# commentaries

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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one</em>- The “none righteous” connects with the fact that the Gospel is for both Jew and Gentile (:9). The Jews were not “the righteous”, as Judaism loved to claim, because there is no single righteous person except the Lord Jesus. ‘Righteousness’ is a major concept in Judaism. “The righteous” is a term often used about faithful Jews. But Paul is saying that not one of them is righteous. All stand in need therefore of God’s imputed righteousness, which is given by faith in the Lord Jesus and location within Him. The source passage of the quotation in <em><a href='B:230 14:1-3'>Psa 14:1-3</a></em> is saying that from God’s viewpoint, He sees none righteous- even though Judaism declared their saints “righteous”, this was not God’s judgment. We note that Paul is quoting rather freely from the Septuagint; quotation and interpretation are so often combined in Paul, as was the custom of the rabbis. The context of Psalms 14 appears to be of thanksgiving for salvation by grace, a salvation that was not deserved, seeing all men are sinners. And this of course is exactly Paul’s context.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For all have sinned</em>- the context suggests that the enormity of our condemned position before God should mean that we do not uphold any human distinctions between us, e:g. on ethnic grounds. Perceiving the enormity of our sin, how we are all in this together, and the wonder of God’s saving grace, ought to be the most powerful inspiration to unity known to humanity. The “all” who have sinned could refer to ‘all believers in Christ’ which is the subject of the preceding verse <em><a href='B:520 3:22'>Rom 3:22</a></em>; and <em><a href='B:520 3:24'>Rom 3:24</a></em> suggests that this same “all” are those who are justified freely by His grace.</p><h4><em>And all fall short of the glory of God</em>- We have all already sinned aorist past tense and we do now present tense fall short of God’s glory, i:e. the complete perfection, the glory of God which was seen in the person of His Son (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). God declared His glory to Moses in terms of His character (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a></em>). We fall short of that perfection of the Father’s character which was revealed in its fullness in His Son. <em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em> uses the same Greek word for “come / fall short” in warning lest any man “fail / fall short of the grace of God”. We come far short of God’s glory, but we are not to fall short of His grace whereby the righteousness of His Son, His glory, is counted to us and we are thereby declared right with Him. Jewish writings such as the Apocalypse of Moses 20:2 and 21:6 claimed that Adam “came short of the glory of God” by his sin in Eden; Paul is clearly alluding to this and is saying that Adam is everyman, we each are as Adam in Eden, with the tidal wave of realization breaking upon us as to the seriousness and eternal consequence of our so easily committed sin. It must be remembered that the Jewish writings frequently paralleled Adam with Israel N:T. Wright,&nbsp;<em>The Climax of the Covenant&nbsp;</em>(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) pp. 18-40 for documentation. But Paul is arguing that Adam is every single human being, not just Israel:&nbsp; For Adam was created well before Israel, and all humanity are his offspring, not just Israel. The universal experience of sinfulness therefore leads to the offer of God’s grace to all types of human being, not just Israel; and there will be an ensuing unity between those who believe in this grace, regardless of their ethnic background.</h4><p>The Bible itself continually reflects a distinction in the mind of God between the person and the behaviour, the sin and the sinner. When we allow ourselves to be offended and to offend others, we have ceased to make that differentiation. We so easily equate the person and their behaviour, and thus they offend us. Consider how we are in the habit of saying: “We’re all sinners”. You may think I’m being pedantic, but <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em> says otherwise- that “all have sinned”. And there’s a slight and subtle difference. We have committed sin, and therefore we can be called sinners. But the Biblical focus is on the action committed rather than the branding of the person with a label.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:2'>Rom 4:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If Abraham was justified by works</em>- As the Jews said he was. Jubilees 23:10: “Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well pleasing in righteousness”. Indeed some of the Jewish writings claimed Abraham never sinned:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He has something to boast about</em>- Alluding to <em>Sir_44:19</em>, which says about Abraham in the context of his good works: “None has been found like him in glory”. This allusion to and deconstruction of other writings is something which Paul does quite often- and probably even more frequently, if we had access to more first century texts from which to perceive his allusions. Significantly, Sirach is in the Apocrypha, but Paul evidently disagrees with the book and shows it teaches wrongly about Abraham. This would possibly confirm the Protestant tradition of rejecting the Apocryphal books as inspired, although the recorded words of men in the canonical books are also of course quoted and deconstructed. But the quotation from Sirach is from the actual words of Ben Sira, which are claimed to be directly inspired.</p><h4><em>But not before God</em>- Before the judgment throne of God, of which Paul has been speaking in chapter 3, especially <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>. He demonstrated there that all humanity, Abraham included,&nbsp; stand shamed and speechless before God. The idea that Abraham was sinless is therefore disputed strongly by Paul. The Greek phrase “before God” occurs several times in Romans. Because we are justified by faith, we have peace “before God” AV “with God”, <em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>. The practical section of Romans brings out what we ought to do, therefore, with that position- Paul prayed for Israel “before God” (AV “to God”, <em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em>), and he urges the believers to likewise pray “before God” (AV “to God”, <em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>). If we are justified, declared right before God by grace, then as we stand there in His presence with His gracious acceptance, we ought to from that place beg His mercy for others. This is the practical outcome of the courtroom parable. We stand there accepted, with the judge lovingly smiling at us in gracious acceptance, with nothing now laid to our charge, declared right with God; and what should we then do? We who have peace before God should whilst before God, beg Him for mercy upon others. Job is really a working model for us in all this. He said the&nbsp;<em>wrong</em>&nbsp;things about God, as Elihu points out on God’s behalf; and yet before God’s awesome throne he was declared right, as if he had spoken what was right; and then he prays for his friends.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the promise to Abraham and his seed</em>- The Greek really means an announcement. It’s not a vague possibility, the ‘promises’ to Abraham were an announcement that he would inherit the Kingdom. The promise Paul refers to was given to Abraham because of,&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, on account of, his being declared right with God by faith in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>. Perhaps Paul specifically has in mind the promise of <em><a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a></em>. Having been declared right with God, Abraham was then promised that he personally would be heir of the world- the implications of being right with God, counted righteous, were thereby fleshed out and given some more tangible, material, concrete form. He would therefore live for ever, because he was right with God; and the arena of that eternity would be “the world”.</h4><p><em>That he should be heir of the world, did not come through the law- but through the righteousness of faith</em>- Abraham was only explicitly promised the land of Canaan, not the entire planet. Perhaps Paul is interpreting the promises that his seed would comprise “many nations” and that he would bring blessing on “all the peoples of the earth” (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em> etc:). In this sense, they would become his, and he would thereby inherit them. Thus <em><a href='B:290 55:3-5'>Isa 55:3-5</a></em> likewise implies that Abraham’s promised inheritance was therefore not only the land of Canaan but by implication, the whole planet.</p><p>God promised Abraham a very specific inheritance in Canaan. And yet this promise seems to be interpreted in later Scripture as referring to the&nbsp;<em>world-wide</em>&nbsp;Kingdom which will be established at the second coming (e:g. <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> speaks of how Abraham was promised that he would inherit the world; Psalms 72 and other familiar prophecies speak of a world-wide Messianic Kingdom, based on the promises to Abraham). One possible explanation is found in Psalms 2, where the Father seems to encourage the Son to ask of Him "the&nbsp;<em>heathen</em>&nbsp;i:e:, not just the Jews for thine inheritance, and the&nbsp;<em>uttermost parts of the earth</em>&nbsp;not just the land of promise for thy possession" (<em><a href='B:230 2:8'>Psa 2:8</a></em>). Could it be that due to the Lord's spiritual ambition, the inheritance was extended from the Jewish people to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;nations, and from literal Canaan to all the earth? This is not to say, of course, that&nbsp;<em>fundamentally</em>&nbsp;the promises to Abraham have been changed. No. The promise of eternal inheritance of Canaan still stands as the basis of the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>), but that promise has been considerably extended, thanks to the Lord's spiritual ambition:&nbsp;<br/>Abraham believed God in Genesis 15, but the works of Genesis 22 offering Isaac made that faith “perfect”. Through his correct response to the early promises given him, Abraham was imputed “the righteousness of faith”. But&nbsp;<em>on account of</em>&nbsp;that faith inspired by the earlier promises, he was given “the promises that he should be heir of the world” (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>). That promise in turn inspired yet more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel preached to Abraham in the promises leads men “from faith to faith”, up the upward spiral (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>).<br/>Through his correct response to the early promises given him, Abraham was imputed “the righteousness of faith”. But&nbsp;<em>on account of</em>&nbsp;that faith inspired by the earlier promises, he was given “the promise that he should be heir of the world” (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>). That promise in turn inspired yet more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel preached to Abraham in the promises leads men “from faith to faith”, up the upward spiral (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>).</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And without being weakened in faith</em>- s:w. “impotent”, <em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em>; the word is usually used with the sense of sickness or weak health. Abraham was physically impotent, perhaps even seriously ill and weak at the time the promise was given- but not impotent or weak in faith. The idea of the Greek is that Abraham didn’t weaken in faith as he observed / considered his body. We showed in our introductory comments that the theological first half of Romans has many connections with the practical second half. Thus we meet this very same phrase “weak in faith” in <em><a href='B:520 14:1-2'>Rom 14:1-2</a></em> - where we are told to accept those who are “weak in faith”. This connection would seem to be a tacit admission that not all in the ecclesia are going to rise up to the faith of Abraham, even though he is to be the father of us all, in that we share that same family characteristic of faith. Thus on one hand Paul sets Abraham before us as a vital, crucial pattern- not an option, a nice idea, but a role model whose faith must be followed, in whose faithful steps we are to walk. And yet he accepts that not all in Christ will rise up to his level of faith- and we are to accept them. The same word for “weak” is used in <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> - whilst we were weak AV “without strength”, Christ died for us. We therefore are to accept the weak, even as Christ died for us in our weakness. We share something of His cross in accepting those who are spiritually weaker than ourselves. Yet so many refuse to carry His cross in this matter, because their own pride stops them accepting those weaker in the faith than themselves.</p><p><em>When he considered his own body, now as good as dead (he being about one hundred years old)-&nbsp;</em>He didn't fix his mind upon (Gk:) the fact his body was dead&nbsp;(i:e. impotent) and unable to produce seed (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>). He wasn't obsessed with his state, yet he lived a life of faith that ultimately God's Kingdom would come, he rejoiced at the contemplation of Christ his Lord; and he filled his life with practical&nbsp;service. He wasn't obsessed with the fact that in his marital position he personally couldn't have children when it seemed this was what God wanted him to do; and this was very pleasing to God. &nbsp; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em> says he was 99, so he was in his 100th year.</p><p><em>And the deadness of Sarah’s womb</em>- So often we allow the apparent weakness of others to become a barrier to our faith. ‘She’ll never change… she just isn’t capable of that’. But Abraham not only believed that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;could do it, but that the apparent obstacle of another’s weakness was also surmountable by the word of promise.</p><h4>There are some implied gaps within the record in <em><a href='B:10 15:5-6'>Gen 15:5-6</a></em>: God brings Abraham outside, and asks him to number the stars gap; then He tells Abraham "So shall thy seed be" gap; and then, maybe 10 seconds or 10 hours afterwards, "Abraham believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness". Those 10 seconds or 10 hours or whatever the period was, are summarized by Paul as how Abraham "in hope believed against hope" (<em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em>). His no-hope struggled against his hope / faith, but in the end his faith in God's word of promise won out. "According to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be" implies to me that he kept reflecting on those words: "So shall thy seed be" (three words in Hebrew,&nbsp;<em>ko zehrah hawya</em>). And we too can too easily say that we believe the Bible is God's word, without realizing that to just believe three inspired words can be enough to radically change our lives and lead us to eternity. I'm not sure that Abraham's ultimate belief of those three words&nbsp;<em>ko zehrah hawya</em>&nbsp;just took a few seconds. According to Paul, he "considered::. his body"- he reflected on the fact he was impotent (see Gk. and RV):&nbsp;<em>Katanoeo</em>, "consider", means to "observe fully" (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>). He took full account of his impotent state, knowing it as only a man can know it about himself. And he likewise considered fully the deadness of his elderly wife's womb, recalling how her menstruation had stopped years ago::. but all that deeply personal self-knowledge didn't weaken his faith; he didn't "waver", but in fact- the very opposite occurred. He "waxed strong through faith::. being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform". As he considered his own physical weakness, and that of his wife, his faith "waxed" stronger (RV), he went through a process of becoming "fully assured", his faith was progressively built up ("waxed strong" is in the passive voice)::. leading up to the moment of total faith that so thrilled the heart of God. And so it can happen with us- the very obstacles to faith, impotence in Abraham's case, are what actually leads to faith getting into that upward spiral that leads towards total certainty. Abraham's physical impotence did not make him "weak" s:w. translated "impotent" in <em><a href='B:500 5:3'>Joh 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em> in faith- it all worked out the opposite. For his physical impotence made him not-impotent in faith; the very height of the challenge led him to conclude that God would be true to His word, and he would indeed have a child. For when we are "weak" s:w. "impotent", then we are strong (<em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>). Thus the internal struggle of Abraham's mind led his faith to develop in those seconds or minutes or hours as he reflected upon the words "So shall your seed be". He "staggered not at the promise" (<em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>), he didn't separate himself away from (Gk:) those three Hebrew words translated "So shall your seed be", he didn't let his mind balk at them::. and therefore and thereby he was made strong in faith ("waxed strong in faith" <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em> RV). This process of his faith strengthening is picked up in the next verse: Abraham was "fully persuaded that what God had promised, he was able also to perform" (<em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>). There was a process of internal persuasion going on- leading to the moment of faith, which so thrilled God and was imputed to Abraham for righteousness. And of course Paul drives the point home- that we are to have the faith of Abraham. As he believed that life could come out of his dead body ("dead" in <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>, with a passive participle, implies 'slain'), so&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are to believe in the resurrection of the slain body of the Lord Jesus, and the real power of His new life to transform our dead lives (<em><a href='B:520 4:23-24'>Rom 4:23-24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> puts it another way in saying that if we share the faith of Abraham at that time, we will receive "the promise of the spirit through faith", the enlivening of our sterile lives. And this takes quite some faith for us to take seriously on board; for as Abraham carefully considered the impotence of his physical body, so we can get a grim picture of the deadness of our fleshly lives. These ideas help us understand more clearly why the Lord chose to be baptized. He understood baptism as a symbol of his death (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). <em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em> likewise makes the connection between baptism and crucifixion. The Lord knew that He would be crucified, and yet He lived out the essence of it in His own baptism.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:520 5:2'>Rom 5:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Through whom also we have had our access</em>&nbsp;<em>by faith into this grace wherein we stand</em>- may be continuing the judgment image of chapters 3 and 4, in which we are left standing in the dock before the judgment of God, and by grace are declared right when in fact we are sinners. And we stand there before God’s judgment, very much in grace. The language of ‘access into’ suggests that “this grace” is a situation, a ‘place’, a status, in which we are now permanently located. “Access into… wherein we stand” is a phrase used in classical Greek about entering a royal presence (Moo,&nbsp;<em>op cit:&nbsp;</em>p. 300 gives examples). So the idea is very much of our standing in the august judgment presence of God acceptable by status. This point needs to be more than intellectually noted; it must be our real and felt experience that we are not one moment in an acceptable status with God, and then next we slip out of it- through inattention, insensitivity, or downright selfish rebellion on our part. We are in a relationship, married as it were to Him, bearing His Name, and thereby in a permanent status. Perhaps we can be so foolish as to leave that status, but we certainly don’t drift in and out of it insofar as we sin or avoid sinning in the course of daily life. The very nature of the “grace” status which we are in means that we are declared right, OK with God, in spite or and even in the face of our sins:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>By faith into this grace wherein we stand and in which we rejoice-</em>&nbsp;Standing before God justified means that in the judgment day to come at the Lord’s return to earth, we will be accepted and given eternal life in God’s Kingdom. We are to rejoice (Gk. ‘boast’) in that hope quite naturally- for Paul doesn’t exhort us to rejoice in the hope, he simply states that given our position of grace, we, naturally, rejoice in hope. If we cannot say “Yes” to the question “Will you be accepted before the judgment seat of Christ?”, then I fail to see that we can rejoice in hope. To rejoice in hope means that we have accepted God’s judgment of us now- and His judgment is that we are acceptable to Him, that even now, “it’s all OK”. If we are to boast in this hope- and the Greek translated “rejoice” definitely means that- this would imply that we can’t keep quiet about such good news. We simply have to share it with others:&nbsp;</p><p><em>In hope of the glory of God</em>- Our hope to participate in this glory, which is associated in <em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em> with the future Kingdom of God on earth, connects with what Paul has earlier reasoned in <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em> - that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. We who have been declared right can now rejoice in the prospect of participating in that glory, that glorious eternal future, which we fell short of by our sins. We commented under <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em> that Paul is referring to writings such as the Apocalypse of Moses, which claimed that Adam had fallen short of God’s glory in Eden, but the hope of the Messianic age would be Adam’s restoration to the glory intended in Eden (Apoc. Moses 39:2-3). Adam is everyman- a theme now to be developed specifically here in Romans 5:&nbsp;</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the anger of God through him</em>- If He died for us whilst we were unborn and before we had repented of our sins; if right now we are counted right before God’s judgment seat; then we can confidently expect to being saved from “the wrath” (Gk:), the condemnation at the last day. Note how <em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em> spoke of justification by our faith; here, by “His blood”. His blood shed for us only becomes powerful and of any value&nbsp;<em>if we believe</em>. It’s a tragedy that His sacrifice for us goes wasted unless we and others believe. “Much more then” seems to be rejoicing in playing some kind of logical game of extension, which continues in <em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>.</p><h4>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.</h4><p>We are justified by many things, all of which are in some way parallel with each other: the blood of Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>), grace and the redemption which there is in His blood (<em><a href='B:520 3:24'>Rom 3:24</a></em>), our faith in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>), the name of the Lord Jesus, the spirit of our God (<em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>), by our confession of sin (<em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em>). All these things revolve around the death of the Lord Jesus, the shedding of His blood. This becomes parallel with the name of Jesus, “Christ"- because the cross presents us with the very essence of the person of the Lord Jesus. But it is also parallel with the spirit or mind / essence of God. Because in that naked, bleeding, derided body and person, in that shed blood, there was the essence of all that God was to us, is to us, and ever shall be for us. It was the cross above all which revealed to us the essence of God Almighty. And it is the cross, the blood of Jesus, which elicits in us the confession of sin which is vital for our justification.<br/>The idea of a Saviour dying for us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>) and God’s wrath being turned away by His blood is all very much the language of “noble death” found in the stories of the Maccabees, which Paul had been brought up on. The idea was that the Jewish martyrs in their struggle against the occupying power had shed their blood “to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty” against Israel (<em>2Ma_7:37-38</em>); and thereby reconciled God with His people. But Paul is deconstructing these ideas, fiercely popular as they were amongst first century Jews. Paul’s point is that the wrath of God is against all human sin, and that the Lord Jesus through His willing death, rather than the Jewish heroes through their death in battle, had brought about reconciliation and the turning away of God’s wrath. Note in passing how the Maccabees spoke of their martyrs having reconciled God, whereas Paul’s emphasis is upon how God has reconciled&nbsp;<em>us</em>- the change was not of God but of His people.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, for that all sinned</em>– This opening word “so” carries much meaning. It is picked up again in <em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em>, the intervening verses being in parenthesis. It almost seems that Adam sinned in order that God’s grace might be the more powerfully revealed.</p><p>In the New Testament we find Paul writing, as a Jew, to both Jews and Gentiles who had converted to Christ, and yet were phased by the huge amount of apostate Jewish literature and ideas which was then floating around. For example, the book of Romans is full of allusions to the "Wisdom of Solomon", alluding and quoting from it, and showing what was right and what was wrong in it. <em>Wis_2:24</em> claimed: "Through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it". And Paul alludes to this, and corrects it, by saying in <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>: ""By one man Adam- not 'the devil' sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This is one of many such examples. Jude does the same thing, quoting and alluding to the apostate Book of Enoch, correcting the wrong ideas, and at times quoting the ideas back against those who used them.</p><p>In the same way as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, Israel at the time of Achan (<em><a href='B:60 7:1'>Jos 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a></em>) etc. were reckoned as guilty but were not personally responsible for the sins of others, so the Lord Jesus was reckoned as a sinner on the cross; He was made sin for us, who knew no sin personally (<em><a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a></em>). He carried our sins by His association with us, prefigured by the way in which Israel's sins were transferred to the animal; but He personally was not a sinner because of His association with us:&nbsp; The degree of our guilt by association is hard to measure, but in some sense we sinned "in Adam" (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em> AVmg:) In the context of Romans 5, Paul is pointing an antithesis between imputed&nbsp;<em>sin</em>&nbsp;by association with Adam, and imputed&nbsp;<em>righteousness</em>&nbsp;by association with Christ. In response to the atonement we have experienced, should we not like our Lord be reaching out to touch the lepers, associating ourselves with the weak in order to bring them to salvation- rather than running away from them for fear of 'guilt by association'?&nbsp;</p><p>The difficulty we have in understanding our sinning somehow “in Adam” may be the result of our failure to appreciate the extent of corporate solidarity in Hebrew thinking. This has been documented at great depth in H:W. Robinson,&nbsp;<em>Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel</em>&nbsp;(4). This corporate solidarity (even if “corporate&nbsp;<em>personality</em>” is a bridge too far) doesn’t mean that we personally sinned with Adam or are directly culpable for his sin. Adam is everyman- the Hebrew “adam” means just that, man. The concern expressed by many as to why babies and the mentally unaccountable still die is a valid one, but I don’t think it’s solved by postulating that they sinned “in Adam”. Paul is writing to Christians in Rome, and he is explaining why&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;die. The question of infants isn’t in his purview here. Likewise when he talks about “death” in Romans, he seems to often have in view the second death, the permanent death to be meted out at the judgment seat to&nbsp;those condemned for their sins, rather than ‘death’ in the general sense. Such death, condemnation at the last day, passes upon us all, but all in Adam in this sense are also those who are now in Christ. It is this apparent paradox which can lead to the almost schizophrenic feelings for Christians which Paul explains in Romans 7. The apparent parallel drawn between those “in Adam” and those “in Christ” would suggest that those “in Adam” whom Paul has in view are not every human being, but those now “in Christ” who have also been, and still are in a sense, “in Christ”.</p><p>Paul emphasized that it was by one male, Adam, that sin entered the world (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>)- in designed contrast to the contemporary Jewish idea that Eve was to be demonized as the&nbsp;<em>femme fatale</em>, the woman who brought sin into the world. Thus <em>Sir_25:4</em>: "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die". Paul is alluding to this and insisting quite the opposite- that Adam , the male, was actually the one initially responsible. Paul can hardly be accused of being against women Another example of Paul’s conscious rebellion against the contemporary position of women is to be found in <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin”. This is an intended rebuttal of <em>Sir_25:24</em>: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die”. This allusion is one of many reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as inspired. The idea that women were second class because Eve, not Adam, was the source of sin was widespread. Tertullian (<em>On Female Dress</em>, 1:1) wrote: “You woman are the first deserter of the Divine law… on account of your desert, that is, death, the Son of God had to die”. And Paul is consciously countering that kind of thinking.</p><p>Adam: The First Sinner<br/>The classical view of the fall supposes that as Eve's teeth sunk into the fruit, the first sin was committed, and soon afterwards Adam followed suite, resulting in the curse falling upon humanity. What I want to discuss is whether the eating of the fruit was in fact the first sin. If it was, then Eve sinned first. Straight away, the Bible-minded believer comes up with a problem: the New Testament unmistakably highlights Adam as the first sinner; by&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;transgression sin entered the world (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). So sin was not in the world before&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;transgression. The ground was cursed for the sake of&nbsp;<em>Adam's</em>&nbsp;sin (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). This all suggests that Eve wasn't the first sinner. The fact Eve was deceived into sinning doesn't mean she didn't sin (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). She was punished for her sin; and in any case, ignorance doesn't mean that sin doesn't count as sin (consider the need for offerings of ignorance under the Law). So, Eve sinned; but Adam was the first sinner, before&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;sin, sin had not entered the world. We must also remember that Eve was deceived by the snake, and on account of this was "(implicated / involved) in the transgression" (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). "The transgression". Which transgression? Surely Adam's (<em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em>); by listening to the snake she became implicated in Adam's sin. The implication is that "the transgression" was already there for her to become implicated in it by listening to the serpent. This is the very opposite to the idea of&nbsp;<em>Adam&nbsp;</em>being implicated in&nbsp;<em>Eve's</em>&nbsp;sin:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>So I want to suggest that in fact the eating of the fruit was not the first sin; it was the final physical consequence of a series of sins, spiritual weakness and sinful attitudes on Adam's part. They were mainly sins of omission rather than commission, and for this reason we tend to not notice them; just as we tend to treat our own sins of omission far less seriously than our sins of commission. What happened in Eden was that the garden was planted, Adam was placed in it, and commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The animals are then brought before him for naming; then he is put into a deep sleep, and Eve is created:&nbsp;<em>Then</em>&nbsp;the&nbsp;very first command Adam and Eve jointly received was to have children, and go out into the whole earth (i:e. out of the Garden of Eden) and subdue it to themselves (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>). The implication is that this command was given as soon as Eve was created. There he was, lying down, with his wife beside him, "a help meet"; literally, 'an opposite one'. And they were commanded to produce seed, and then go out of the garden and subdue the earth. It would have been obvious to him from his observation of the animals that his wife was physiologically and emotionally designed for him to produce seed by. She was designed to be his 'opposite one', and there she was, lying next to him. <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> implies that he should have cleaved to her and become one flesh by reason of the very way in which she was created out of him. And yet he evidently did not have intercourse with her, seeing that they failed to produce children until after the fall. If he had consummated his marriage with her, presumably she would have produced children (this deals a death blow to the fantasies of Adam and Eve having an idyllic sexual relationship in Eden before the fall). Paul saw Eve at the time of her temptation as a virgin (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>). Instead, Adam put off obedience to the command to multiply. There seems an allusion to this in <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>, where Paul says that married couples should come together in intercourse "lest Satan (cp. the serpent) tempt you for your incontinency". Depending how closely one reads Scripture, there may be here the suggestion that Paul saw Adam's mistake in Eden as not 'coming together' with his wife. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>But Adam said something to Eve (as they lay there?). He alone had been commanded not to eat the tree of knowledge. Yet when Eve speaks to the serpent, it is evident that Adam had told her about it, but not very deeply. She speaks of "the tree that is in the midst of the garden" rather than "the tree of knowledge". She had been told by Adam that they must not even touch it, even though this is not what God had told Adam (<em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 3:2-3'>Rom 3:2-3</a></em>). So we are left with the idea that Adam turned to Eve and as it were wagged his finger at her and said 'Now you see that tree over there in the middle,&nbsp;<em>don't you even touch it</em>&nbsp;or else there'll be trouble, O:K:'. She didn't&nbsp;<em>understand</em>, he didn't&nbsp;<em>explain</em>&nbsp;that it was forbidden because it was the tree of knowledge, and so she was deceived into eating it- unlike Adam, who understood what he was doing (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). Adam's emphasis was on not&nbsp;<em>committing&nbsp;the</em>&nbsp;sin of eating the fruit; he said nothing to her about the need to multiply and subdue the earth. &nbsp;There are similarities in more conservative Christian groups; e:g. the father or husband who lays the law down about the need for wearing hats without&nbsp;<em>explaining</em>&nbsp;to his wife or daughter&nbsp;<em>why</em>.</p><p>The next we know, Adam and Eve have separated, she is talking to the snake, apparently indifferent to the command to&nbsp;<em>subdue</em>&nbsp;the animals, to be their superiors, rather than listen to them as if they actually had superior knowledge. When the snake questioned: "Yea,&nbsp;<em>hath&nbsp;</em>God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree::." (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>), Eve was in a weak position because Adam hadn't fully told her what God had said. Hence she was deceived, but Adam wasn't. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><h4>So,&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;didn't Adam tell her more clearly what God had said? I would suggest that he was disillusioned with the wife God gave him; he didn't have intercourse with her as he had been asked, he separated from her so that she was alone with the snake. "The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree::." (<em><a href='B:10 3:12'>Gen 3:12</a></em>) seems to reflect more than a hint of resentment against Eve and God's provision of her. &nbsp;Not only was Adam disillusioned with Eve, but he failed to really take God's word seriously. Romans 5 describes Adam's failure in a number of parallel ways: "transgression::. sin::. offence:::&nbsp;<em>disobedience</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>)". "Disobedience" translates a Greek word which is uncommon. Strong defines it as meaning 'inattention', coming from a root meaning 'to mishear'. It is the same word translated "neglect to hear" in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>. Adam's sin, his transgression, his offence was therefore not eating the fruit in itself; it was disobedience, neglecting to hear. That this neglecting to hear God's word seriously was at the root of his sin is perhaps reflected in God's judgment on him: "Because thou hast hearkened unto&nbsp;<em>the voice of thy wife</em>::." rather than&nbsp;<em>God's&nbsp;</em>voice (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>Adam's sin was therefore a neglecting to seriously hear God's word, a dissatisfaction with and effective rejection of his God-given wife, a selfish unwillingness to leave the garden of Eden and go out and subdue the earth (cp. our natural instincts), and a neglecting of his duty to multiply children in God's image (cp. preaching and pastoral work). All these things were sins of omission; he may well have reasoned that he would get around to them later. All these wrong attitudes and sins of omission, apparently unnoticed and uncondemned, led to the final folly of eating the fruit: the first sin of commission. And how many of our more public sins are prefaced by a similar process? Truly Adam's sin was the epitome of all our sins. Romans 5 points an antithesis between Adam and Christ. Adam's one act of disobedience which cursed us is set off against Christ's one act of righteousness which blessed us. Yet Christ's one act was not just His death; we are saved by His life too (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>). Christ lived a life of many acts of righteousness and refusal to omit any part of His duty, and crowned it with one public act of righteousness in His death. The implication is that Adam committed a series of disobediences which culminated in one public act of commission: he ate the fruit. &nbsp;&nbsp;</h4><p>There are three lines of argument which confirm this picture of what happened in Eden which we have presented. Firstly, Adam and Eve were ashamed at their nakedness. Perhaps this was because they realized what they should have used their sexuality for. Eating the tree of knowledge gave them knowledge of good (i:e. they realized the good they should have done in having children) and also evil (the capacities of their sexual desire?). Adam first called his wife "woman", but after the fall he called her "Eve" because he recognized she was the mother of living ones (<em><a href='B:10 3:20'>Gen 3:20</a></em>). By doing so he seems to be recognizing his failure of not reproducing through her as God had originally asked him. The way they immediately produce a child after the fall is surely an expression of their repentance. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>Secondly, it seems that God punishes sin in a way which is appropriate to the sin. Consider how David so often asks God to take the wicked in their own snare- and how often this happens. The punishment of Adam and Eve was appropriate to the sins they committed. What Adam wasn't bothered to do, i:e. have intercourse with his woman, became the very thing which now every fallen man will sell his soul for. They ate the tree of&nbsp;<em>knowledge</em>, they&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;they were naked, and then Adam&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;Eve (<em><a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a></em>); this chain of connection certainly suggests that sexual desire, whilst not wrong in itself, was part of the result of eating the tree. There is an artless poetic justice and appropriacy in this which seems simply Divine. What they couldn't be bothered to do became the very thing which has probably generated more sin and desire to do than anything else. Adam was to rule over Eve as a result of the fall- the very thing he wasn't bothered to do. Eve's punishment was that her desire was for her husband- perhaps suggesting that she too had no desire for Adam sexually, and therefore was willing to delay obedience to the command to multiply. They were both driven out of the garden- perhaps reflecting how they should have left the garden in obedience to God's command to go out and subdue the natural creation to themselves. Because Adam wasn't bothered to do this, even when it was within his power, therefore nature was given a special power against man which he would never be able to overcome, and which would eventually defeat him (<em><a href='B:10 3:17-19'>Gen 3:17-19</a></em>). This all shows the logic of obedience; we will be made to pay the price of obedience even if we disobey- therefore it is logical to obey:&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>Thirdly, there seems evidence that the eating of the fruit happened very soon after their creation. Eve hadn't seen the tree before the serpent pointed it out to her (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); and consider that they could eat of all the trees, but not of the tree of knowledge. But what about the tree of life? This wasn't forbidden, and yet had they eaten of it, they would have lived for ever. We are told that this tree brings forth fruit every month (<em><a href='B:730 22:2'>Rev 22:2</a></em>); so presumably it had not fruited, implying the fall was within the first month after creation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The practical outcome of what happened in Eden is that we are to see in Adam's sin an epitome of our essential weaknesses. And how accurate it is. His failure was principally due to sins of omission, of delaying to do God's will because it didn't take his fancy. Time and again Biblical history demonstrates that sins of silence and omission are just as fatal as sins of public, physical commission (e:g. <em><a href='B:10 20:16'>Gen 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 38:10'>Gen 38:10</a></em>). To omit to hate evil is the same as to commit it (<em><a href='B:230 36:4'>Psa 36:4</a></em>). Because David omitted to enforce the Law's requirements concerning the transport of the tabernacle, a man died. His commission of good didn't outweigh his omission here (<em><a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a></em>). The Jews were condemned by the Lord for building the sepulchres of the prophets without erecting a placard stating that their fathers had killed them. We have a debt to preach to the world; we are their debtors, and yet this isn't how we often see it (<em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>). Israel sinned not only by worshipping idols but by thereby omitting to worship God as He required (<em><a href='B:90 8:8'>1Sa 8:8</a></em>). Adam stayed in the garden rather than go out to subdue the earth. Our equivalent is our spiritual selfishness, our refusal to look outside of ourselves into the world of others. Because things like disinterest in preaching or inattention to subduing our animal instincts are sins of&nbsp;<em>omission</em>&nbsp;rather than commission, we too tend to overlook them. We effectively neglect to hear God's word, although like Adam we may make an appearance of half-heartedly teaching it to others. And even when we do this, like Adam we tend to focus on&nbsp;<em>avoidal of committing sin&nbsp;</em>rather than examining ourselves for the likelihood of&nbsp;<em>omission</em>, not least in our lack of spiritual&nbsp;<em>responsibility</em>&nbsp;for others. Because of his spiritual laziness, Adam's sin led Eve into deception and thereby sin, and brought suffering on untold billions. His sin is the epitome of ours. So let us really realize: none of us sins or is righteous unto ourselves. There are colossal ramifications of our every sin and our every act of righteousness on others.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as through the one man's disobedience-&nbsp;</em>Adam's sin of commission (i:e. eating the fruit) may well have been a result of his sins of omitting to go forth out of the centre of the garden and multiply. By one man's inattention (<em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em> Gk:) sin came into the world.</p><h4><em>The many were made sinners</em>- Gk. ‘to appoint, ordain’. It’s not that we as innocent people which we are not anyway were turned into sinners because someone else sinned, far away and long ago. Rather were “all men”- and Paul uses this term to emphasize how Jew and Gentile are in the same position- put into the category of Adam, of sinners, of guilty, of flesh. But the good news is that there can be a category change- if we can be “made sinners” we can likewise be made righteous:&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4><p><em>Even so through the obedience of the one man shall the many be made righteous</em>- A reference to the crucifixion, or to a life of obedience? Significantly, Paul writes in Romans of baptism as being “obedience” (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:16-17'>Rom 6:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:26'>Rom 16:26</a></em>, also <em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>). It’s as if by obeying the command to die with Him by baptism into His death, we are associating with His actual obedience to death in the cross. The Lord spoke of having been given a specific “command” by the Father to die on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>), which would encourage us to interpret His “obedience” here as His obedience to death on the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the law was added to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace increased all the more</em>- “Was added / entered” is s:w. only <em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>, where the Judaizers ‘sneaked in’ to the church. Why exactly Paul uses such a word isn’t altogether clear to me, nor to any of the many expositors I’ve read.</p><p>In the context, “the trespass” singular refers to the specific sin of Adam- “the offence of the one man” (<em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em>). The Law was intended on one hand to bring life (<em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em>); it was “holy, just and good”. But the effect of it in practice was to accentuate sin, and this result of human failure was also somehow under the overall hand of God. He on the one hand cannot be held guilty of leading men into sin by creating the concept of Divine law; for that Law which He gave was ordained to bring life. Yet He worked with and through human weakness, so that in the bigger picture, the result was that the Law convicted men of their sin&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;God’s grace could superabound, abound yet more than sin abounded. God uses sin, and doesn’t just turn away from human failure in disgust; and in this we see a huge lesson for ourselves, we who are confronted on all sides by serious human failure. &nbsp;<br/>Paul knew the ‘abounding’ aspect of the Father, when he wrote of how God does exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think (<em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>). How many times have we found that we prayed for one thing, and God gave us something so very much better?&nbsp; I see a kind of similarity with the way that God brought in the Law “that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly” (<em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>). God set up a situation in order that in due time, He could lavish His grace the more. One almost wonders whether this is one of the reasons why God allowed the whole concept of sin to exist at all. After all, the God of boundless possibilities surely had ways to achieve His ends without having to allow a concept like sin in the first place. Seeing there is no personal Satan, the intellectual origin of the concept of sin surely lies with God. And perhaps He chose this simply as a way of being better able to express His amazing grace and love to sinners. Having lambasted Israel for their sins and described in detail their coming judgment, God then makes a strange comment, apparently out of context with what He has just been saying: “And therefore will Yahweh wait, that he may be gracious unto you; and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for Yahweh is a God of justice; blessed are all they that wait for him” (<em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>). God appears to be saying that He delays His actions, that He brings judgment, that He sets Himself&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;far above us- just so that He can get to show yet more mercy to us. Perhaps Joseph was manifesting God in the way he worked out that slow and detailed scheme of dealing with his sinful brethren::. it has always seemed to me that he drew out the process just so that he could lead up to a climax of pouring out his maximum grace to them. Whilst the way seems long, “blessed are all they that wait for him”. God is even spoken of as concluding (Gk. ‘shutting up the eyes’) of Israel in the sin of unbelief, “that he might have mercy” upon both them and the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em>).</p><p>Romans and the&nbsp;<em>Wisdom of Solomon</em><br/>Seeing Romans 1-8 is Paul’s inspired exposition of the nature of sin and the Gospel, it’s surely surprising that he makes no mention of the words Satan or Devil, let alone ‘fallen Angel’. He lays the blame for sin quite clearly upon us and our weakness in the face of internal temptation. And Paul speaks of the Genesis account of the fall of Adam and Eve as if he accepted it just as it is written – he makes no attempt to say that the serpent was a Lucifer or fallen Angel. In fact, closer analysis shows that Paul is consciously rebutting the contemporary Jewish ideas about these things as found in&nbsp;<em>The Wisdom of Solomon</em>&nbsp;and other writings. We must remember that in the first century, there was no canonized list of books comprising the “Old Testament” as we now know it. There was therefore a great need to deconstruct the uninspired Jewish writings which were then circulating – hence the many allusions to them in the inspired New Testament writings, in order to help the Jewish believers understand that these writings were uninspired and to be rejected.</p><p>The flood of apostate Jewish literature in the first century and just before it all have much to say about Adam’s sin (e:g. the&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse of Baruch</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse of Abraham</em>), and I submit that Paul writes of Adam’s sin in order to deconstruct these wrong interpretations. <em>Wis_2:24</em> claimed: “Through the Devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it”. This is actually the first reference to the idea that a being called ‘the Devil’ envied Adam and Eve and therefore this brought about their temptation and fall. Paul rebuts this by saying that “By one man Adam – not ‘the Devil’ sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). This is evidently an allusion by Paul to this wrong idea – and he corrects it. The allusion becomes all the more legitimate when we appreciate that actually Paul is alluding to the&nbsp;<em>Wisdom of Solomon</em>&nbsp;throughout his letter to the Romans. This book glorified the Jewish people, making them out to be righteous, blaming sin on the Devil and the Gentiles. By way of allusion to it, Paul shows how the Jews are de-emphasizing sin, not facing up to the fact that all of humanity are under the curse of sin and death, and all therefore need salvation in Christ. This same basic emphasis upon personal responsibility, not blaming others for our sins, not seeing ourselves as pure and everyone else as the problem, is just as relevant today – surrounded as we are by false theologies that make us out to be basically pure, shifting all blame onto a ‘Devil’ of their own fabrication. It should be noted that this way of alluding to contemporary writings and correcting them is common throughout Scripture – I’ve elsewhere given examples of where Jude and Peter do this in relation to the Book of Enoch, and how Genesis 1-3 does this with the views of creation and origins which were common at the time the book of Genesis was compiled.</p><p>Wisdom of Solomon 13–14 criticizes the Gentiles for idolatry and sexual immorality. And Paul criticizes the Gentiles for just the same things in <em><a href='B:520 1:19-27'>Rom 1:19-27</a></em> – in language which clearly alludes to the Wisdom of Solomon. It’s as if Paul is reviewing the Wisdom of Solomon and placing a tick by what is right (e:g:, that Gentiles are indeed guilty of idolatry and immorality), and a cross by what is wrong in the book. E:P. Sanders has observed: “<em><a href='B:520 1:18-32'>Rom 1:18-32</a></em> is very close to the Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish book written in Egypt. Paul’s reference to ‘images representing::. birds, animals or reptiles’ (<em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em>) points to::. Egypt. Birds, animals and reptiles were idolized in Egypt, but not commonly in the rest of the Graeco–Roman world” (E:P. Sanders,&nbsp;<em>Paul</em>&nbsp;(Oxford: O:U:P:, 1996) p. 113). The point of the reference to these things would therefore simply be because Paul is alluding to, almost quoting, the Wisdom of Solomon.</p><p>Paul’s Other Allusions to the Wisdom of Solomon<br/>Having spoken of how “the destroyer” destroyed the Egyptian firstborn, Wisdom 18 goes on to speak of how this same “destroyer” tried to kill Israel in the wilderness, but the evil “destroyer” was stopped by Moses: “For then the blameless man made haste, and stood forth to defend them; and bringing the shield of his proper ministry, even prayer, and the propitiation of incense, set himself against the wrath, and so brought the calamity to an end, declaring that he was thy servant. So he overcame the destroyer, not with strength of body, nor force of arms, but with a word subdued him that punished, alleging the oaths and covenants made with the fathers (<em>Wis_18:21-22</em>). Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 alludes to this – showing that “the destroyer” was sent by God to punish Israel’s sins. The author of Wisdom speaks as if “the destroyer” is some evil being victimizing Israel – and Paul appears to correct that, showing that it was the same “Destroyer” Angel who protected Israel in Egypt who later slew the wicked amongst them. Wisdom 19 makes out that all sins of Israel in the wilderness were committed by Gentiles travelling with them – but Paul’s account of Israel’s history in 1 Corinthians 10 makes it clear that&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;sinned and were punished.</p><p>It should be noted in passing that <em><a href='B:530 10:1-4'>1Co 10:1-4</a></em> also alludes to the Jewish legend that the rock which gave water in <em><a href='B:40 21:16-18'>Num 21:16-18</a></em> somehow followed along behind the people of Israel in the wilderness to provide them with water. Paul is not at all shy to allude to or quote Jewish legends, regardless of their factual truth, in order to make a point as well as to deconstruct them. God Himself is not so primitive as to seek to ‘cover Himself’ as it were by only alluding to true factual history in His word; He so wishes dialogue with people that He appears quite happy for His word to refer to their mistaken ideas, in order to enter into dialogue and engagement with them in terms which they are comfortable with. Another example of allusion to Jewish legend is in <em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>, where the Lord Jesus speaks of giving His people “of the hidden manna” – referring to the myth that Jeremiah had hidden a golden jar of manna in the Holy of Holies at the destruction of the temple in 586 BC, which then ascended to Heaven and is to return with Messiah. Jesus doesn’t correct that myth – He as it were runs with it and uses it as a symbol to describe the reward He will bring. He adds no footnote to the effect ‘Now do understand, this is myth, that jar never really ascended to Heaven nor will it come floating back through the skies one day’. Perhaps this is why the New Testament often quotes the Septuagint text, even where it incorrectly renders the Hebrew original – because God is not so paranoid as to feel bound to only deal in the language of strictly literal truths. If first century people were familiar with the Septuagint, even if is a poor translation of the Hebrew original in places – well OK, God was willing to run with that&nbsp;<em>in order to engage with people in their language</em>. And this approach is very helpful in seeking to understand some of the Biblical references to incorrect ideas about Satan and demons.</p><p>It seems to me that Paul’s allusion to wrong Jewish ideas in order to deconstruct them is actually a hallmark of his inspired writing. Ecclesiasticus is another such Jewish writing which he targets in Romans; <em><a href='B:520 4:1-8'>Rom 4:1-8</a></em> labours the point that Abraham was declared righteous by faith and not by the Law, which was given after Abraham’s time; the covenant promises to Abraham were an expression of grace, and the ‘work’ of circumcision was done&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;receiving them. All this appears to be in purposeful allusion to the words of <em>Sir_44:21</em>: “Abraham kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with Him”.</p><br/><p>Allusions From Paul’s Letter to The Romans to The Wisdom of Solomon</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>The Wisdom of Solomon</td><td>Romans</td><td>Comment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_4:5</em> The imperfect branches shall be broken off, their fruit unprofitable, not ripe to eat, yea, meet for nothing concerning the Gentiles and those in Israel who sinned.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 11:17-20'>Rom 11:17-20</a></em></td><td>Israel as an entire nation were the broken off branches; Gentile believers through faith in Christ could become ingrafted branches.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_1:13</em> For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>; Romans 5, 7</td><td>Death is “the judgment of God” – death does come from God. It doesn’t come from “the Devil”. It was God in Genesis who ‘made’ death. Death comes from our sin, that’s Paul’s repeated message – death isn’t something made by the ‘Devil’ just for the wicked.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_1:14</em> For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: in the context of the earth / land of Israel</td><td>Romans 1, 5, 7</td><td>Paul makes many allusions to these words. He shows that all humanity, including Israel, the dwellers upon the earth / land of Israel, are subject to sin and death. Paul argues against the position that God made man good but the Devil messed things up – rather does he place the blame upon individual human sin.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_8:20</em> I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.</td><td>Romans 3, 7</td><td>As a result of Adam’s sin, our bodies aren’t “undefiled” – we will die, we are born with death sentences in us. “There is none good” (<em><a href='B:520 3:12'>Rom 3:12</a></em>); “in my flesh dwells no good thing” (<em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_10:15</em> She delivered the righteous people and blameless seed from the nation that oppressed them.</td><td>Romans 9-11</td><td>Israel were&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;blameless; “there is none righteous, not one” (<em><a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:10</em> But executing thy judgments upon them by little and little, thou gavest them place of repentance</td><td><em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em></td><td>“Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). Paul’s argument is that it is God’s grace in not immediately punishing us as we deserve which should lead us to repentance.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wisdom 12 raves against the Canaanite nations in the land, saying how wicked they were and stressing Israel’s righteousness – e:g. <em>Wis_12:11</em> For it was a cursed seed from the beginning; neither didst thou for fear of any man give them pardon for those things wherein they sinned.</td><td>Romans 1, 2, 9-11</td><td>Paul uses the very same language about the wickedness of Israel</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:12</em> For who shall say, What hast thou done? or who shall withstand thy judgment? or who shall accuse thee for the nations that perish, whom thou made? or who shall come to stand against thee, to be revenged for the unrighteous men?</td><td><em><a href='B:520 8:30-39'>Rom 8:30-39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:19'>Rom 9:19</a></em></td><td><em>Wisdom&nbsp;</em>marvels at how God judged the wicked Canaanites. But Paul reapplies this language to marvel at God’s mercy in saving the faithful remnant of Israel by grace. Paul’s answer to “Who shall accuse thee Israel?” is that only those in Christ have now no accuser (<em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:13</em> uses the phrase “condemned at the day of the righteous judgment of God” about the condemnation of the Canaanite tribes.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em></td><td>Paul stresses that&nbsp;<em>Israel&nbsp;</em>will be condemned at the “day of the righteous judgment of God” (<em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:22</em> Therefore, whereas thou dost chasten us, thou scourgest our enemies a thousand times more, to the intent that, when we judge, we should carefully think of thy goodness, and when we ourselves are judged, we should look for mercy.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 2:1-4'>Rom 2:1-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:28'>Rom 11:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em></td><td>Paul says that Israel are the “enemies” (<em><a href='B:520 11:28'>Rom 11:28</a></em>); and that judging is outlawed for those who are themselves sinners. Paul’s case is that we receive mercy at the judgment because we have shown mercy rather than judgment to others.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_13:1</em> Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is.</td><td>Romans 1, 10</td><td><em>Wisdom</em>’s implication is that the Gentiles are vain by nature, but Israel aren’t, because they aren’t ignorant of God, and see Him reflected in the “good things” of His creation. Paul contradicts this. He says that&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>humanity is “vain::. by nature”; Israel are “ignorant of God” (<em><a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a></em>); and it is believers in Christ who perceive God from the things which He has made. Indeed, it is Israel who are now “without excuse” because they refuse to see “the goodness of God” cp. “good things” in the things which He has created (<em><a href='B:520 1:20-30'>Rom 1:20-30</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:26</em> But they that would not be reformed by that correction, wherein he dallied with them, shall feel a judgment worthy of God:&nbsp;<br/><em>Wis_12:27</em> For, look, for what things they grudged, when they were punished, that is, for them whom they thought to be gods; now being punished in them, when they saw it, they acknowledged him to be the true God, whom before they denied to know: and therefore came extreme damnation upon them.</td><td>Romans 1</td><td>It is&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;and all who continue in sin who are worthy of judgment (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>). It was&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;who changed the true God into what they claimed to be gods (<em><a href='B:520 1:20-26'>Rom 1:20-26</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_13:5-8</em>: For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen. But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant in his works they search him diligently, and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen. Howbeit neither are they to be pardoned.</td><td>Romans 1, 2</td><td>It is Gentile Christians who ‘found’ God (<em><a href='B:520 10:20'>Rom 10:20</a></em>). It was they who were led by the beauty of God’s creation to be obedient to Him in truth (<em><a href='B:520 2:14-15'>Rom 2:14-15</a></em>). It was Israel who failed to ‘clearly see’ the truth of God from the things which He created (<em><a href='B:520 1:20'>Rom 1:20</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_14:8</em> But that which is made with hands is cursed, as well it, as he that made it: he, because he made it; and it, because, being corruptible, it was called god.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em></td><td>It was Israel who changed the glory of the true God into images made by their hands and called them gods (<em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_14:9</em> For the ungodly and his ungodliness are both alike hateful unto God.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em></td><td>Paul argues that Christ died for the ungodly before they knew Him (<em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>); God justifies the ungodly not by their works but by their faith (<em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_14:31</em> For it is not the power of them by whom they swear: but it is the just vengeance of sinners, that punisheth always the offence of the ungodly.</td><td>Romans 5</td><td>Paul argues that the offence of man is met by God’s grace in Christ, and not dealt with by God through taking out vengeance against sinners. It was the “offence” of Adam which was used by God’s grace to forge a path to human salvation (<em><a href='B:520 5:15-20'>Rom 5:15-20</a></em>). As “the offence” abounded, so therefore did God’s grace (<em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_15:2</em> For if we Israel sin, we are thine, knowing thy power: but we will not sin, knowing that we are counted thine.</h4><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><h4><em>Wis_15:7</em> For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 9:21-30'>Rom 9:21-30</a></em></td><td><em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;mocks the potter for making idols – Paul shows that God is the potter and Israel the clay, and they will be discarded like an idol. For they became like that which they worshipped. Paul uses the same language as&nbsp;<em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;here – he speaks of how the Divine potter uses “the same clay to make different types of vessels.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wisdom 15 often laments that the Gentiles worship the created more than the creator</td><td>Romans 1, 2</td><td>Romans 1, 2 make the point, using this same language, that Israel as well as the Gentiles are guilty of worshipping the created more than creator</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_18:8</em> For wherewith thou didst punish our adversaries, by the same thou didst glorify us, whom thou hadst called.</td><td>cp. <em><a href='B:520 8:30'>Rom 8:30</a></em></td><td>The “us” who have been “called” and are to be “glorified” are those in Christ – not those merely born Jews.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_18:13</em> For whereas they would not believe anything by reason of the enchantments; upon the destruction of the firstborn, they acknowledged this people to be the sons of God.</td><td>cp. <em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em></td><td>The true “sons of God” are those in Christ, the Son of God; for not those who merely call themselves “Israel” are the children of God, as&nbsp;<em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;wrongly argues (<em><a href='B:520 9:6'>Rom 9:6</a></em>)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>As for the ungodly, wrath came upon them without mercy unto the end: for he knew before what they would do::. For the destiny, whereof they were worthy, drew them unto this end, and made them forget the things that had already happened, that they might fulfil the punishment which was wanting to their torments” (<em>Wis_19:1</em>; <em>Wis_19:4</em>)</td><td></td><td>What&nbsp;<em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;says about the Gentile world and Egypt, Paul applies to Israel in their sinfulness. And he stresses many times that the result of sin is death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>), not “torments” in the way the Jews understood them. “Wrath::. without mercy” is a phrase Paul uses about the coming condemnation of those Jews who refused to accept Christ (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>). Paul uses the idea of foreknowledge which occurs here in<em>Wisdom</em>, but uses it in Romans 9, 11 to show that foreknowledge is part of the grace of God’s predestination of His true people to salvation. It is the Jews who reject Christ who are “worthy” of death (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>) – not the Gentile world. No wonder the Jews so hated Paul</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><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.</h4><p><em>In the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection</em>- The reference could be to baptism itself as the likeness of His death. But perhaps the idea more essentially is that our death to sin is a copy, a “likeness”, of Christ’s death to sin (<em><a href='B:520 6:10'>Rom 6:10</a></em>). It’s an elevating thought- that we are seeking to copy His death in our daily death to sin. Not only through our rejecting of temptation, but our recognition that we are in a state of being dead to sin and its demands, because we are counted right before God by our faith in His grace. “Likeness” is used in the LXX in the frequent warnings not to make an image or likeness of any god, let alone Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 20:4'>Exo 20:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:16-25'>Deu 4:16-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:18-19'>Isa 40:18-19</a></em>). The reason for this prohibition becomes clearer in the New Testament; the ultimate likeness of God is in His Son, and we are to create the likeness of His Son not as a mere physical icon, but within the very structure of our human personality and character. In this we as it were die with Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:8'>Rom 6:8</a></em>)- not just in the dirt and heat of battling and resisting temptation to sin, but in that we have identified ourselves with Him there, we are in the sphere of Christ rather than Adam. What we do with our thoughts, our spare time, what our aims and ambitions are in life, where our heart is- is within the Christ sphere rather than the Adam sphere, the spirit rather than the flesh. We are in the “likeness” of Christ’s death by baptism, and He is in the “likeness of our sinful flesh” (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>)- thereby showing the mutuality between Him and us, and how representation and response to it is two-way. He is like us, and we therefore seek to become like Him.</p><p>God forbid that for us, the cross should be a mere art form that we admire from afar. We are to be intimately connected with the spirit of the Lord as He hung there. In baptism, we are to be ‘incorporated with him in a death like his’ (<em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>). The Greek word&nbsp;<em>symphytoi</em>&nbsp;speaks of a symphony, in which we and the Lord in His time of dying are united together. Likewise <em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em> speak of being ‘fused into the mould of his death’. He, as He was there, is to be our mould. The strange ability of the cross to elicit powerful response in practice is one way in which the blood of Christ sanctifies us. His sacrifice not only brings forgiveness for past sins, it is the inspiration to a sanctified future life.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know, that to whom you present yourselves as slaves to obedience, his slaves you are whom you obey? Whether of sin to death</em>- See on <em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em>. The obedience would seem to be a one time obedience- in baptism- an obedience to a form of doctrine delivered to them (<em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>). “The obedience of faith” which Paul spoke of in <em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em> he now interprets as baptism. Note the parallel between faith and obedience in <em><a href='B:520 10:16'>Rom 10:16</a></em>.</p><p>Paul expected other believers to share his familiarity with the words of Christ. There's an example in <em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em>: " Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are::. whether of sin::. or of obedience?". This is alluding to <em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> concerning not serving two masters. Paul is surely saying: 'Come on, this is Matthew 6, you can't serve two masters That principle ought to be firmly lodged in your heart'. In terms of Paul’s argument about which status or sphere we are in, his point is simple: you can only be in one sphere or the other, either under law or grace, sin or obedience. It’s therefore impossible to continue sinning. in God’s view and it’s His view of the matter which is the only thing worth anything- because we are either justified in Christ, or not justified and condemned sinners. The tree brings forth either good or bad fruit (<em><a href='B:470 7:18'>Mat 7:18</a></em>)- in that we are “in” either the good tree or the bad one. Paul deploys this argument to answer the objection that we may as well continue sinning- he’s saying not merely that we ought not to do that, but rather that ultimately we&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;do that, because we are either under sin or under obedience. Notice that he personifies “obedience” as a slave owner, to whom we now belong. The two slave masters in view here are called “sin” and “obedience”. We are clearly to identify “obedience” with the Lord Jesus. And Paul has just written about the singular and spectacular “obedience” of Jesus in dying for us on the cross (see on <em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>). This act made Jesus to be Lord and Master for us. We are obedient to His obedience, as it were. Which is the whole idea of baptism- we are buried together with Him, we die with Him, His death becomes ours, and thus His obedience unto death is ours.</p><h4><em>Or of obedience to righteousness</em>- The end result of our serving “obedience”, i:e. the Lord Jesus, is righteousness. But Paul’s argument has been that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and righteousness has to be imputed to us. The end result of being under “obedience”, in Christ, is that righteousness is imputed to us, we are declared righteous, justified, as we stand before the final judgment. Lack of attention to Paul’s argument and the meaning attached to the terms being used in Romans can lead the casual reader of this verse to think that by acts of obedience we become righteous- and that is the very opposite of what Paul has been teaching all along:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or are you ignorant brothers</em>- This continues the appeal to the baptized believers in Rome to not be ignorant of the implications of the things which they have believed and signed up for by baptism into Christ. See on <em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I speak to men who know the Law</em>- This could suggest that this section is addressed to those within the ecclesia in Rome who knew the Law, i:e. who were Jews. There were Gentiles in the church (<em><a href='B:520 1:5-7'>Rom 1:5-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:13-15'>Rom 1:13-15</a></em>) for whom that phrase wouldn’t be appropriate. Chapter 7 could therefore be considered as an appeal to the Jewish subgroup within the Roman church. The language of ‘<em>becoming&nbsp;</em>dead to the law’ in <em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em> would only be appropriate to those who had once lived under it, i:e. Jews.</p><p><em>That the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives?-</em>&nbsp;An allusion to common Rabbinical teaching that the only Jew exempted from keeping the Law is a dead Jew. Paul has been arguing in chapter 6 that we really did die in baptism. Therefore, we are dead- and the Jews themselves taught that a dead man didn’t need to keep the Law.</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>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>- 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>- “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>- “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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>-&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>- 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>- “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><br/>So that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter</em>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- A reference to Paul’s Bar-Mitzvah, or his attaining the age of responsibility to God.</p><p><em>Sin revived</em>- 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>- 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>- 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>- “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:
<h4><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>- 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.</h4>


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>- 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>- 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>- 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><br/>For I do not do what I intend</em>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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><br/>That evil is present, although I wish to do good</em>- 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>- 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><h4>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.</h4><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>- 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>&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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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;<br/>(1) See E:E. Urbach,&nbsp;<em>The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979) Vol. 2 pp. 425-428.<br/>(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;<br/>(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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- Obedience to the Law.</p><p><em>Could not do</em>- 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>- “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>- 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>- 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><h4>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’.</h4><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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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><h4><em>But the Spirit is life because of righteousness</em>- 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.</h4><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>- 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>- 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><br/>He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies</em>-&nbsp;<em>through His Spirit that dwells in you</em>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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><br/>But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body</em>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- “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>- 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><h4><em>But you received the spirit of adoption</em>- 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”.</h4><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>- “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>- 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>


