believe ‘into Him’ and thereby share in His resurrection and glorification.</p><p>God ‘spared not’ His own son is alluding to the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 22:16'>Gen 22:16</a></em>, where Abraham spares not his son. The Greek phrase is elsewhere used about God not sparing people when He assigns them to condemnation (<em><a href='B:520 11:21'>Rom 11:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:4-5'>2Pe 2:4-5</a></em>). The Lord Jesus knows how not only sinners feel but how the rejected will feel- for He ‘bore condemnation’ in this sense. We should be condemned. But He as our representative was condemned, although not personally guilty. He so empathized with us through the experience of the cross that He came to&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;like a sinner, although He was not one. And thus He has freed us from condemnation. When Paul asks in <em><a href='B:520 8:33-34'>Rom 8:33-34</a></em> ‘Who can accuse us? Where are those people? Who can condemn us, if God justifies us?’, he is alluding to the woman taken in adultery. For the Lord asked the very same rhetorical questions on that occasion. Paul’s point is that we each one are that woman. We are under accusations which we can’t refute. The Lord never denied her guilt; but He took it away. The Lord comforted her that no&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;has condemned her nor can condemn her, and He who alone could do so, instead pronounces her free from condemnation.</p><p><em>But delivered Him up for us all</em>-</p><p> The Greek is three times used in Isaiah 53 LXX about the handing over to Jesus to His death. The moment of the Lord being delivered over by Pilate is so emphasized. There are few details in the record which are recorded verbatim by all the writers (<em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:15'>Mar 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:25'>Luk 23:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:16'>Joh 19:16</a></em>). The Lord had prophesied this moment of handing over, as if this was something which He dreaded (<em><a href='B:480 9:31'>Mar 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:33'>Mar 10:33</a></em>); that point when He was outside the legal process, and must now face His destruction. The Angels reminded the disciples: "Remember&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men" (<em><a href='B:490 24:6-7'>Luk 24:6-7</a></em>). The emphasis is on "<em>How</em>", with what passion and emphasis. <em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em> makes this moment of handing over equivalent to His actual death: " Who was<em>&nbsp;delivered</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) for our offences, and raised again for our justification". So much stress is put on this moment of being delivered over to crucifixion. The Gospel records stress that Pilate delivered Him up; but in fact God did (<em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>); indeed, the Lord delivered Himself up (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:25'>Eph 5:25</a></em>). Always the same word is used. These passages also stress that He delivered Himself up, and was delivered up,&nbsp;<em>for us</em>. It was&nbsp;<em>our salvation</em>&nbsp;which motivated Him at the moment of being delivered up. Perhaps it was at that moment that He had the greatest temptation to walk through the midst of them and back to Galilee. As the crowd surged forward and cheered, knowing they'd won the battle of wills with Pilate..."take ye him and crucify him" ringing in His mind... this was it. This was the end. How He must have been tempted to pray again His prayer: "Let this cup pass from me...". Jerusalem was a small town by modern standards, with no more than 10,000 inhabitants. There must have been faces in that crowd which, through swollen eyes, He recognized; some whose children had benefited from His miracles, whose ears had heard His discourses with wonderment. The emphasis on this moment of delivering up is so great that there must have been an especial sacrifice on the Lord's part. But He "gave himself up" to&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;not men (<em><a href='B:670 2:23'>1Pe 2:23</a></em>); He knew He was giving Himself as an offering to&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;as the crowd came forward and the soldiers once again led Him. The almost terrifying thing is that&nbsp;<em>we,</em>&nbsp;for the sake of our identity with Christ, are also "delivered up to death" (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>). We are asked to share, in principle, the height of devotion that He reached in that moment.</p><p><em>How shall He not also with Him freely give us all things</em>-</p><p> If so much was given to us by the death of Christ, if God gave His Son for us, then how much ‘easier’ is it for Him to give us absolutely anything. For nothing compares to the gift of God’s Son to die; this is the ultimate gift from God to man. To give us eternity and forgiveness for our sins is in far less than the gift of the blood of His Son. And further, if God gave us His Son in order to save us, in order to “give us all things”- is it really feasible that having given us His Son&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;He might “give us all things”, He would then&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;“give us all things”? Again, Paul’s logic is intrusive and powerful. We may shut the book, stop reading or listening, but the force of the argument silently echoes within our narrow and fearful minds. God did “not spare” His Son- by contrast, He “freely gave” Him Gk. ‘to grace with’, His Son was indeed “all things” to God, His only and beloved Son. Seeing God gave us Him, it’s obvious that He is going to give us the things which that gift was given in order to make possible. “Shall He not with Him also” could be a reference to the resurrection- if God gave us so much in the&nbsp;<em>death&nbsp;</em>of His Son, think how much more was achieved and given to us through His resurrection. “With him” could be read another way, however- as referring to how Christ will meet the believers “in the air”, and they shall come “with him” to judgment (<em><a href='B:590 4:14'>1Th 4:14</a></em>), with Him their judge clearly “for them”. However we must remember Paul is driving here at our fears that our sins are too great for the good news, however good it is, to be true for us personally. The Greek translated “freely give” is a form of the word&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, grace, and is often translated “forgive”. It’s the same word used in <em><a href='B:490 7:42'>Luk 7:42</a></em>, where God ‘frankly forgives’ all the sins / debts of His servants. Perhaps Paul has this in mind. If God gave up His Son to die for us, in order to achieve forgiveness for our sins, then rather obviously, surely, He will “frankly forgive” or “freely give” us forgiveness for all things, all and any sin. We shouldn’t think that this is somehow harder for God than to give us His Son to die for our sins. He has already done that. And so giving us the forgiveness which Christ died to attain isn’t therefore so difficult. If we are in Christ, then God has “quickened us together with Him, having forgiven us s:w. “freely give” in <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em> all trespasses”. The “all things” of <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em> can thus be understood as “all our trespasses”. And so Paul goes on to triumph in <em><a href='B:520 8:37'>Rom 8:37</a></em> that we are conquerors in “all things”, over all our sins, because we are in Him that loved us.</p>


