Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Romans pt 1

I have been spending some time reading through Romans. I thought I would thus write out a few of the thoughts I'm having. So to begin, I'll give a quick introduction overview of the book.

When we start in chapter 1, Paul is setting the stage for these believers in Rome that are asking a specific question: since the Jews crucified Jesus, does that mean we are the new Israel? Now, I'll admit that this is mere speculation. However, the more I read Romans the more I find that this is the central topic. Is God done with Israel? Are we the new Israel? What are God's purposes for Israel?

This might be why Paul starts by saying, "the Gospel he promised before hand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead," Romans 1:2-4.

What is this Gospel that was given by the prophets? The Gospel is the whole spectrum from the beginning of time to the end when Jesus returns to this Earth and establishes His Kingdom. The scenario is apocalyptic. God must sift Israel through all nations and redeem them. They will be brought back to the Land with everlasting joy upon their heads - they will be God's people and God will be their God. They will no longer need to teach one another "know the Lord," because they will all know Him. It is the return of Israel to their Land in the last days that brings forth the Messiah. Their return will mean redemption for the nations. All Israel shall be saved. None shall transgress against the Lord their God anymore.

The question now becomes for us: has this happened? Was the establishment of Israel in 1948 the fulfillment of these prophecies or is there something else we need to look for?

The prophets spoke of an end time calamity that would come upon the People Israel from the "northern nation" (cannot be Germany) and that this final calamity would bring the people face-to-face with their God. He would provide for them miraculously. In fact, it will be such an event that they will no longer look back to God bringing them out of Egypt. The new exodus would eclipse the old. In the same way, this end time calamity will eclipse all previous catastrophes that God's people have suffered.

Well this is nice and all, but what in the world are we really talking about?

Paul uses the Gospel spoken of by the prophets to claim that salvation has come to the Gentiles. Romans 1 isn't so much about expressing what this Gospel is and what it encompasses as much as it is to help answer that nagging question: has God forsaken Israel? He makes the statement multiple times in Romans, "to the Jew first, and then to the Greek."

Paul then establishes the first part of the Gospel which we find at the end of the first chapter through chapter 3. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Paul puts all men, whether Jew or Gentile, in the same category: evil. There is no one good, no not even one. I love how Paul seems to major on the minors when it comes to calling people out. "You who say it is unlawful to steal, do you steal?"Do you say with your mouth that it is against the Law to steal while oppressing the poor?

It all comes to the pinnacle at Romans 3:23-26. Why do we need a Messiah? Why does God need a redemption plan for humanity? We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God's first installment of this redemption plan was His own Son dying upon the cross and resurrecting from the dead. Because He has taken up our infirmities (Isaiah 53), we have been healed of our sins. We have justification before God. This is our redemption.

However, Paul then takes this up again later to show that God isn't finished with His plan of redemption. He shows later that this is just a part of a bigger story and plan.

In Romans 4-5 Paul stresses what it means to be the people of God. In one sense it is Paul speaking about the two Judaisms - real and false. In another sense it is beyond Judaism. Paul is pointing to what it means to be Hebrew. What does it mean to be the people of God? It takes faith. But faith of what kind?

We must do more than believe. Abraham had a faith that God would give all that He had promised. Abraham died without receiving the fulfillment of those promises. He looked forward to the fulfillment eternally. Abraham's faith is no one of simple belief. It isn't one that says that you trust God. It looks beyond time and into eternity. This kind of faith is what it takes to be truly Hebraic.

And so Paul contrasts the Jews and their traditions without conviction and the faith of Abraham. It all leads up to chapters 6-8, which are about the resurrection. The true faith - what it means to be the people of God - is to be resurrected from the dead. We are no longer subject the the Law of sin. We are now subjected to life. We have been freed from the bounds of death. This is what chapter 7 is all about. When we are still subjecting ourselves to the Law, and we are striving out of human ability to be holy and righteous, we continuously fall. Who can save us from such repeat transgression?

This is why Romans 8 starts the way it does. There is no condemnation. Yes it is a struggle. Yes I have my shortcomings. However, I am not bound by those shortcomings. I am no subject to sin. I am free from sin. I have been resurrected by the same power that resurrected Jesus from the grave. This is what it means to be the sons of God. We are no longer enslaved, but free. God is free, therefore His children must also be free.

When we reach Romans 9-11, Paul starts to express this mystery of Israel's final redemption and what it means for us to now be a part of it. He expresses how we aren't raised from the dead to continue living for same things we've always lived for. We are a part of something much bigger now. We are a part of God's plan to redeem Israel, which is the conclusion of the age. It is the redemption of Israel that means the return of Christ. They won't be redeemed if we are raptured out of the world.

It mentions in Romans 11 that Scripture that says God will take a people that are not His people to drive the Jew to jealousy. What is he talking about? He is talking about you and me. He is talking about those who are not Jewish by descent have been brought into the House of Israel to display the resurrection reality (the true Judaism) and drive Israel to jealousy. They are to actually be envious of what we have. This was promised to them. And yet they don't experience it. It is by this that they will be driven to jealousy - when we can display to them a mode of life that exposes their shallow religion and puts on view the resurrection reality of Christ.

That is why Romans 11 starts with, "I beseech you, therefore brethren by the mercies of God to lay down your life. It will cost you everything. If you have not truly died to self in order to be raised with Christ, then you cannot fulfill God's purposes for you. It takes nothing less than life from the dead. Romans 12-14 is thus a statement of what it looks like to live out of the resurrection.

We reach Romans 15 where Paul starts to express how we are one in Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile. Why? We have been grafted into their root. There isn't a separation. It isn't the Church over here and Israel over there. We are both Israel. We are both the people of God. The only distinction is that of election. Paul says that not all Israel are Israel. In the same way, Zechariah talks about how only a remnant will be saved.

Those who are God's chosen people are God's chosen people. It doesn't matter whether you are Jewish, English, Arab, male, female, black, white, or burgundy. If you are a child of God, then you are a child of God. There isn't any of this "I'm a part of the Church, but they are Jewish..." We're all part of the Church. We're all Jewish. We're all part of Israel. God has grafted us in, and when He regrafts them in, they are no less God's people than you are. The problem comes when we have a Western societal Christianity trying to force the Eastern culture to change their views. The Hebraic faith is Hebraic, not Greek. We can't take our Japheth ideologies and force them upon Shem, whose tent we are entering.

This is probably why Paul goes back into detailed account of the resurrection in the latter part of chapter 15. People have taken that faith that God established at the first and converted it into their personal lifestyle and their mode of being. Instead of being brought out of their lifestyle and mode of being and brought into the "Land that I will show you," we try to force the square peg into the round hole. I think this might be the biggest reason why there are so many stupid small debates about free-will or sovereignty, evolution or creation, eternal security, etc.

In chapter 16, we have Paul's final greetings. This concludes Romans. I'll try to go back in and reexamine each section piece by piece to help better further our understanding. For now, this is a good framework to get you rethinking about how to read and interpret Romans.

6 comments:

  1. This was a Facebook conversation commenting on the above blog:


    Joe Stephens
    Thanks for writing! I am teaching through the Epistle of Romans and I enjoy discussing this book. I do have one question/comment though. I could have possibly misunderstood your points so hopefully you can correct me if I'm off.

    First, it seems that your "central topic" is too narrow and forced through a Jewish lens. I think the "central topic" is "the Gospel" instead of " the new Israel." There are commentators who agree with you and think the epistle was to answer the question of "How can Gentiles be incorporated with Jews into God's people without jeopardizing the continuity of salvation history?" They thought the key of the letter was Romans 9-11. However, this seems to be secondary to the fact of a person being right with God; that issue seems to take precedence over the question of Israel. I agree with Moo who says, "The bulk of Romans focuses on how God has acted in Christ to bring the individual sinner into a new relationship with himself (1-4), to provide for that individual's eternal life in glory (5-8), and to transform that individuals' life on earth now (12:1-15:13)" (Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 28). To make this mainly about Israel, I think, does great injustice to the theme: the Gospel. I think Moo nails it when he says, "[Paul] must explain how his message of individual salvation transformation relates to God's focus on Israel in the OT. This explanation thus becomes a constant motif in the letter and occupies an important section of the letter (9-11) in its own right. But it remains the background, as Paul presents in the foreground the way in which God has acted to transform rebellious sinners into obedient saints" (Moo, 28). That is why he spends much time dealing with Israel; he addresses issues of Israel because of the Gospel and not the other way around. I think Romans 1:16 emphasizes this view .

    I guess I disagree that Paul wrote this book to answer questions about Israel. Yes, he did address those issues, but it was because of the implications it had regarding the Gospel. Does that make sense? Thoughts?
    2 hours ago · Like

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tommy Comer I would actually think that neither Jew nor Gentile has a right standing with God. So the first section (all the way through chapter 8) would be a statement of how we can have a right standing with God. It is true and fair to say this is for all. It is also true and fair to stress that Paul was showing how all men might be saved, that is through Christ and Christ alone.

    I think where we differ is in the very word "Gospel." To me, the Gospel is the whole entirety of Scripture. It isn't only about individual salvation. It comes first as individual salvation in that we believe on the Lord Jesus and are converted. Yet it doesn't stop there. The Gospel is as much to the nations as it is to individuals.

    I think the complication comes from my stress of that. I don't lack in belief for personal salvation. I do sense a lack in many of the understanding that God has a redemptive plan for all things. I think this is where Romans 9-11 comes in. Paul starts with agony over the state of Israel and then concludes in glorious ecstasy. What happened in that time to get there?

    I also think that maybe one place that is getting confused is my word Hebraic. I think that God needs to take us out of Judaism or out of Christianity and bring us into the root of both that stems all the way back to Adam was a son of God (Luke 3:38). It is in being adopted into that root that is important. I could care less about whether we call ourselves Christian or Jewish or Messianic. I think all these fall short if the understanding doesn't come full circle to the resurrection people that God has established since the beginning. The stress is resurrection over salvation. It seems foolish to put these words against one another - they both relate to the same end. However, I know that there is a Christian culture that lives as much like the world as the atheists live.

    I hope this clears up a little bit of where I'm coming from. It might be that you still disagree with my basis. In my mind, it seems like the stress of how Christ has brought the individual sinner into right relationship with Christ is incorporated into this view. It all comes back to my statement, "It all comes to the pinnacle at Romans 3:23-26. Why do we need a Messiah? Why does God need a redemption plan for humanity? We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God's first installment of this redemption plan was His own Son dying upon the cross and resurrecting from the dead. Because He has taken up our infirmities (Isaiah 53), we have been healed of our sins. We have justification before God. This is our redemption," about 10 paragraphs in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kimberly Comer Joe,
    How could Paul a Hebrew of Hebrews (by his own words) not talk centrally about Israel to the Romans who during this historic time had kicked out Jews from the midst of their high & mighty city, because Romans thought so little of Jews? How could Paul address the Christians of such a social-elite city without holistically addressing the present-day issues of its society? If our Gospel doesn't begin at Genesis 1:1 and continue through the Torah, Talmud and straight through the New Testament, then we'd be leaving so much out, that we couldn't possible understand Jesus' words, let alone God's holistic plan, right? I mean, the Gospel isn't just innocent man died for a revolution; it has roots. If we're casting aside Jews or the Hebraic-ness of scriptures than we are incorporated with Rome, not Israel. But our Christian gospel is from Jesus & his disciples who are from the roots of Israel's Hebraic faith & story.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joe Stephens I think your post clarifies some of the questions I had. Honestly, I think we are really close but we just seem to use different words. I'll reply one more time and then I'll be done (I think I need to ask a few more if that is ok). It seems to me that we disagree on:

    1). The definition of the Gospel. I don't agree with your definition although I don't think we are far off. I think the Gospel, euaggelion, is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). I don't see it being used in the NT to mean "the whole entirety of the Scripture." I think the Gospel is taught in the whole of Scripture but I don't think Scripture is the Gospel (I would argue for an ontological difference). The Gospel includes topics like God as Creator, Adam's sin, our sin, God's wrath, God's justice, God's righteousness, faith, justification, etc (which is taught in the whole of Scripture). I don't know, maybe I'm confused. Do we disagree?

    2). The Effects of the Gospel-I do think the Gospel includes more than justification. It brings about sanctification as well as other faucets. However, the Gospel is preached to nations so that individuals will believe. We do not live under the Old Covenant, even then being a Jew or taking the sacrifices didn't automatically save anyone, and God deals with individuals who then make up the church (who are believers). I agree that the Gospel doesn't "stop there [at justification]" but I'm unsure if I agree with the rest of your view. Why, in your view, is the Gospel preached to the nations? Could you explain? Thanks.

    3). The Theme of Romans-I think this is our biggest difference. It seems that you are focusing on Israel while I'm focusing on the Gospel (our themes).

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tommy Comer 1) I do agree that the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection. I think that you have the right mindset but miss what I was hoping to hit on when I reach Romans 9-11. I think that Christ lived on this Earth. He couldn't have died if He hadn't first lived. I think that Adam was alive. Adam was made "good" at the beginning. So his death and our death is not something that precludes life. This is important because our resurrection is a going-back-to the beginning (in my opinion). I think the fulness of the Gospel is that Israel as a nation will suffer a death, burial, and resurrection. In that, they will usher in the return of Christ and the healing of the nations. (reference Romans 11:15)

    2) I would actually take your statement of preaching to the nations for the individuals around. The Gospel is preached to individuals so that the nations will believe. The word nation doesn't necessarily mean government. When I think of nations I think of the root people. Israel comes from Abraham. The Arab nations come from Ishmael. Edom comes from Esau. Thus when we're talking about these nations, God holds them accountable as though they are their patriarch. Ishmael would never have abused Jacob like the Islamic people are doing today. In this, God will hold judge them as a people. Second, I want to make the point that Israel was supposed to be the priestly nation TO THE NATIONS (forgive the CAPS; no italics button). I don't think that God has changed His mind on who He wants to speak to. It is another way of perceiving than what is traditionally taught, but I think it goes back to how God originally intended (at least I hope lol).

    3) I guess this one deserves for me to just state that I think Israel is pivotal to the Gospel. Jesus was born Jewish, taught in Israel, had Jewish disciples, was crucified by the demonic forces at work in the Israeli religious infrastructure, was resurrected and told His disciples to stay within Jerusalem until they were endued with power, and then ascended into heaven. Angels then came and said that He would descend just like He ascended. Many of the prophets spoke of the Messianic battle at Har Megiddon (the hill of Megiddo; English word is Armageddon). Isaiah says the Law of the Lord shall come from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3) Israel as a locality is central to the Gospel as well as the people. To take Israel out of the context of the Gospel loses so much. Even the return of Christ and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20) are described in the prophets from an Israeli origin.

    This is kind of a long response, but I hope it helps. As I continue through Romans I'll keep in mind some of these questions and see if I can't give a little more elaborate a response than quick paragraphs. If necessary, I'll either write a note on here or send reference material for you to examine to hear more of where I'm coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe Stephens Kimberly, thanks for replying! It has been a while since we've talked. Let me address your concerns:

    1). I don't agree that because Paul was a Jew and that the Jews were being persecuted by Rome (Cladius' edict in A.D. 49), then he must make Israel the major theme of the book. I don't think it logically follows. In fact, Rome didn't like Christians either. I have two primary reasons why Israel shouldn't be the major theme of the book:

    A. Paul is writing to preach the Gospel in Spain (he was the apostle to the Gentiles). He wanted the house churches at Rome, both Jew and Gentile strands, to be his "missionary base" for Spain (see chapter 16:24). In order for them to trust him, he wanted to show them his orthodoxy. Paul's major goal was not to focus on Israel but to preach the Gospel in Spain. This is why Paul spends so much time discussing the Gospel.

    B. The majority of Paul's audience are Gentiles (Romans 1:5-6). It would make little sense to talk about Israel when his audience is pagan. I'm not saying Israel isn't important (by no means!); I'm saying that Paul is more concerned with the Gospel than the nation Israel. When Paul discusses Israel, it is because it is mostly connected with the Gospel (in Romans 9-11 it deals with the trustworthiness of God).

    2). I'm not saying we should cast aside the Jewishness of Scripture. Jesus was a Jew and the bible was written by Jews. However, the Book of Romans is not all about the nation of Israel. In fact, the true people of God are not Jews outwardly but inwardly (Romans 2:28-29). In fact, God makes the argument that salvation wasn't given to Israel as a whole but only to his remnant which he sovereignly chose by grace (Romans 9:6-23).

    3). I'm not arguing for a Gospel that doesn't include the OT. I don't think it should be limited to the NT only because Christ is mentioned in Genesis 3:15 (the proto evangelicum-the first gospel). However, I wouldn't define the Gospel as "the whole entirety of Scripture." I would focus on Christ because that is the Good News. Maybe we defined it differently but meant the same thing?

    Anyways, I'm done replying I hope you didn't take this as an attack (or anything similar). I was just confused on some things. I think we can agree on the fact that Jesus was the Messiah and that faith in him alone brings about salvation. I just think we have different points of focuses. Keep blogging brother! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete