• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

***ROUGHLY EDITED TRANSCRIPT***

CONCORIDA UNIVERSITY EDUCATION NETWORK ROMANS DR. DAVID I. M. LEWIS LESSONS 10 THROUGH 20

No. 11. >> You mentioned that Romans 1:16 and 17 are the verses where Paul establishes his theme. What specifically is meant by the words: The righteousness of God that we find in Romans 1:17? I notice that the NIV translates this as the righteousness from God. While other translations I've looked at including the English standard version, say the righteousness of God. How should we understand these words? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: David, you've just asked a very important question. The phrase: The righteousness of God, is very key in the thematic verses of Romans. And understanding that phrase, the righteousness of God is an important thing we need to do to get a handle on how to read Romans and how to understand this concept as the epistle progresses. Again, I mentioned that Romans 1:16 through 17 are the verses where Paul establishes his theme. I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God for the salvation to everyone who believes. And then in Verse 17: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith. As it is written, the righteous shall live by faith. In other words, that for at the beginning of Verse 17 relates Verse 17 to what Paul just said in Verse 16. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed. And that -- what does that tie into in Verse 16? I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. I say that again: The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. For in it a righteousness of God is revealed. Okay. And so how is the Gospel the power of God for salvation? Well, it is the power of God for salvation because in it a righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. So what do we understand about a righteousness of God or the righteousness of God? What we have here is a genitive relationship expressed in the Greek. Now, what is the genitive relationship? Well, a genitive case is where a noun possesses another noun. So if I was to say: The dog's tail, the tail is possessed by the dog. The tail belongs to the dog. And that's a genitive in English. We usually express it by putting on apostrophe S on the end of the noun that's in the genitive case. And then it possesses the noun that's in relationship to it. So in this Greek construction here, righteousness is the word that is being possessed. And God is the genitive that is possessing righteousness. In the Gospel the righteousness of God is being revealed. Now, the key here is to understand what is this genitive relationship doing? What does it mean in the context here? And now in Greek there could be several things going on. I'll mention three options in particular. No. 1, the righteousness of God here could be describing an attribute or quality that actually belongs to God. And so if the English translations instead of translating righteousness of God, they simply translate it God's righteousness, in English that would probably more clearly denote that this is righteousness that actually belongs to God. It's an attribute of God, a quality that God has. You might say that genitive relationship can be explained with the sentence: God is righteousness. Now, certainly on a theological level we would not disagree with that statement, that God is righteousness. But if you understand the meaning of the righteousness of God here to mean that, it's going to determine your reading of Romans from what comes. In other words, is the Gospel of Romans about God being a righteousness God? Now, I mentioned before the new perspective on Paul. Some modern scholars who read Paul in a very anti- Lutheran way. And because this has not been the Lutheran understanding of the meaning of the righteousness of God, some of these new perspective scholars actually argue that this is what righteousness of God means. That righteousness of God is simply describing an attribute of God. That God is righteousness. And then they would argue Romans says that God proves his righteousness by saving people who believe in Jesus. And is there any place in Romans where Paul is ever concerned with God's righteousness, showing that God is right? Well, it is here. If we were to turn to Romans Chapter 3 to the proposition section as I mentioned before. And we were to read in Verse 25 it says: God put Jesus Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness. Because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time so he might be just or be righteous. And the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. So God being right, God being righteous, is an issue that Paul does deal with in the epistle. However, is that what righteousness of God means here? Well, one option is that righteousness of God means that God is righteous. It's a quality and attribute that he possesses of himself. However, the second option, which I think is reflected in the NIV translation would be that the righteousness of God means it's the righteousness from God. And note, that's how the NIV translates these genitive words. Righteousness of God. They translate as righteousness from God. So here it's not so much an attribute or a quality that God possesses. But more it is something that God gives. It comes from God and comes to someone else. And so what would be going on here is that this righteousness of God is righteousness that comes from God. But where does this righteousness go? Well this righteousness goes to the one who believes in Jesus Christ. And now a third option, which is very similar to the second, would look at the word for righteous in Greek. And then ask: Does it have a verb that is related to it? Well, the word for righteousness is the Greek word dikaisoyne. And dikaisoyne could be translated as righteousness or sometimes it could be translated as justification since righteousness and justification both come from this word. They are actually synonyms in English. Well, that's the noun. The verb that underlies that noun is the verb dikaios, which means to make right or to declare righteous or to justify. What does it mean to justify someone? Well, it means to declare that they are right, that they are righteous. So the verb that underlies the noun dikaisoyne is this verb dikaios. So it could very well be is what we've got her is what the grammarians would call a subjective genitive relationship. And what that means is the noun that's in the genitive, here the word God, is the subject of the verb underlying the noun that is being possessed. So because dikaisoyne, righteousness, is related to a verb dikaios, to make right, justify, understanding the genitive this way would be it to make the sentence God declares righteous someone else. in other words, in the context here, God declares righteous those who believe in Jesus Christ. And so these are three main options that I will mention as far as understanding the righteousness of God. One, it's an a attribute of God, a quality that God possesses. So there we might understand that with a sentence: God is righteous. Is that what Paul is saying? Well, the second option would be it's a righteousness that comes from God. And that's how the NIV translates this: The righteousness from God. And a third way of understanding this, which relates very closely to that second option, is that this is the justifying act of God. In other words, the sentence to explain that would be: God makes right or God declares right or God justifies. God is doing something. That's how some people understand the righteousness of God. Now, the Lutheran understanding has always been the third understanding. That righteousness of God signifies that God does something. He does an act. It's a righteousnessing act. A justifying act. In other words, he declares people to be righteous. So it's not a statement about his own righteousness. It's a statement about what he does to someone else to make them righteous. Well, now let's just look at the verses in context and see in the context which of these three seems to make the most sense. Well, Paul says in Verse 16: For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. Why is Paul not ashamed of the Gospel? For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. To the Jew first and also to the Greek. And so the Gospel is the power of God for salvation. Now, notice, who is God saving? He's not saving himself. Right? The power in the Gospel of God to save is something that goes to people. It goes to the Jew first and then to the Greek. But notice, God is not saving himself. He doesn't need to save himself. He needs to save sinners. So the Gospel is God's power for saving those who believe. First the Jew, then the Greek. Then Verse 17 connects to Verse 16. For in it, namely, in the Gospel, which is the power of God for the salvation to everyone who believes, the righteousness of God is revealed. Okay. So what is revealed in the Gospel that Paul has been talking about? Is it revealed that God is righteous in and of himself? Well, we know that from the law of God that God is right. So the Gospel wouldn't be telling us anything new by pointing us to the fact that God is a righteous God. We know that already. What is unique about the Gospel is that we find that in the Gospel is revealed a righteousness that comes from God, the NIV translation. And what is really revealed is the act of God by which he gives to sinners who believe in Jesus justification. In other words, the act is that God declares righteous those who believe in Jesus Christ. And so that's why this is the power of God for the salvation to everyone who believes. That it's a righteousness of God that is revealed from faith to faith. So in other words, God is not justifying himself. God is justifying someone else. He's justifying the sinner who believes in Jesus. Well, then I think you can tell from my answer I don't hold with No. 1 being the meaning of righteousness of God here. I don't think this is talking about an attribute of God. Yes, indeed, God is righteous. But that's not what Paul is talking about in Romans 1 Verse 1. What Paul is talking about in Romans 1 Verse 17 is the act of God by which he declares righteous those who believe in Jesus Christ. Now, when you consider the various translations, David, the NIV is actually more of a dynamic translation. Most translations and simply take these words and very literally translate them the righteousness of God. And I guess in doing that they really don't need to make a decision about which of these three interpretations they are going to take. They leave it open for the interpreter to reason through these options. What the NIV has done is actually taken a stand in their translation. They've actually interpreted righteousness from God and reading it contra to the idea that this is an attribute of God, they show very clearly in their translation that this is not a righteousness that God possesses but this is a righteousness that God gives. And so actually this is one place where I prefer the NIV translation. Because I think they very dynamically bring out how these words should be interpreted. We're not speaking about God and who he is here. God is righteous. That's true. But Paul is speaking about here is what God does. The power of God revealed in the Gospel is that he declares righteous those who believe in Jesus Christ. And that is how I understand these words. No. 12. >> If I may, I would like to ask an additional question about Romans 1 Verses 16 and 17. I have read several books about the life of Luther, including Heiko Oberman's "Luther: The Man Between God and the Devil." Without exception these books note that Luther's break through came with a new understanding of Romans 1:16 and 17. How were these two verses interpreted prior to Luther? What new insight did Luther discover? Does the Roman Catholic Church still interpret these verses as they did prior to Luther? I hope I'm not taking you off track, but here in New Jersey where my church is located, we deal with a great many Catholics and Lutherans who used to be at least nominally Catholic. >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Thank you for that question, Eric. And no, you're not taking me off track. In fact, I think we should probably talk about those terms, the righteousness of God, in a little fuller way. Again, the three options for interpreting those are No. 1 that righteousness is God is speaking about who God is. That it signifies an attribute or quality that God possesses. Option No. 2 is that righteousness of God is a righteousness that comes from God and is given to someone else. And then Option No. 3 is the option that righteousness of God signifies the act of God declaring righteous or justifying those who believe in Jesus. And so just to make it clear, the Lutheran option would be Option No. 3. This is the understanding that Luther ended up with, that the righteousness of God was God declaring righteous those who believed in Jesus Christ. And so how did Luther understand righteousness of God before he became a Lutheran or in other words, before he understood that it was Option 3, that it's the act of God by which God declares the sinners who believe in Jesus to be right before him? Well, the medieval church would have gone with what amounts to Option 1. That the righteousness of God was first an attribute of God. In other words, God is righteous. And of course, in comparison to God, the human sinner would not be righteous. And of course Luther with this understanding was very much aware of his own sins and his own shortcomings in his relationship to God. And now the whole system of salvation as it was understood at the time of Luther before the Reformation began was sort of an interplay between humanity that was sinful and this righteous God who is holy, right and just in and of himself. Well, the death of Jesus, according to that tradition took away our guilt. Therefore, anybody who was baptized or who believed in Jesus would not go to hell. At the same time it was believed -- and this kind of worked out of the old penitential system of the ancient church. And then as that was justified and explained in the Middle Ages -- it was believed however that people still needed to make satisfaction for their sins. So it may seem like a strange paradox, but the believer in Jesus was no longer guilty, no longer worthy of hell. Nevertheless, he wasn't completely right with God, either. And he needed to make satisfaction for his sins. Now, here is a good question: What should happen if there is a believer in Jesus Christ who because of his faith in Jesus is not guilty and will not be sent to hell who nevertheless dies before he has made full satisfaction? In other words, could that believer go to heaven? Could he attain the righteousness of God? And the answer to that question was no. And here was the justification for the medieval doctrine of purgatory, which Martin Luther once believed. And even after he posted the 95 theses, Luther still believed in purgatory for a while. The place of purgatory was the person who believed in Jesus who had not made complete satisfaction, they would die, go to purgatory and then in purgatory they would continue to make satisfaction until they could attain the righteousness of God. And so purgatory in that word is the word purged. This is where people would be purged and perfected. Only when they were perfected could they attain heaven and be in the presence of God. What then works out on earth? Well, it would basically go like this: The person who is baptized would receive some grace from God. So you might even read Option 2 with the righteousness from God. Righteousness from God, once they are baptized, God would infuse grace into them. And that grace would help them live a good life, do some good works. And then as they advanced in good works, God would infuse more grace to help them move a little further and a little further along. You might think of it as steps from the sinful condition on earth to where God is in heaven, righteous. Basically Jesus has eliminated the threat of hell by dieing for our sins. But now the human has to step by step go up this ladder until they can ascend to the realm where God is. Now, where is God's grace in this? Well, God's grace is very really. What it is is a gift that God infuses into the sinful person to help them perform good works. To help them make satisfaction. To help them purge the sin out of their system so that eventually they can climb up and attain the level of God's righteousness. So notice that this isn't completely salvation by works alone. Rather, it's faith and works in God's infused grace working together until this Christian can actually become a saint. And of course this is how the doctrine of saints then worked into that system. It was believed that there were certain people who had in their earthly life actually attained that state of perfection, that righteousness of God. These are the people who would be called the saints, the truly holy ones. So in the medieval church, they would make a distinction between saint with a small S and saint with a big S. Well, it was believed about these saints that they were so good that they actually had a treasury of merits left over. And now their treasury of merits could actually be assigned to human beings who were still on earth and even human beings who were in purgatory to help them in that process of climbing the ladder, ascending the stage. Now, who could decide when the merits could be assigned to a human? Well, that was the power of the Pope and he would often do this by proclaiming an indulgence. So the indulgence controversy, what was going on, was that Pope Leo X proclaimed an indulgence in Germany. The idea was anybody who bought this indulgence, a treasury of merits of the saints would be assigned to a friend or relative of theirs who was in purgatory to help them in the process of climbing that ladder. Now, this was where Luther was before the Reformation. He had this understanding of the righteousness of God. That it was something that God possessed. And that he had to attain. Now, God may help him in this process of attaining. But Luther's problem was that he very clearly and fully and I would say realistically realize how short he fell of God's righteousness. And so for Luther the righteousness of God was not a good thing for him but something that threatened him and made him terribly afraid because of his own weaknesses and sins. So Eric, you asked the question: What new insight did Luther discover? Well, first I would say Luther discovered that he could not attain God's righteousness on his own. That's a very important truth that Luther became aware of. And then that led him into the second truth -- important truth, which was he found out that the righteousness of God was not speaking about who God is in Romans 1:16 and 17. Instead, the righteousness of God was speaking about what God does. Not who God is. But what God does to those who believe in Jesus. It's an exegetical discovery. Luther discovered Option 3 that underlying the word dikaisoyne is the verb dikaios. In other words, behind righteous is the verb to Claire righteous. And Luther found out that what that means in the book of Romans is not that God is righteous and we need to attain from his righteousness maybe from a little help from him as he infuses grace into us and helps us more and more live a better life. In fact what Luther found what those words mean is that right now while we are here on earth before we have done any Christian good works, God declares righteous those who have faith in Jesus Christ. That was the important exegetical discovery that Luther found out that behind the word righteousness was the act of justification. That on the basis of Jesus, his life, his death and his resurrection, those who believe in Jesus are declared righteous by God. And now this is an act of God. God says it is so and so it is so. Because God says it is so. This is now who God is for Luther. He is the God who calls things that are not as though they were. Now, what does that mean? That means that there are sinners, wretched sinners. Nevertheless, for the sake of what Jesus has done for them, when they believe in Jesus, God declares them righteous. And when God makes that declaration, it is so on the basis of God's spoken word. Nothing else needs to be done on the part of that sinful man. It is done to him by God saying that it is so. And of course this was the discovery that then led Luther to freedom and to joy and to praise where he could now rejoice in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And not fear the righteousness of God. Because he sees in the righteousness of God actually that God was acting for him, Martin Luther, to set Martin Luther free from his fear of condemnation and punishment. Now, Eric, you ask the important question: Does the Roman Catholic Church still interpret it this way? And we've got to be careful. Roman Catholicism has been affected by the Protestant Reformation. And I personally have several Roman Catholic friends who are very evangelical in their understanding of salvation. In other words, if I were to ask these friends: Do you believe that we are saved by faith alone? They would say yes. I even heard good Roman Catholic preaching. When I was a pastor, very often on Sunday afternoon, I used to like to come home, sit in my parsonage, turn on the TV and see what the radio preachers were saying as I was trying to rest my own mind. There was one certain evangelical preacher. I won't mention his name. A very popular name. I would often watch his show because I knew people in my congregation liked him. And although this is a very dynamic man, a very dynamic speaker, I noticed his preaching tended to be law, law, law. Rarely ever did he ever mention the name of Jesus Christ. Until after the show he would always give everybody an opportunity to invite Jesus into their heart and make him Lord of their lives. But never in his preaching did he ever bring up the cross or the resurrection. So that evangelical preacher was actually very evangelical. And then I would always watch the Roman Catholic station afterwards. And they would always have a mass. And the Catholic priest who preached that mass was very evangelical. Always pointing to Jesus and to the cross and to the resurrection and to what God has done to save sinners. So that in that context this Roman Catholic priest was a lot more evangelical than that evangelical preacher. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church, even in its new Catechism, still teaches a doctrine similar to what was taught in the days of Luther. So when we do deal with our Roman Catholic neighbors and friends or with those who have joined our church who used to be Roman Catholics, we need to be aware of what is officially taught in that church. Now, it's true a lot of the abuses have been cleaned up. I don't think they are selling indulgences anymore or saying that going on a pilgrimage will merit good works or gets you out of purgatory early. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church has not denied the doctrine of purgatory. It's still there in their canon. And the main thing, though, is that they still see that justification is not God declares it so and so it's so when God says it. But they still do teach that system by which, you know, you were baptized, God infuses grace. That infused grace helps you lead a better life. And each step along the way God infuses more grace until you attain that righteous state. The Lutheran response would be: No. We attain God's righteousness in this life when we are called to faith. When we are baptized. Because righteousness is an act of God by which he declares us righteous. Eric, my stepmother was raised a Roman Catholic and she converted to Lutheranism when she married my father back in 1971. And her own testimony was that in the Catholic Church, she had no understanding of her status before God. She was aware of her sins. And she was aware that she needed to perform good works to earn God's favor and to attain his righteousness. And she was aware of the fact that this was something she could not do. She was expecting to spend time in purgatory after she died. When she came a Lutheran, she was taught the Gospel. And she had some trouble letting go of her old Roman Catholic leanings and actually believing that justification was something that happens in this life. Well, the turning point for my mom was when she heard a sermon, not on Romans, but on one of the other books that Luther loved. On the Gospel of John. John Chapter 5 Verse 24 where it very clearly says that those who believe in Jesus will not be condemned but they have crossed over from death to life. Have crossed over means that when they believed in Jesus, their salvation was a done deal. Nothing more needed to be done. They believed in Jesus. They were in death. Now they have completely transferred over into life. Well, when John says that, that's another way of saying what Paul says in Romans. The righteousness of God is God declaring righteous on the basis of faith those who believe in Jesus Christ. And when God says it's so it's so. When God says it's so. And that was the great insight that Luther discovered in understanding the righteousness of God. And that is the insight that made the Reformation possible and set Luther's conscience free so he could more happily serve his God. No. 13. >> I sense the importance of these two verses. I noticed that sometimes there are different translations for the words of Verse 17. The King James says: The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. But the RSV says: Through faith for faith. And the ESV says: From faith for faith. And the NIV says: By faith from first to last. How should we understand this? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Well, thank you, Nick, for that question. And this gets us into a little more in-depth exegesis of these thematic verses of Romans, Romans 1:16 and 17. And you can see how important these verses are. There's a lot to talk about in just these two verses. Because how we understand these two verses will affect how we read the epistle to the Romans. I've got my Greek here. Go through Verse 16 again. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. That's Paul speaking. For it is the power of God for the salvation to all who believe. First for the Jew and also for the Greek. Verse 17: For in it, in the Gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed. You could even translate that the righteousness of God is being revealed. The present tense in Greek has that very dynamic idea, that it's something that's continuously going on. So the righteousness of God is being revealed in the Gospel. And now once again the righteousness of God as I understand it, as Martin Luther understood it, as we Lutherans understand it is that this is the act of God declaring righteous those who believe. So how is the gospel the power of God for the salvation to those who believe? Because God declares righteous those who believe. And so we have faith in Verse 16. Faith comes into Verse 17 with this, well, kind of awkward construction. For in it, in the Gospel, the righteousness of God, or God's act of declaring righteous those who believe in Jesus, is being revealed. And then in the Greek it says ***ek pistevo ace pistis. And what that is is we've got the word for faith twice. And it's coming with two prepositions. So first we have the preposition ek, which literally means from or out of. So the righteousness of God is being revealed from faith. And then we have the preposition ***ace, which means to or into, into faith. And so that would be a very literal translation of that phrase. The righteousness of God is being revealed in the Gospel from faith to faith. And so if you ever see a translation from faith to faith, they are basically just giving a literal rendering of those words. And not really translating them in such a way to explain or interpret what those words mean. So it's the same thing. Righteousness of God, those translations that render that righteousness of God, they are translating but not necessarily interpreting. They are not sort of telling you what they think that means. And the same thing here with from faith to faith. Now, once again, this is a place where the NIV not only translates by interprets. When the NIV says: By faith from first to last, they are giving an interpretation of what from faith to faith means. And their interpretation there is that you might say a righteousness of God is being revealed in the Gospel which is by faith from first to last. In other words, what that means is they are saying from faith to faith is kind of one way of speaking about the whole. From is kind of the origin. To is the point of destination. And so it's a righteousness of God that from the beginning to the end is always revealed by and through and in faith. Faith is the way that this righteousness of God is revealed. How do you know this righteousness of God? You know it through faith. So that's why it's the power of God for salvation to those who believe. And so what the NIV is saying in their translation is that this righteousness of God comes through faith and only through faith. To speak again about that Roman Catholic idea of faith and good works cooperating as we're trying to attain the righteousness of God. That was the medieval system under which Luther once lived. And it's still present in Roman Catholic teaching today. That it's faith and good works working together by which we attain the righteousness of God. And you might say the NIV is giving a very Reformation translation by saying by faith from first to last is that it's never about works. It's always about faith. When you become a Christian, this righteousness of God is revealed by faith. And when you live the Christian life and finally die you live that Christian life by faith. And so that's an interpretation of from faith to faith. And I happen to believe that it's a pretty good interpretation. But then there are those other translations out there. And I guess the problem with these words is that all of these different translations are possible. And no, I don't think we're going to settle the issue here in this Delto course. But we should talk through it. Okay. First there is the literal translation reading the prepositions as prepositions. And this would be the idea: From points to the origin. So from where is this righteousness of God revealed? It's from faith. And to shows the origin. To where does this righteousness of God bring us? Well, it brings us to faith. So kind of that literal idea would be that the righteousness of God begins with faith and it brings us into faith. And it ends with faith. And then you've got that NIV idea: By faith from first to last. Here the general idea again is that the Christian life, attaining this righteousness, it's not based on works. It's only based on faith. There's never a time in the Christian life when their righteousness, their being declared right with God, does not come from faith. Not works but always faith. Now, it is possible, however, to understand those two prepositions in a different way. For instance, the preposition ek, which means from or out of, can sometimes in Greek be used to signify through. Now this through would be not spacially like going through the room or driving through the tunnel. But it would be through to show the means by which something takes place. So it could be through in the sense of by means of. And then the preposition ***ace or to can have the dynamic meaning of for, to express purpose. And so sometimes people will look at this phrase and say we shouldn't be thinking origin and destination, from and to, but means and purpose. So they would say in it, in the Gospel, the righteousness of God is being revealed by means of faith for the purpose of faith. In other words, you attain this righteousness, you understand it, by faith. And then the goal is to call you into faith. Now, in Martin ***Fransman's commentary this is actually how he translates these words. Fransman translates them: Through faith for faith. With the understanding that God declares men righteous through faith by means of faith for faith. That they would be in the state in which they believe in Jesus and that they are declared righteous because they believe in Jesus. Now, is there any difference between these two options here? There's not really a profound difference. Because the emphasis really is upon faith. And it's really faith opposed to something else. And we'll see in Romans, it's really faith opposed to works. Faith opposed to keeping the law on your own. And so whether you see it as a from faith to faith or a by means of faith for the purpose of having faith, the emphasis is still upon faith. That this is the power of God for saving those who believe. Not those who do good works. Not those who live according to the law. Not those who attain God's righteousness on their own or even with his help. But those who believe the promise. They are the ones who God declares righteous. Now, there is one other option that I would like to bring forward. This option has been argued by the scholar James Dunn, a Pauline scholar. And it represents more of a Calvinist or Reformed tradition. James Dunn, by the way, would be one of the scholars who would be a part of that new perspective on Paul. Reading Paul in a different way usually opposed to the traditional Lutheran understanding of Paul. Now, James Dunn would argue -- argues in his commentary that you actually have two different subjects of faith going on here. He argues that from faith, the first time we see faith, that this is actually God's faithfulness. And that to faith, that would be our believing. And so what Dunn argues is that in the Gospel a righteousness of God is being revealed out of God's faithfulness for our faith. And then Dunn argues that when Paul references Habakkuk 2 Verse 4, the righteous man will live by or from faith or by means of faith, Dunn tries to argue that in Habakkuk it's not faith that's referred to but God's faithfulness, God's promises. So Dunn argues what is going on here is that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is being revealed out of God's faithfulness. The origin is God's faithfulness. To or for our faith. So you actually have a different subject of faith in both places. First it's God being faithful. Second it's us believing in God. Now, just to comment, I don't think any of us would have any theological objections to what Dunn is arguing here. In other words, we would all agree that God is faithful to his promises. He sent his Son for us. He's more than faithful. However, in the context of the book of Romans, I would have to argue that I would agree more with the NIV's dynamic translation. And probably even more with the way Martin Fransman reads this that really the faith here is referencing back in Verse 16 those who believe. So the Gospel is the power of God for saving those who believe. For in it a righteousness of God is being revealed by faith from first to last. Or by means of faith for the purpose of faith. In other words, this is a righteousness of God that comes to those who believe. And so I would argue that this from faith to faith simply is really telling us it's all receiving God's grace and his salvation. It's all about faith. As a Lutheran I guess we might choose to dynamically translate this this way: For in the Gospel a righteousness of God is being revealed by faith alone. And that's how I read those words. No. 14. >> Romans 1:18 comes right after the thematic verses we've been examining. But here Paul seems to shift gears and suddenly start talking about the wrath of God. How does this section introduced by Verse 18 relate to Verses 16 and 17? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Josh, that is a very good question. And this is not the first it time that that question has been asked of me. When I taught Romans at the seminary, when I had my students translate the first chapter of Romans, a big question that was asked and that we had to discuss was: How does Verse 18 relate to Verse 17? Because it really does seem that Paul is suddenly shifting gears. I mean in Verses 16 and 17, we've got the thematic verses. And we're rejoicing in the Gospel as the power of salvation to those who believe. And that in the Gospel God's righteousness is active declaring sinners righteous is being revealed, you know, through faith for faith. And then suddenly Verse 18: For the wrath of God is being revealed. And it seems like a real sudden shift where some of these guys have said that basically one Verse 18 doesn't even seem to follow logically from one Verse 17. And not only was I asked this question by those students but other students I've had in other classes have come up to me or even left messages on my phone when they have been reading through Romans asking. What's going on between Verses 17 and 18 where we get this sudden shift? And not only that, Josh, but I even had a pastor from the field call me up. And we ended up talking for about an hour on the phone one afternoon. And the content of our discussion was: How does Romans 1 Verse 18 relate to the thematic verses. And so Josh, you're bringing up a very good question. And here we're actually looking at the transition. Now, if you recall, I introduced the six-part rhetorical structure. And if we were going with that structure, the exordium or the introduction to Paul's letter ends at Verse 17. Paul has given us his theme. And had theme now is going to underlie everything else we read in the epistle. That means that 1:18 would be the beginning of the new section. That would be the narration section or the ***narratio where Paul is now going to narrate a series of events that relate to his theme. And it is very interesting to note, though, that Verse 18 is connected to Verse 17 through the use of the word for. And so let me read these verses together just to see how odd this can sound. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. For it is the power of God for the salvation to all who believe. First for the Jew and then for the Greek. For in it, in the Gospel, the righteousness of God is being revealed through faith for faith. Just as it is written, the righteous man will live by faith. For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven. What? I mean, it does seem like a sudden shift. Well, one thing I would like to point out, Josh, before we actually discuss the relationship here is one important truth that sometimes we may not be aware of. And actually we are. Whenever we say that God's Word consists of two main teachings, law and Gospel, we're saying what Paul has just said here but Paul has just said it in a little more dramatic way. Notice on the one hand, the righteousness of God is being revealed in the Gospel through faith for faith. But note at the same time we have the same verb to be revealed in the present tense for the wrath of God from heaven is being revealed against all the Godlessness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Two simultaneous revelations. The righteousness of God is being revealed in the Gospel. Nevertheless, the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against sin. And this is kind of a more dramatic and full way of saying what we Lutherans say when we say the Bible consists of these two main teachings: The law or namely, that the wrath of God is being revealed against sinful mankind. And the Gospel, namely, that the righteousness of God or God's act of declaring right those who believe in Jesus is also being revealed. And notice that these are two present tense verbs. And in the Greek this denotes a close connection between the action and the doer, that these are things that are continuous going on. Continuously God's wrath is being revealed. Continuously his righteousness is being revealed. This is the state of things in 57 AD when Paul wrote this letter. And I would argue that this is the state of things today. Very interesting follow-up question was asked by a student in class. He said: Could it be possible that God's wrath was being revealed back then but no longer today? And I wondered what exactly would have changed between 57 AD and 2005 when the student asked the question that would show that God's wrath suddenly stopped being revealed. It also brought to mind an argument I had with a Sunday school teacher back in the fourth grade. This teacher told me that God no longer punished the sinners anymore because we lived in an age of grace. And so when bad things happen, you can never say that God brought these things about or that God still punishes sinners in this age because she said we lived in an age of grace. And I remember arguing back to her well you know God punished people in the Old Testament and he punished people in the New Testament. And she said: Oh, no, he didn't. And then I mentioned Ananias and Sapphire from the Book of Acts when they lied to the Holy Spirit and dropped dead. Well, she couldn't really respond to that. But it always left me wondering: Well, does God still punish sin? And Paul makes it very clear that yeah, the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against the Godlessness and the impurity of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And this is actually what we as Lutherans have always been saying. Two simultaneous revelations, law and Gospel. Now, Josh, we do need to be careful when we talk about the application of the law and God's wrath being revealed. We can't say that every time something bad happens to somebody that it's God punishing them for a sin. Rather, we can say that in this fallen world bad things happen because this world is fallen. And God really hasn't given us a specific revelation to understand, for instance, if your parishioner who is suffering from cancer is being punished for sin. Or if this is just the effect of living in this fallen world. So we should be very careful on the one hand not to go around and say specifically: You had a car accident because God is punishing you for something you did. Or you've got cancer because God is punishing you for something you did. We can't speak that specifically. But very generally we can proclaim the law and proclaim that yeah, the wrath of God is being revealed against sinful man. We don't live in an age when God has stopped punishing sinners. So note these two simultaneous revelations. And I think there's a close connection between these two. Paul is saying, you know, the Gospel is revealing God's righteousness. The law is revealing God's wrath. So what is Paul doing in this shift from Verse 17 where he's talking about the Gospel to Verse 18 where he's talking about God's wrath? Well, I think he's made his point in establishing his theme. Now what Paul needs to do is he needs to make the case for why we need Verses 16 and 17. In other words, the Gospel is the power of God for salvation. That's good. What do I need to be saved from? And then again Verse 17, in the Gospel God's act of declaring people righteous is being revealed. Okay. Why do I need to be declared righteous? In other words, why do we need the Gospel in the first place? Well, the answer is this: Because we and everybody in this world has fallen short of God's glory and all of us deserve for condemned by God for our sinfulness. In other words, we are all worthy of the wrath of God that is being revealed from heaven right now. Every one of us. So why is the Gospel good news? Why is it that God has the power to save us that he declares us righteous when we believe in Jesus? Why is all of that good news? Is because there's also some bad news. And then I would say what Paul does next in Romans 1 Verse 18 through Romans 3 Verse 20 is he tells the bad news. As you read through this section, I can note several divisions. First in Romans 1 Verses 18 until the end of the chapter. This is a place where Paul makes his case against people. Now, to the Jewish reader, this would be the Gentiles out there, those Greco-Roman pagans. Paul makes the case that these people are worthy of the wrath of God. Why? Well, because they should know God by looking at the created world. But they haven't known God. Instead they've worshiped idols. So God gave them up to unclean living. And here is the famous passage where Paul talks about homosexuality as being a condition that God has given these people over into because they rejected him. But homosexuality isn't singled out as the one unique sin. It's really idolatry that's the big sin. And finally the chapter closes with Paul listing all a of these sins that people are guilty of. Now at this point the Jewish reader might be reading Paul and saying: Yeah, I know. All of those Greeks and Romans and Gentiles out there, those idolaters who don't believe in the true God, they are all a bunch of sinners. But then in Romans Chapter 2, Paul begins to turn the tables on anyone who might be a self righteous judge. Someone who thinks they are living a good life and looks at those, you know, sinners worse than them out there. And he begins to turn the table and reveal that even the self righteous judges are also condemned because the very standards they hold up, they don't live up to. And then finally he begins to make the case very clearly in Romans 2 Verse 17 through 3 Verse 8 that the Jewish people themselves who have the torah of God, who have the law, nevertheless, although they have the law, they, too, have not faithfully lived up to its standards. In other words, Paul makes the case that everybody, Gentile and Jew, are guilty of breaking the law. Everybody. Gentile and Jew are under sin. Everybody, Gentile and Jew are subject to the wrath of God had a that is being revealed from heaven. That there isn't anybody who on their own merits or strength could escape that wrath of God. Now, what I would argue here is that what Paul has done is he's introduced us to the theme of the Gospel. Now he is making it clear why the Gospel is good news to us. It's because we need the power of God to save us. It's because we need God to act and to declare us righteous. And all of this leads to the conclusion -- this whole section concludes in Romans 3:19 through 20 so that in case anybody didn't hear what Paul is saying, Paul finally says: Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law so that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin. And so the very section that begins with: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unGodlessness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth concludes with this statement: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in God's sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin. And this whole section basically is written to make the case that we of ourselves cannot attain God's righteousness. We need for God to act on our behalf. And so we rejoice in the Gospel that Paul introduces in Romans 1:16 and 17 and that he's further going to amp tie as the epistle of Romans goes on. No. 15. >> If I'm raising a new subject too soon, please forgive me. But I have a question about what Paul says about the function of the law in Romans 2:1 through 16. For instance, in Romans 2:7 and 2:13 Paul seems to indicate that those who obey the law will be justified, declared righteous, on the basis of obeying the law. Yet later in Romans in Chapter 7 I think Paul seems to make clear that the only function of the law is to reveal sin. Is Paul contradicting himself here? It seems like someone could take it that way. And did God have more than one reason for giving the law to man in the first place? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Well, David, you're asking a very tough question here. And actually this is one of those questions I would rather kind of avoid because it is kind of a difficult -- there's a little bit of difficulty in trying to understand what Paul is saying here. However at the same time I believe when you put everything in context, it is very clear what Paul is saying both here in Romans 2 and then later in Romans 7. Well, let's first look at what's at stake here. You cited from Romans 2 a few verses. Romans 2 Verse 7. Actually let's go back to Verse 6 where it says: He, that's God, will render to each one according to his works. To those by patience and well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self seeking and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil. The Jew first and also the Greek. But glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good. The Jew first and also the Greek. And then Romans 2 Verse 13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God but the doers of the law will be justified. And so looking at these verses in the context of Romans 2, it might appear as if what Paul is saying suddenly here is -- well, what he seems to be saying that if you live according to the law, God will declare you righteous on the basis of your works. Again, it's not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who'll be justified, who'll be declared righteous. Now, if that was all Paul said, then we would have to take that he was basically arguing that we are justified by what we do. However, let's look again at Romans 3 Verse 20. Here Paul says: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his, in God's, sight. Since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Okay. So already it might seem that Paul is contradicting himself. In other words, it's not the hearers of the law but the doers who'll be justified. But now he's clearly saying by works of the law no human being will be justified in God's sight but through the law comes knowledge of sin. And then you cited Romans Chapter 7. And if we look at Romans 7 Verse 7 Paul writes there: What then shall we say? That the law is sin. By no means. Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said: You shall not covet. So it seems that in Romans 7 Verse 7 and Romans 3 Verse 20, Paul is saying that the function of the law is to reveal our sin. And in Romans 3:20 he seems to clearly say: No one will be justified in God's sight on basis of works of the law. However, as you pointed out in Romans 2, Paul seems to say almost the opposite. That the doers of the law will be justified. Okay. So what's going on? Well, there are a couple of options again that I could present. And the first option, which is one that I reject but nevertheless some people say this is that Paul is contradicting himself. Now, a lot of us would balk at this, especially those of us who have a high view of Scripture because we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul could -- if Paul is contradicting himself, does that mean the Holy Spirit is contradicting himself? Can Paul contradict himself like this? Well, if Paul is contradicting himself then it might show that he's not as clear a thinker as we might have thought that he was. But some people would argue that not only does Paul contradict himself here but that he contradicts himself all over the place. There's a Pauline scholar whose name is E.P. Sanders who believes this about Paul. Is that one presupposition he has when he reads Paul is that when Paul seemed to contradict himself, Paul is contradicting himself. Sanders is another scholar who is associated with the new perspective, that kind of anti-Lutheran reading of Paul. And Sanders has this presupposition that Paul was certainly capable of contradicting himself. That he does it all the time. Sanders might point out that any of us writing something may contradict ourselves. That never are we completely of one mind in what we think. So he would point out here that Paul at the same time believes one, that no one will be justified before God on the basis of works of the law. And two, that those who do the law will be justified. Those are contradictory thoughts. And Paul already in Romans 2 and 3 so close together contradicts himself. Well, I reject this option. Because I believe that Paul actually has a unified thought here in his argumentation. And I believe that this is inspired Scripture. And I don't think that God can contradict himself like that. And so Option 2 would be that in one of these two places Paul is speaking hypothetically. And in the other places he is speaking about reality. What is. In other words, it could be this in Romans 2 when Paul says the doers of the law will be justified, that Paul is speaking hypothetically. But in Romans 3 Verse 20 when he very clearly says: No one will be justified in God's sight on the basis of works of the law, he is speaking about what really is. Or it could be that in Romans 2 Paul is speaking about the way things really work, that we are justified by doing the law. And in Romans 3:20 he's speaking hypothetically. And so you choose one or the other of the options. But I think it's pretty clear that the one that we would go with is that in Romans 2, Paul is actually speaking theoretically. He's speaking hypothetically. He's not really speaking about what is. But he is speaking about what would be if there were indeed such people. In other words, this would be the case, this is what Paul would be saying: Paul is talking about the Jews who possess the torah and think that by their possession of the law of Moses, they are somehow more righteous than the Gentiles who were never given the torah. Now, what Paul is arguing is it's not having the law that makes you just. It's not hearing the law that makes you just. It's doing the law that makes you just. So Paul makes the case that the Gentiles themselves show that the law is written in their hearts when they do good and bad. And so if there were Gentiles who on the basis of that natural law in their conscience were to live according to God's law, they would be declared righteous on the basis of those works. And the same thing, it if there are Jews who obey the law, they would be declared righteous on the basis of those works. So Paul makes the case that Gentiles who are set apart from the law will be judged apart from the law. Jews who break the law will be judged on the basis of the law. Now, notice Paul isn't actually saying that there are people out there who have done this. All he's saying is that theoretically, hypothetically that this would be the case. That it is possible that there could be Gentiles who never receive the law of Moses who nevertheless because of the natural law in their hearts live according to it and would earn God's favor. And God would have to declare them righteous because they have lived a just and perfect life. The only problem is this: Are there actually any such people out there? We would have to keep reading. Remember that Romans 1:18 through Romans 3:20 is one unified argument that Paul is making. And that Romans 2 comes in the middle of this argument where Paul is trying to establish the case that the Jews are just as sinful as the Gentiles. And when he says those things he's speaking hypothetically. This is the truth: Hypothetically if you live according to God's perfectly, God would declare you righteous on the basis of your works. Hypothetically that is true. Next question. Have you done it? No. Well then that hypothetical truth doesn't relate to you. And Paul is going to make the case it actually doesn't relate to anybody. Paul closes this section in a section where he quotes Old Testament Scriptures beginning at Verse 9. And as I read this, you have to ask yourself the question. Are there any of these people in real life, any of these Jews or Gentiles who could be justified on the basis of their works? Well, what do you think when Paul -- I'm going to pick up in Romans 3 Verse 9. What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin. So in other words, Romans 2, Paul is speaking hypothetically. Hypothetically there could be people who have lived according to God's law who would be declared righteous on the basis of their works. Hypothetically. But in reality, there are no such people. Paul goes on: As it is written, none is righteous, no not one. No one understands. No one seeks for God. All have turned aside. Together they have become worthless. No one does good. Not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouths are full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. In their paths are ruin and misery. And the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. In other words, Paul is making a blow, blow, blow. No one is righteous. All have sinned. And that's the conclusion he finally makes in Verses 19 and 20. Now we know that whatever the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the law so that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin. It's very clear that in this section of Romans, 1:18 through 3:20, Paul is making the case that every human being is under sin and liable for the wrath and condemnation of God. This is the reality. There is no one who, by virtue of works of the law, will be justified in God's sight. That is reality. And so what he says in if Chapter 2 is simply a hypothetical argument given to those self righteous Jews to show that their mere knowledge of the law is not going to save them because they in fact, too, have not kept the law. And I think this is the best way to understand this. Paul is not contradicting himself. In Romans 2 he gives a hypothetical argument about what would be if there ever was anybody who kept the law. But then the full argument is to say but however, there are no such people in reality. In reality no one has kept the law and everybody is under sin. And this is how I think we can understand Paul's seemingly contradictory statements in Romans 2 compared with what he says in Romans 3. And then later in Romans 7. By the way, David, you had one other question. You asked if God had more than one reason for giving the law. And this gives me a chance to talk about a classic Lutheran distinction concerning the three uses of the law. The first use of the law is the use that we call the curb. In other words, God gave the law as a curb to keep sin within bounds and to prevent gross outbursts of sin. And for this reason God instituted human government as one means through which he works to keep human sin within bounds. To punish gross outbursts of sin, open crime, to punish criminals. And Paul actually discusses this use of the law in that classic section of his exhortation, Romans 13:1 and following where he exhorts the believer to live in the proper role of respect with the governing authorities. Because God has given the governing authorities to execute his wrath upon the evil doers. And so we as Christians should watch out that we are never worthy of the government coming down upon us. This would be the first use of the law, the curb. The second use of the law is the use that we call the mirror. And now, David, this is the use that you saw evident in Romans 7. And which I also referenced in Romans 3:20. That through the law comes knowledge of sin. So the law is a mirror. It shows us what we are truly before God. It shows us our sin. And this was the use of the law that impacted Luther when he thought that the righteousness of God was a goal that he had to attain through good works. It was the law that was showing them that he in fact could not do that. That he was a sinner. We call this the theological use of the law. And of the three uses, it is the second use that we as Lutherans focus upon when we talk about salvation. In other words, this is the chief use of the law in the life of sinful humankind is that it shows us our sin and thus, reveals our need for God to intervene in our lives, which he has done by sending his Son Jesus to be our Savior. So the second use reveals why we need the righteousness of God as the act of God declaring us righteous through faith for the sake of what Jesus Christ has done. Not for the sake of our own works. Because the law tells us based on our own works, we are nothing but sinners. And then finally there is a third use. This use is often called the rule or the guide. And this use of the law only applies to the believer. To those who have been baptized and who have been saved. Who have been declared righteous. The law now to us is a rule. If we want to know what we as believers, as God's children, can do to lead a God pleasing life, we can look to the Ten Commandments and they give us a rule. This use is a guide. It shows us how to live a God pleasing life. And again, this only applies to the Christian. Because only those who have been declared righteous and who have had their consciences set free from the fear of God's wrath for their sins, only they then could look at the law and see it is a gift now in the believer's life as a rule and a guide for how to live a God pleasing life. And very interestingly, not only does Paul have the first use of the law in Romans, Romans 13, and the second use, chiefly in Romans 3:20 and in Romans 7, but Paul also has the third use in the exhortation section back in Romans Chapter 13. If we look at Verse 8 Paul writes: Owe no one anything except to love each other. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments you shall not commit adultery, you shall murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet and any other commandment are summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. Now, when Paul is discussing the fulfilling of the law here in Romans 13, he presupposes that the people reading this are the believers who have been justified, who have been redeemed, who have been atoned. Who have died with Christ and have been brought back to life with Christ. And so he's not using the law here to reveal sin and to point out all of their faults. But now he's using the law in the third use. Here the law provides a rule. It provides a guide. When a Christian is exhorted to walk faithfully, to walk with the Spirit, the law is a guideline for how we would live this life. And so is there more than one reason for giving the law? Yes. Three uses of the law. The law is a curb to keep sinful conduct within bounds. For this reason God instituted the human government to punish criminals. The second use, the law is a mirror revealing our sin. And thus, revealing our need for God to intervene through Jesus Christ. And then the third use, the Christian use, the law is a rule and guide for the believer in showing them how to lead a God pleasing life. Now that they have been declared righteous. And have received the Holy Spirit as a gift. No. 16. >> The matter of Jew verses Gentile seems to take a prominent place in Paul's discussion about human sinfulness in the early part of Romans. Could you describe some of the issues that were at stake? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Josh, thank you for that question because this allows me to bring up a matter that perhaps a lot of us Christians of the 21st century don't really think about. In other words, you can see that thus far in his epistle, both in the thematic verse and then as he develops his theme that everybody is under sin, Paul keeps referencing Jew and Gentile. Back in the thematic verse: For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. For it is the power of God for the salvation to everyone who believes, both for the Jew and for the Gentile. First for the Jew and then for the Gentile. And then later in Romans 1:18 through 3:20, Paul makes the case that everybody is under sin, both the Jew and the Gentile. And he keeps referencing Jew and Gentile. And this becomes an important theme throughout the book of Romans. That everyone alike, Jew and Gentile, are under sin. And that everybody alike, Jew and Gentile are declared righteous by God, are justified by God, when they believe in Jesus Christ. Now, we take it for granted of course that Jesus is the Savior of the world. That he's the Savior of everybody, Jew and Gentile. And that's because many hundreds, you know, thousands of years have passed since the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. That we just take it for granted that who can be a Christian? Well, anybody of any nationality can be a Christian, can be saved through faith in Jesus. And so we, because we're not in that culture, we fail to see the very radical and even revolutionary things that were taking place in the Christian church at this time. What were some of the issues that Paul keeps mentioning, this Jew and Gentile dichotomy? Well, remember that it was the Jews who were God's people. They were the people of Israel. And if you believe the Old Testament, God had called Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He had made out of Jacob and his 12 sons this nation. He called them. He declared them holy. They were his people. He gave them the torah. His Word. He sent the prophets to them. And the promise of the Messiah, the promise of the breaking into the kingdom of God was a promise that was given specifically to the Jewish people. And the Jews had suffered because of their unique status. We know in the Old Testament that when the Syrians and then when the Babylonians oppressed God's people, it was a result of their sinfulness. But at the end of the Babylonian captivity when Israel returned from the exile and when it was restored, the people from the time of the return until the time of Christ, there were many Jews who fought very diligently to live according to the torah, to live openly pious lives. So that what happened in the Old Testament with the destruction of the nation because of their faithlessness and their idolatry, that that would not be repeated. And we know that the Jews actually suffered. When they were under the rule of the Syrians there was actually persecution where Antiochus IV tried to force the worship of Zeus in Jerusalem. This resulted in the Maccabee Revolution. And at this time many faithful Jews were tortured and killed. And in the fight many were killed by the Greeks in this war. And the Jews were actually fighting to resist the world breaking in and destroying their religion and their unique identity as God's people. And so out of this movement we get, you know, the -- some of the classes -- you know the various sects and classes of Judaism that we know from the gospels. For instance, the Pharisees, they were a party mostly of laymen who their whole idea really was to as faithfully as they could live according to the torah, according to the law of God. And that is a good thing to have tried to do. And so in the First Century, the Jewish people had this sense that they were God's people. God had given his torah, his law, to them. He had given his promises to them. The prophets were sent to them. And so the messiah, when he should come, he should come to save them. And all of these things that the Jews did that made them distinct from the Gentiles were important things. Things such as circumcising the male. Things such as not eating the unclean foods. Abstaining from unclean foods. Abstaining from foods that had been sacrificed to a pagan deity. Maintaining the Sabbath and maintaining the various religious festivals. These were distinct markers that set the Jews apart. And the faithful pious Jews were very devoted to these things. These were the things that showed them to be the unique people of God. Now, it's very revolutionary then when Jesus comes and basically says that he has come not to abolish the law of the prophets but to fulfill them. And then when very often his teachings are going to run counter to the interpretation of the Pharisees. And when Jesus in a sense is actually going to replace the law. In Mark Chapter 7 when Jesus declares that all foods are now clean, that the Jews don't need to obey kosher anymore. That basically they can eat unclean foods. They can eat pork now. These are very revolutionary things. And so we shouldn't think that it was such an easy thing for a First Century Jew simply to look at everything they had, the torah, the various customs and practices commanded by God that set them apart as God's people. We shouldn't think that it was just an easy thing for these people just to throw this stuff off and just sort of immediately, you know, act free in the Gospel. This was very much a part of their faith and their life. Now, of course one of the drawbacks to this was that Judaism was infected with a strong sense of legalism when Jesus and the apostles came. We see this reflected in the gospels where very much they believed that it was not any more God's call. And their faith in God's promises that save them. But it really was the obeying of all of these rituals and of all of these laws. Nevertheless, we still need to keep in mind that these things were given to them by God to set them apart. And it was very revolutionary, very radical when Jesus and the apostles came and said these things don't apply anymore. This is really the message of Paul as we're going to see it unpacked in the epistle to the Romans. Paul is going to say that the law does not apply anymore. Circumcision, the Sabbath, eating certain foods. These no longer are the things that make God's people distinct. What makes God's people distinct now is faith in Jesus Christ and then life in the Spirit that we received through baptism. This is now what sets God's people apart. They believe in Jesus. They believe that he is the Christ, the Son of God who has ushered in God's reign. God has acted decisively. He has intervened. But he's done it in this way: But sending his Son to die and to rise again so that salvation may be given to all people. And again, this is a radical concept. Now it's not just the Jews who are being saved by their Messiah, it is Gentiles, too, who on the same basis, on the basis of faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit are now God's people. Remember, this is very radical, very revolutionary for those First Century Jews. And so in a sense we should be able to identify why so many of them would have had trouble getting this. In a sense it could only come to them the same way it could come to a Gentile. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation. What is it that could take a Jew whose thinking was so rooted in this old way to believe in Jesus? It would have to take the power of God through his Word, through the Gospel, to bring that person there. The same way to bring a Gentile idolater from that radically Godless way of life and bring him into the locus of God's people. It would still take the power of God through the Gospel. But anyways, this situation that Paul is addressing, many Jews would have still valued the torah. Valued their status as Jews. And Paul in a sense is telling them that: Your status as a Jew is not what is going to make you righteous before God. Yes, God gave you his law. Yes, God sent his prophets to you. He gave you his Word. Nevertheless even in the Old Testament it was always faith in God's Word that was the important thing. Not so much your obeying these rituals. And now what has happened in Jesus is that as we're going to find out in Romans 10, Jesus is the end of the law. He is the end of the law. That Old Testament law no longer literally applies. Now God's people are not those who were circumcised and who eat kosher and who obey the Sabbath and obey certain festivals. They are those who believe in Jesus and who have received the Holy Spirit so that through the Spirit they lead a new life. Paul keeps bringing this up because this was an issue that was probably on many a Jewish Christian's heart. Do those old distinctions matter at all? And in a sense Paul is saying: You as Jews are still a blessed people because God did certain things for you. But in this new age, now that Jesus Christ has come, what matters is faith in Jesus and life in the Holy Spirit that God has given to those who believe in Jesus. And so as we hear Paul go back and forth between about Jew and Gentile, keep in mind especially the great challenge that would have faced any Jewish person in the First Century when they were told by Paul or any other Christian that what matters now is faith in Jesus. Not those old customs you used to live according to. Not even the torah that you received. What matters now is your faith in Jesus. And what God has done through him. It was a very radical and revolutionary concept. And it wasn't an easy thing for any First Century Jew simply to accept without questioning and understanding what exactly was going on. No. 17. >> Professor Lewis, I have read that the word justification is one of the words used to describe salvation that does so in terms of courtroom language. Had this language does seem to fit where Paul concludes his discussion about universal sin in Romans Chapter 3 Verses 19 through 20. Could you comment on this? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Yes, Nick, I will. Nick, you know that Scripture is actually rich in terms that describe what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. But probably for us Lutherans, justification is one of the most important terms that we have used in our theological system. And it is certainly a term that is very prominent in the book of Romans. Especially in this section that you've mentioned going from the theme in Romans 1:16 and 17 to where Paul makes the case for universal sin in Romans 1:18 through 3:20. And now concluding in -- the concluding verses of Romans 3:19 through 20 where Paul sums up the case of universal sin, he does seem to cast it in terms of a courtroom. Paul concludes by saying that the whole world is accountable to God. The Greek word there is the word ***habatikos, which is actually a term related to the Greek words to justify and righteousness justification. And what that word means is that the whole world is accountable to God in the courtroom sense. In other words, it really means that we are guilty before God. And the whole world is guilty before God. And awaiting the verdict of guilty for their sins. And Paul has pretty much established the case that everybody, Gentile and Jew, is liable, is accountable, is answerable to the courtroom verdict of God. And that verdict would be guilty. And so this would be a setting where the term justification would apply as the term for what God does in Jesus Christ. Now, there are some related terms that I would like to discuss again as we're talking about justification. First there's the Greek word dikaios. Dikaios is a verb. It is an action. And this verb is to justify or to declare righteous. And often this verb is used in the courtroom sense. It is the verdict that the judge would render upon the person. And now, if the person is not guilty of that for which they've been accused, then the judge would dikaios them or justify them or declare that they are right. That they are just. This could be a courtroom term. And it appears this is how Paul is using it in this section of Romans. Then there's the word dikaisoyne, which is the word that could be translated as righteousness as we've seen in Romans 1:17, the righteousness of God, this can also be translated as justification. And this word first it can describe the process of doing the verb. The process of declaring somebody righteous. Of declaring someone to be just. And in fact, this is how Lutherans have understood, again, the righteousness of God. That when we say righteousness of God, we don't -- in Romans 1:17, it's not an attribute or quality of God that he is righteous. Although that is theologically true. But what it signifies there is that this is the process, this is the action of God declaring not guilty, declaring righteous those who believe in Jesus Christ. And then once that's declared, then it becomes an attribute that the person who has been justified now has. They now have the attribute of righteousness that they've received through the declaration. And so this is how we should understand dike eye a sun nay in this context. And then finally there's the related adjective which is ***dikyos, which means righteous or just. And this adjective now describes the person who has been justified. This is the verdict. This is the status they have. They now have the status of being righteous. And so the verb is the act that is done in the courtroom setting of declaring the person who is not guilty to be righteous. Righteousness justification is the noun that describes this process. And then it is also -- it also describes an attribute the person has once the process is done. And then the adjective describes the status. And so dick eye us, just, back in Romans 1:17, the just will live by faith. And now, Nick, I could point out that this is still the way it works in our courtrooms today. Theoretically even if a man is guilty of the crime of which he's been accused, if he goes through the courtroom setting and if the jury finds him innocent, then the judge renders that verdict. And this man is for all legal purposes, for all forensic courtroom purposes, this man is innocent. And the State cannot punish him. In fact, even if he has actually committed the crime. There's a lot of people who believe that OJ Simpson was guilty of what he was accused of doing. But in a forensic courtroom sense, he was given the verdict of not guilty. So now the court, the government, cannot lay their hands upon him for those crimes for which he was accused. Theoretically it still works that way in the courtroom today. The verdict, the sentencing is the last word. Okay. Well, this does fit in then with Romans 3:19 through 20 where Paul sums up his case about the universal sin of mankind. In reading from the ESV what Paul says is: Now we know that whatever the law says it says to those who are under the law. So that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God. This is the result. When the law speaks, the second use of the law, it accuses everybody of sin. And every mouth is stopped. Nobody has any defense they can offer for themselves when they stand before God. And in fact, the whole world is answerable. This is that noun ***habatikos. In other words, they are answerable in a courtroom sense. They are legal -- they are guilty. They are answerable to God. They await his punishment. For by the works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight. Since through the law comes knowledge of sin. And so this is where Paul leaves us all hanging. And Martin Fransman in his commentary says of this section of Romans that neither salvation nor faith can be understood aright unless they are seen against the dark background of the wrath of God. So why does Paul jump from his theme in Romans 1:16 and 17 where he talks about the Gospel as the power of God for salvation and the righteousness of God being revealed and then present this dark case against humanity? Because in a sense the only way we can properly understand salvation, the only way we can properly understand the role of faith in our receiving salvation is to see what the problem is. And the problem is is that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, have no defense against God. We are answerable to him in his divine court. And we await the verdict of guilty because that's what the law tells us we are. And we need a solution. We need a different verdict from God. And this is where justification comes in. Is that God does give us a verdict that we would not expect. Now, such a verdict would No. 1, it would have to come from God since he is the judge of the divine court. No. 2, it would have to come to us as a gift because what we deserve is his wrath and condemnation. And No. 3, it would have to come on the merits of somebody else since we alone have not earned that verdict. And of course this is what the Gospel that Paul is proclaiming says. That God gives the verdict of not guilty. Actually even better, the verdict of righteous. Which now confers this status upon it because God has said this. This comes as a gift by grace. And it comes through what Jesus Christ did. Not through what we have done. And so this solution is found in full in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul is proclaiming. And now we can understand why Paul is not ashamed of this Gospel. Because this Gospel is indeed the means through which God saves. It has the power to save sinful men. This is a Gospel that declares justification. That God declares righteous those who believe in Jesus even though they are guilty before him. For the sake of Jesus God declares them righteous. Now, here we can talk about the difference then between the Roman Catholic understanding of grace and the Lutheran understanding of grace. We talked about this a bit when I was answering the question about Luther's understanding of the righteousness of God. Well, Roman Catholicism teaches a grace that is infused grace. In other words, the sinful person, God infuses grace, he puts grace into them as a gift. And that grace gives them the power to do a little better in their Christian life and in their good works. And as they advance to the next step God infuses a little more grace and a little more grace until finally they attain the goal of God's righteousness. And this is how the sacraments work in the Roman Catholic system. The sacraments are means through which God infuses grace to help people along. So baptism gets you going. But confession and absolution and penance sort of keep you on the track until finally, you know, last rites, you get one last infusion of grace that hopefully gets you up there. Although in the medieval system the purgatory figure prominently is a place where people died. Before they attain that goal they would go there to continue to be purged. Well the Lutheran emphasis on grace is imputed grace. In other words, God does not stick his grace into us to empower us. Rather, it all begins with his declaration that we are righteous. And when God declares that verdict, then it is settled at that point. The same way it is in court. As soon as the man is declared not guilty, he is not guilty and the court cannot touch him for that crime. And that's how it works in the divine court. For the sake of Jesus God declares us righteous. And because he has said it's so, it is so. And that is where the Christian life begins, with imputed grace. God gives us a status that we did not earn. But that's our status. And so now we can see why faith is so key. Faith is the only way that could really receive this promise. Faith is the means because it's trusting what God has said. Here is the deal with me: Like Luther when I look in the law, I know that I am ***habatikos, that I am answerable to God, that I am guilty before him. It's very unexpected when he tells me instead: Not guilty. But he tells me: Righteous because of what my Son Jesus did for you. How could I receive that declaration, that promise from God? I receive it by faith. By trusting what he has said. And Paul even tells us that faith itself is a given that is given to me by the Holy Spirit. It's such a wonderful thing that only God could give me the faith to believe this wonderful promise, this wonderful declaration of who I am of the status I have before him for the sake of what Jesus Christ has done. And so when we Lutherans talk about justification or forensic justification, you're very right that this is a very technical way of talking about salvation in the specific courtroom setting. And now this term was very central for Paul. And for Paul's theology as we see him developing it in Romans 1:16 through Romans 3 Verse 21. This section where he introduces his theme, makes the case about the universal sinfulness of all people and how all people are guilty before God. But then suddenly proclaims a righteousness that comes apart from the law. This is very much centered into the idea of justification. This forensic courtroom talk. The declaration of God that those who believe are righteous. That verdict gives them the new status. Because this is so central to Paul's theology, this is also a term that has become very central to our Lutheran understanding of salvation, too. So that very often we will refer to salvation with a simple term of justification. Well, as we go through Romans, we'll see that there are other views of salvation and other words that describe salvation from other vantage points. Nevertheless, because of the centrality of this word and this view in Paul's theology, I think we Lutherans are right to see as most important that you understand the Gospel when you understand justification. Namely, that the sinner who believes in Jesus is declared righteous by God. And that verdict stands in the divine courtroom. And it confers a new status upon that person. Righteous. And that is where the Christian life begins. No. 18. >> You mentioned that Romans Chapter 3 Verses 21 through 31 is the place where Paul sets out his main proposition in this epistle. Could you talk through these important verses? I'm wondering how Paul's statement in Romans 3 Verse 31 fits into his larger proposition. Just how is the law being upheld by faith? I thought all the law could do is make us conscious of sin. >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Nick, this is a very good follow-up question to the one you just asked. You brought us to the end of that section where Paul accuses all of humanity of universal sin. And then you asked properly that justification seems to be the term that would answer that problem. If we are all silent and answerable before God with no defense of our own, we need a verdict that can only come to us in a gracious way. And now the answer to that previous question is really fully impacted in this next section, Romans 3:21 through 32. Now, Nick, remember when I discussed the six-part rhetorical outline I identified this section of Romans as being the proposition. In other words, this is where Paul states the chief truth upon which this entire epistle will hang. And that this proposition then really does reflect the thematic verses back in Romans 1:16 and 17. Again, Paul says: I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. First for the Jew and also for the Greek. For in it a righteousness of God is being revealed. A righteousness which is from faith to faith or through faith for faith. Just as it is in Habakkuk 2:4, the just man, the righteous man, will live by his faith, by faith. And so now that theme is going to be answered and unpacked in these verses at the end of Romans Chapter 3. And so this is a section we really should look at in a little -- in very close detail. Because this is where Paul is really making the big statement, his big proposition of what he believes to be true. And in a sense, the rest of the epistle then hangs upon these very central verses right here. Before we get into it, though, I want to discuss some of the terms that we see here. Once again, I want to discuss first the righteousness of God. Righteousness of God will be discussed in these verses. And I've already made the case that the Lutheran understanding of the righteousness of God is that it has to do with the act of justification. That again, it is not an attribute of God when we use it in this sense. But it is the action of God declaring right those who believe in Jesus. Now, Nick, it may seem like a bit of a paradox. But as we get into these verses, Paul will discuss how God is righteous in an attribute that God is a righteous God. But it will be in the wider context of him discussing righteousness of God as his action and declaring people righteous. And actually this passage here proves that Lutheran point. Because here we actually see the verb being used with a noun. Again, the verb dikaios, to declare righteous, occurs four times in this passage. In Verse 24, in Verse 25, in Verse 28 and in Verse 30 we have this verse being used. To times it's used in the passive voice. Just to let you know, a passive voice verb is a place where the subject of the verb is not doing the action. But receiving the action. And in those places where this verb is used passively, it is the believers who are being justified. And who is justifying them? Well, then it would be God. But then it's used two times in the active voice where God is the subject, he is the one who is justifying, who is declaring righteous. So in this context we really see how indeed Paul does mean by righteousness of God the act of God justifying, of declaring righteous. We see that very clearly in this passage. And I will try to point that out as we go through. One other term that I need to discuss is the term the faith of Jesus that occurs also in this passage. Here we have another genitive relationship. Here the genitive noun is Jesus. And in English we usually understand this relationship is that the genitive possesses the other noun. So faith of Jesus would be Jesus' faith. But what exactly does this mean? Well, there is a minority of scholars who believe that Jesus' faith actually means Jesus' act of believing. Or Jesus' act of being faithful. That Jesus' faith is something that Jesus does. And this would usually be a Reformed interpretation of this -- these words. Where the emphasis is being put upon what Jesus does. And usually they would say his faith in God and his faithful response to God's call that he should perform his ministry, suffer and die. And so that would be the faith of Jesus. And of course theologically we would have no objection to the question, is that what Paul actually means. Probably the majority view and probably also the majority Lutheran view is that faith of Jesus means faith in Jesus. Here we have again another noun of faith, the Greek is pistis that has a related verb. Related to pistis is the verb pistevo, which means to believe. And whenever you look especially at Paul, whenever you see the verb pistevo being used, who is doing it? Well, that's a good question to ask. Whenever we see the verb dike eye owe awe to declare righteous we have to ask who is doing it. And it's always God doing it to somebody else. So whenever we see pistevo, faith to believe, being used it's never Jesus doing it. It's always someone else doing it to Jesus. Which then leads us to the conclusion of faith of Jesus really does mean faith in Jesus. And notice that this is how the NIV and the ESV translate faith of Jesus. Faith in Jesus. And I'll try to point that out as we go along, too. And finally one other term that I want to bring out is the term the law. The Greek here is nomos. And this is an interesting phenomenon that we see in English, too. Very often the same word, the same symbols, can be used to signify different meanings. In English we have words that do this all the time. I can use the word run and it could be what I do when I go out for a jog. But it could also be what I do when I turn a machine on and make it do what it's doing. Notice that the machine is not moving it's legs and running down the track. It's just sort of doing something else. And if I run my wife to the ground, which she would never let me do, that means I'm just kind of bossing her and wearing her out. And we can use terms that have different meanings in English. And this word nomos, it means law. But it can be law in several senses. And I have to bring this out because Paul uses the word here that's actually three different meanings as we go. Nomos can mean law in that Lutheran sense of law as opposed to Gospel. Where law means the righteous demands of God. Do these things and you will live. Don't do these things and you're answerable to God. Well, Paul will use law in that sense. And then he'll also use law in the sense of the Pentateuch, the torah. The five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were also referred to as generally the law. But notice when we consider those five books, they contain the places where God gives his righteous demands. But also they contain God's acts of salvation. His calling Abraham and promising Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. His saving Israel from Egypt and the exodus. And so the torah has within it both law and promise. And so it's not the same thing as God's righteous demand. And then in a very general way, this word genome moss, law, could mean simply a principle, sort of the way things work. We use it that way in English. When we say the law of gravity. The law of gravity is not something that was passed by Congress. The law of gravity is simply a principle that if you jump out -- jump up, you are going to fall down. So jump off a building because the law of gravity will definitely bring you down to the ground. It's just a principle. This is the way a thing works. So as we go through this section I'll try to point out how Paul is using the word law, as well. So now we look at this section. And to be begin, we see Paul giving his main proposition in Verse 2 1. And I'll read through the main proposition. Paul argues: But now the righteousness of God, in other words, this would be God's act of declaring other people righteous, the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law. Now, if you're looking at the ESV, notice how law here they translate with a lower case L. Here law is referring to the righteous demands of God. And it goes on. Although the law and the prophets bear witness to it. Now, notice if you're looking again at the ESV, law here has a capital L. This is ESV's way of signify different meanings and different uses of law here. The first use is the law as the righteous demands of God. The second use is law as the five books of Moses. Verse 22: The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, faith in Jesus Christ, that's literally faith of Jesus Christ. The ESV is giving it the interpretation that this is our believing in Jesus. Faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. And notice the ESV has a period right there. Here is Paul's main proposition in the book of Romans. To summarize: Now a righteousness of God has been made evident. Has been manifested. And there's four things about this righteousness of God. It comes apart from the law. In other words, apart from God's righteous demands. It does not depend upon our obedience and our works. So it does solve the problems in Romans 3:19 through 20 where we have no defense and we're all guilty before God. This is a righteousness that comes apart from the law. But it is a righteousness that was witnessed by the law, that is by the torah, and the prophets. This is how many New Testament authors refer to the Old Testament, as the law and the prophets. This righteousness, this Gospel, was promised in the Old Testament. And this is a righteousness, third, that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. And for, it's for all who believe. And so this is a righteousness apart from God's righteous demands, testified in the Old Testament. It comes through believing in Jesus. And it's received in faith. And it has to be received in faith because it's trusting this declaration of God that really makes no sense. He says that we're righteous when in fact we know that we're ***habatikos, guilty, answerable. So it is a righteousness received in faith. And this now would be the main proposition of the book of Romans. This is the main truth that Paul was putting forward. That there is a righteousness that has been made evident apart from the law, promised in the Old Testament. It comes through faith in Jesus Christ. And it's for all of those who believe. It's received in faith. And now this does in fact answer the problem created and described in Romans 1:18 through 3:20. The whole world is guilty before God. Nevertheless, God declares people righteous apart from his righteous demands. Even though they are guilty of the law. Only now it comes through faith in Jesus Christ and what Jesus has done. And yes, indeed, this was -- this is not out of context with the Old Testament. In fact, the Old Testament promised and looked ahead to this Gospel. There's the main proposition. Now, you might say that the whole book of Romans should be read in light of this proposition and the thematic verses back in 1:16 and 17. These three verses in a sense -- these three statements sort of hang the whole book of Romans. Going on now in the middle of Verse 22 we have kind of a secondary proposition that relates to the first proposition. It says here: For there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith. Period. And so here is a secondary proposition. And this proposition makes two points. The main point is this. There is no distinction. And then this is understood in two ways. No. 1, all have sinned, past act. And are falling short of the glory of God, present reality. That's one distinction. Jew and Gentile alike have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God. And I think glory of God here refers to God's righteous demands. We fall short of his glory. This was what Luther was well aware of in his own life. That he was supposed to meet these high expectations but he fell short. Well, this was not only true for Martin Luther, not only true for David Lewis, this is true for all people, Jew and Gentile. There's no distinction. But also there's no distinction in a second sense, all are declared righteous by God. And notice here again we have the verb being declared righteous signifying that the righteousness of God is his act of declaring people righteous. And how does this come? No. 1, it comes as a gift. No. 2, it comes by means of his grace. No. 3, it comes through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus. So it comes as a gift by grace and through what Jesus did. And now we may ask: Well, what did Jesus do? Well, Paul goes on in this context and explains that God presented Jesus as a means of atonement. The ESV translates this as a propitiation. The RSV translates it as an expiation. Those are two words that are talking in sacrificial language. I call it a means of atonement because this is really referencing the Old Testament sacrificial system where people would give an animal. The animal would be sacrificed and they would be purified from their sins. Well, God presented Jesus as a sacrifice so that through faith in his blood, we would be purified from our sins. That we would be atoned. And this is what Jesus did. This is how in fact we are redeemed. And that would be the first related proposition. So let's continue. We then in the middle of Verse 25 find a second related proposition. So in the middle of Verse 25 if you're looking at the ESV it says: This was to show God's righteousness. Because in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Notice that who has faith in Jesus, this is again faith of Jesus. Literally. The ESV and the NIV, too, interpret this as faith in Jesus. They make that interpretive move in their translation. This is a second related proposition. And here we actually now get into the discussion of whether or not God is a righteous God in and of himself. And Paul is making the point here that when God gave Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, he has demonstrated not only that he is the one who justifies sinners by his grace as a gift. But that he himself is right. And this is actually explained in two ways. First, in reference to the former days, God in his forbearance passed over sins. Now, what is Paul talking about here? Some people think that Paul is talking about the individual Christian and that before they were saved, God should have punished them for their sins. But he didn't. He waited until they were saved. And now he proves that he is righteous for not punishing them before. I don't go with that. I believe that Paul is actually talking in terms of salvation history. And that by former days he's actually referring to the Old Testament. In the days before Jesus came. In other words, there's a true sense in which all of those people before Jesus came, you know, they should have been punished by God. If he was righteous, he should have punished them. And yet if you read the Old Testament narrative, we see that so often, God forgives. Even in the Old Testament his own people sin and yet he forgives them. Noah sinned. Abraham sinned. Isaac sinned. Jacob sinned. Moses sinned. David sinned in a very grievous way. And yet God did not kill them when they sinned. Why didn't he kill them? If he was a just God, he should have killed David for his adultery and his murder. But God forgave him. Well Paul says that by sending Jesus as the atoning sacrifice God in a sense shows how he is righteous because all along all through the Old Testament God knew that he was going to send his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for sin. And so in light of that even before Jesus came, he forebear in the past and he forgave sins knowing that in time he would act decisively through his Son. So here we see that Jesus' sacrifice covers the former time. All the Old Testament saints are covered by what God did in Jesus Christ. And then also in this now time, in this present time, God demonstrates in Jesus two things. No. 1, that he is just. In other words, God does take sin seriously. So seriously that it has to be punished. He does not leave sin unpunished but what he does is something unexpected, he punishes sin in the person of his Son. So today now we know that God is just. And because he has punished sin in Jesus, he's the one who declares those who believe to be righteous. Now, this is a second related proposition. And now finally a third related proposition picking up in Verse 27: Now what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? And now here law is meaning -- is that third use I mentioned, law in the sense of principle. And what sort of principle is our boasting excluded? By a law or a principle of works? No. But by the law or the principle of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles, also? Yes, of Gentiles, also. Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by faith. Now, in this third related proposition Paul basically blasts any notion of human boasting before God. Now, probably he has in mind here the relationship of Jews and Gentiles. If we go back to Romans Chapter 2, there seems to be the issue of some Jews, maybe Jewish Christians, who thought they had a special status because God had given them the law, the torah, because they had circumcision. And they may have thought then that they were better than the Gentile Christians who were uncircumcised and who were not of national Israel. Well, now Paul is saying there's no room for that kind of boasting anymore. On what principle? On the principle of faith. Because a man is not justified by what he does, by obeying the torah. A man is justified by faith in Jesus. God is the one who does it. And so no person, Jew or Gentile, has a right to boast over and against any other person. You might say this is a leveling act of God. Jew and Gentile are now put on the same level. Every Christian is put on the same level. None of us can boast against another. We can definitely not boast to God. Because we're all in the same boat. All equally guilty and equally justified by God's grace. There's no room for boasting in the church. One person holding it over another because they think they are more righteous. That's blasted. Because what happens in the Gospel is that it's God who acts. And so Paul makes it clear: God is God of both Jew and Gentile. He declares righteous both the circumcised and the uncircumcised by faith. And so finally the conclusion in Verse 31: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the law. Now, this is kind of a strange conclusion because it seems that Paul is kind of against the law in this whole section. Law as the righteous demands of God. He keeps saying: It's not by the principle of the law that we are justified but by the principle of the faith. And so in a sense you might expect Paul to say: Do we abolish the law? Well, of course we abolish the law because it's all faith. But his final sentence here is in fact that we uphold the law. And so Nick, this gets us to your final question: How are we to interpret this? In other words, reading this proposition you might be saying: If this is a righteousness of God apart from the law, then how is Paul upholding the law? How is he establishing the law? Well, there are two options for how these verses are to be interpreted. Option 1 would argue like this: God has established his own law in this sense: Jesus Christ is the one who has obeyed God, who has fulfilled the law in himself. And then who was given as a sacrifice to God for sin. So that in a sense God's righteous demands of the law have been upheld in the person of Jesus Christ. And so the law is established. God's righteous demands have been met, have been satisfied. Only they've been satisfied in this way: Jesus did it. Not us. And so what we receive as a gift is the declaration of righteous for the sake of Jesus Christ. And are there any theological objections to this point of view? No, I don't think so. Now, many people would argue from this that in a sense the law would be established in our life because now that we are free from the condemnation of God and our consciences are free, we don't have to worry anymore about doing God's will to earn his favor. So now the Christian is free actually to live in the law in the third use of the law as a gift, as a guide and a rule for how we're to live. And then they would reference the exhortation section in Romans, Romans 12:1 through 15:13 as that place where Paul in a sense will establish the law in it's proper place in a Christian life. No longer does it tell us what we need to do to be saved. But it tells us how to live now that we have been justified. Now that we have been saved. And so that's one option to explain Verse 31. A second option, some interpreters argue that when Paul uses law, nomos, in Verse 31, he doesn't mean the righteous demands of God. He means law in the second sense of the torah or the Word of God. So that in a sense when Paul says: We establish the law, we're establishing the torah. In other words, we're establishing the Old Testament Scripture, because the Old Testament Scripture all along agreed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All along even in the Old Testament people were saved not by their works but by faith. And again, those examples of Abraham and David, men of God who sinned and should have been punished. But because they trusted God's promises they in fact were considered righteous and forgiven even back then. And therefore, what we see going on in the Gospel is that the Old Testament Scriptures are not torn down and abolished, they are actually established in their proper place. And people who hold this interpretation would argue had a what we see Paul doing in Chapter 4 is he goes to the torah to establish that the principle of faith has always been the way God worked things. I would argue this: Both Options 1 and Options 2 both present good theological answers to what Paul is doing in Verse 31. We know that Paul is not contradicting himself and saying: Well, now that we're Christians we have to keep the law so that God will love us. That's not what he's saying. And so you can't take it that way. And so east Options 1 or Options 2 will explain what Paul means by: We establish the law. That was a very good question, Nick. And it helped us focus on these very important verses in the epistle to the Romans. No. 19. >> I have a question along the same lines Nick was pursuing with his question. You mentioned earlier that in Romans 4 Paul brings forward arguments to prove his proposition. Please help me out here. How does Paul make his case that we are declared righteous on the basis of faith? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Thank you for that question, David. And this now allows me a chance to speak again about that six-part rhetorical outline that I mentioned earlier in this class. Again, I would argue that the introduction to Paul's epistle would be Romans 1:8 through Romans 1 Verse 17 where Paul establishes his reasons for writing the epistle to the Romans. He hopes to visit Rome. And his theme, which is the power of the Gospel as the means by which God saves and declares righteous. You might say the just man will live by faith. Then the ***narratio section would be Romans 1:18 through 3:20 where Paul narrates the history of human sin and makes the case that everybody is guilty before God. Then the proposition is Romans 3:21 through 31 that we've just read in a little closer detail where Paul establishes his basic propositional truths. And the main proposition is that a righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law. And this is a righteousness of God that is received through faith in Jesus Christ. And he also makes the point that it's -- this was testified to by the law and the prophets. By the Old Testament. And so now we expect Paul to prove that main proposition. And now the confirmation section of Romans would actually extend from Romans Chapter 4 through Chapter 11. However, as we look at these chapters, I would make the case that Paul really proves his point in Chapter 4. And then in Chapters 5 through 11 he'll refer back to that point but he kind of discusses the implications of what it means to be justified by faith. And so really Chapter 4 is the chapter you want to read, David, to see how Paul proves his proposition back in Chapter 3. And Paul makes four points. What he does here is he actually refers back to the torah, back to the Old Testament to make his case. And he goes specifically to Abraham, who was the forefather of the Jewish nation. And therefore you might say the way God works with Abraham would be the way that God should be working with Israel in general. And if Abraham is supposed to be the father of many nations and Paul will make the case now that those who believe in Jesus have Abraham as their father. The way God works with Abraham should be the way God works with anyone who he tries to save. And so the way God works with Abraham is the way God should be working in the right church now. Well, how does Paul prove his proposition by referring back to Abraham? Well, his first argument is that Abraham was declared righteous by God apart from works. And of course there's the proposition. A righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law. And so Paul refers back to Genesis 15 Verse 6. And this verse says: And he, Abraham, believed the Lord. And it was reckoned or credited to him as righteousness. Now, this verse is very pivotal in Paul's understanding of the Old Testament here in Romans and also in the book of Galatians. This is a text he cites for the way God worked with Abraham. God made a promise to Abraham. Abraham believed that promise. And on the basis of Abraham's faith and God's promise, God credited Abraham with righteousness. And Paul points out that if you're credited with righteousness, you haven't heard it, it's given as a gift. So this is evidence that Abraham was justified. He was considered righteous, declared righteous, imputed as righteous apart from what he did. And so this is the first argument that Paul makes that indeed Abraham was considered righteous apart from the law, apart from works. Now, interesting also in making this first argument, Paul not only refers to Abraham, but he also refers to David and quotes Psalm 31 where David talks about the forgiveness of sin which comes to the believer as a gift of God. So Paul is actually very clever here. He has taken two of the most prominent people of the Old Testament, both Abraham and David, and shows that both of them understood that forgiveness and righteousness came on the basis of faith and not works. And if we consider the Old Testament narrative that underlies those two men, we know that Abraham sinned against God. And we know that David sinned against God. And yet both were forgiven, both were considered righteous on the basis of faith. This proves that the way God worked in the Old Testament is indeed the way he still works today. That it's through faith, not works, that we get the blessings of salvation, forgiveness and righteousness. Now, a second point that Paul makes in Chapter 4 is that Abraham was considered righteous apart from circumcision. And this is the second argument in Romans 4 that Paul makes the case that when Abraham was credited as righteous back in Genesis 15 Verse 6, this took place before Abraham was circumcised. For the rite of circumcision wasn't instituted until Genesis 17. So in a sense when Abraham was considered righteous, it was when Abraham himself was an uncircumcised man. And so Paul sees this as evidence that even in the Old Testament, God justified, he considered righteous, the uncircumcised. Because it happened to Abraham when he was uncircumcised. Circumcision came later as kind of a sign of the covenant. But Paul uses this as an a argument that yes, indeed, both the circumcised and the uncircumcised can be saved, can be considered righteous on the basis of faith, because that's how God did it with Abraham back in Genesis 15. Now, the third argument that Paul makes is that Abraham was justified apart from the law. Because the law was not given when Abraham was given the promise. Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many nations. And Paul argues here that therefore Abraham's children should inherit the entire world. And that promise was received by Abraham in faith before the law was given. Now, this argument is actually drawn out even further in Galatians Chapter 3 where Paul points out there was actually a 430 year gap between Abraham being considered righteous and receiving the promise and until the law of Moses was given. 430 years. And he says this 430 years certainly can't nullify the promise that was given to Abraham. So we see kind of three things, Abraham was considered righteous apart from works, apart from circumcision, apart from the law. And that is the way God worked then. Therefore, it makes sense that this is the way God is working right now. And then finally one further point. Paul makes clear that Abraham, it was by faith that Abraham lived. And by faith that Abraham finally received the promise of his son, Isaac. And here again Paul I think is referencing the entire Genesis narrative about Abraham. Genesis 12 through 35. And when we read that narrative we can find evidence that Abraham was a sinful human being. That he didn't always faithfully trust the promise. We know for instance Abraham let Hagar conspire to try to bring about a son through her slave woman Hagar (sic) and that led to a very messed up situation. That wasn't the way God was going to do it. Abraham should have trusted that God would give him his son through Sara. But he and Sara faltered. Later they would both laugh when God promised they would have a son. Nevertheless when you consider Abraham's whole life: That he left his homeland and went to a strange land because God told him to do it. That he did wait 25 years for the promise of his son Isaac. And then when Isaac was born in Genesis 22 that Abraham went so far as to be willing to sacrifice his son that God promised to him upon the altar in Moriah. We see that Abraham really was an example and a man of faith. And Paul draws out the fact that Abraham lived by faith and the promise of God. And it took a long time for that promise to be realized. And then when it was realized, God actually asked Abraham to sacrifice that promise. And so Abraham shows that the way God works with people is that he makes a promise. And people are to receive that promise in faith and trust in that promise. And that's the way God did things with Abraham in the Old Testament. And so therefore, Paul makes the connection between Abraham's faith and then our faith. The way it worked with Abraham is the way it works with people today, Jew and Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, he works on the principle of faith. And so in the conclusion of Chapter 4 now that Paul has made his case that his proposition is true as illustrated in the life of Abraham, Paul concludes with these words: That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness. But the words it was counted to him were not written for his sake alone. But ours, also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Here is the application of the proofs that Paul has made from Abraham's life. Is that as it was with Abraham, so it is with us today. That it will be counted to us as righteousness when we believe God who raised Jesus from the dead. And when we believe that Jesus was delivered over for our sins and trespasses and raised for our justification. Again, why is faith the means? Well, because it's not us who are acting. It is God who is acting. This calls us back to what Paul said in Romans Chapter 3. We're all answerable to God. We're all guilty. It doesn't take faith to know that. However, it does take faith to understand and to receive the wonderful declaration that inspite of our sins, God has done something else. That he has delivered Jesus over for our sins and he has raised Jesus from the dead so that on account of what God has done in Jesus, we can in faith receive the declaration righteous. Because you believe in my Son Jesus Christ. That's what God says. And now Paul has made the case that this is not anything new. As God did it with Abraham in Genesis, Abraham lived by faith apart from works, apart from circumcision, apart from the law, Abraham was considered righteous on the basis of his faith. And his whole life was lived in faith in God's promise. So it is today that apart from the law, apart from circumcision, apart from our works, trusting in what Jesus has done, we live by faith today. And so indeed, we do receive a righteousness that is apart from the law. A righteousness that is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. No. 20. >> Romans 5:1 through 11 has always been one of my favorite sections. Although justification is mentioned here again, the word for salvation that really seems to stand out is reconciliation. Could you comment on this? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Yes, Josh. As we go on from Chapter 4 we come to a section of Scripture that is actually one of my favorite passages, too. Romans 5:1 through 11 is a passage that I often return to in my own personal devotional life because this is a passage that I find really grounding into reality what God has done for us in Jesus Christ that is mentioned again at the end of Chapter 4, how this really grounds us and helps us face reality today. Even suffering itself can be properly understood only in response to what God has done. And so let's look at what Paul is actually doing in this first part of Romans Chapter 5. Note at the end of Romans Chapter 4 Paul has said the way God did it with Abraham is the way he does it with us today. God declared Abraham righteous on the basis of Abraham's faith. Not on the basis of Abraham's obedience and works. Not on the basis of circumcision and the law that actually wasn't even given until 430 years after Abraham. And so it is today that we are considered righteous when we believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. And note back in Chapter 4 that Paul also emphasizes the place of the resurrection of Jesus. Not just that he was delivered over for our sins but that he was raised for our justification. So not only do we have a Savior who died for us but we have a Savior who lives again. And so in his resurrection again to us is proof that God has accomplished justification through his death. It's proof that God has accepted his sacrifice. And it's also evidence that we have the hope of a resurrected life to come. And then it's on the basis of that hope and that faith and knowing what God has done for us that we can face life and all of its many nuances, both good times and bad times, in a very faithful way. And so in Romans 5 Verses 1 through 5, Paul discusses the implications of what he's just said at the end of Romans Chapter 4. You are just because you believe God raised Jesus from the dead. And in fact God did deliver Jesus over for your trespasses and Josh, he raised Jesus for your justification. Well, when you know that, then one reality is that you have peace with God right now. Notice the difference between this and the understanding of the medieval church. Luther had no peace before he understood the Gospel because he thought he had to attain this high level of God's righteousness before he could have true peace. But what he found in the Gospel is that: No, we have peace now because we have that verdict now, not guilty, righteous now. And so we have a whole and full relationship with God. And then with this comes joy in all circumstances. And Paul is very specific here. Even in suffering. Being a Christian doesn't mean that we will not suffer of the many things that life will bring to us. And in fact, in Paul's day -- and it is true today in many parts of the world, we might suffer specifically for being Christian. I remind you, Josh, that in many places in the world today you can think of the Sudan or in Pakistan, those who believe in Jesus are actually suffering and persecuted because of their faith. If Christians in those lands would convert to Islam, they would escape a lot of suffering. Nevertheless Paul would say of them they have peace with God and they can rejoice in all circumstances even with their suffering. Perhaps we American Christians are a little comfortable and not used to the suffering and persecution that the world can bring upon us. But I believe Josh, here in this country we will face and we he do face a certain form of resentment and persecution when we boldly confess the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, Paul makes it clear because of what God has done, we have peace with God and joy in every circumstance. And these are good, direct implications of what it means to have been saved and justified and declared righteous. And then in Romans 5 Verses 6 through 11, Paul returns once again to discussing the Gospel. And we can see how much Paul loves the Gospel in Romans. Because even when he stops to talk about the implications of what the Gospel means in a very practical way for our lives today, he can't help but go back to talking about what the Gospel is again. And Josh, you're very right to notice that suddenly in these verses, Verses 6 through 11, Paul is more -- Paul is looking at the Gospel from a new vantage point. And so now here it's just justification that is most central but it is reconciliation that is most central. So Josh, it's a good question that you ask let's talk now about reconciliation. But before we do that, Josh, I would actually like to stop and talk about a number of the rich Gospel terms that we have met in the book of Romans so far. Now, I've been talking about justification. But now that you bring up reconciliation, I've got to backtrack and talk about three other terms that Paul has brought up in his discussion. And each of these terms looks at the same Gospel, what God did in Jesus. Jesus was delivered up for our sins, raised from the dead for our justification. Each of these terms looks at that event from a different vantage point. But first I'll review for us justification. We've talked about this in detail. Justification is a forensic term. That means it's a courtroom term. A legal term. And it explains the Gospel in a legal sense. God gives us the verdict of righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ. This is justification. God declares righteous those who believe in Jesus. And Paul makes it clear because Jesus died upon the cross and rose again. Now, this is the term I think that's most central to understanding the book of Romans. However, Paul also mentions redemption back in Chapter 3. Did you notice the mention of redemption back in Chapter 3? Paul says: For there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. That's Romans 3:22 through 24. Redemption is another salvation term. But it's not looking at the Gospel from the standpoint of the courtroom. Redemption is more an economic term. And actually we might think not just economy but actually redemption looks at it from the point of view of ransoming or buying back someone who is in slavery. This is what redemption is doing. And now there's redemption in Jesus Christ. In other words, in Jesus Christ we are bought back and made God's once again. God is purchasing us, he's buying us out of slavery. And then we might say: Slavery to what? As we get into Romans 6, 7 and 8 we'll see there's slavery to sin, slavery to the law and it's condemnation of our sin, slavery to death and the fear of death. And although Paul doesn't mention it there we can also include slavery to the power of the devil. That we were once slaves to sin, to the law and it's condemnation, to death and the power of the devil. And that God in Jesus Christ has bought us back out of that slavery. And this is looking at the Gospel from a different vantage point. From the view of economy and slavery. Buying someone out of a slavery position. That is redemption. That is buying somebody back. And we see that in the book of Romans, too. And now there's a third Gospel word that is used also back in Chapter 3. And it's actually used in conjunction with redemption there. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption who is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood. The ESV translates that propitiation. The RSV translates that as expiation. I would prefer the translation of atoning sacrifice. And here we get the Gospel word atonement. Just as justification looks at the Gospel from a legal point of view, redemption looks at it from an economic and slavery point of view, atonement looks at it from a sacrificial point of view. And this makes us think about the book of Leviticus and the sacrificial system where sin was taken care of in the Old Testament where animals were sacrificed in the place of the people who sinned. And then the blood of the animals would be an expiation or propitiation, an atoning sacrifice for the sin. It would cover the sins, purify the sins, remove the sins of the people through the blood that was shed. And now a very startling thing, we find that God himself has done this to his own Son Jesus Christ for our sake. So atonement would look at the Gospel from that sacrificial point of view. And then one other word that I didn't comment on in detail would be the word forgiveness, which we meet up in Chapter 4. Where Paul quotes David in Psalm 34 Verses 7 and 8: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin. And now forgiveness is another word that looks at the Gospel. And then again is from an economic point of view. Only here we're now buying slaves out of sin. Only here the point of view is more a debt is owed by one person and that person has to pay the debt. However, forgiveness is when that debt is cancelled. And so what we find out that what also is accomplished in Jesus is that God has cancelled the debt that we owe him. He has forgiven those sins. They are removed, they are covered. They are there no more. So already Paul has used four very rich Gospel terms: Justification, which has been his central focus. But also redemption, atonement and forgiveness. And now this Romans Chapter 5 we see very central the word reconciliation. And so Josh, I'm glad that you asked about this. It's given me the opportunity to talk about various ways that Paul has discussed how the Gospel works. Well, reconciliation is unique in that it looks at the Gospel from the point of view of relationship. Reconciling means that a relationship has been restored. And Paul says some very startling things about our status before we were saved. He says that we were sinners and that we were enemies of God. Now, you know enemy, Josh, is a very strong term. Enemy does not mean that you're neutral but that you're actually opposed to somebody. And this actually I think refutes a common understanding among a lot of Americans, even American Christians. I think a lot of people believe that the unsaved man or woman is sort of in a neutral state. They are not really good or bad. It's almost that they have to choose to be evil to really be opposed to God. Or they choose to be good to be on God's side. And Paul would say: No, no way. There's no one in a neutral position with God. You are either his enemy or you are his friend. Period. And what we were before we were saved is we were actually enemies opposed to God. A very strong term. Well, if you're an enemy of God, then what you need is reconciliation. And this is what God has done. God has given us peace with him. And he's done it again by sending his Son to die in our place. In other words, rather than punish his enemies, he punishes his Son. And that becomes the means by which he reconciles his enemies to himself. And now instead of being God's enemies, we have peace with God. Romans 5 Verse 1. Now we are God's friends. Now we are his people. Now we are his children. And this reconciliation has been accomplished again through what Jesus did in his death and his resurrection. And so this now, Josh, is what reconciliation would ask us to see. It would ask us to see that we had a problem and we were once God's enemies. We were once opposed to God. But God sent his Son to die for us. And so he has reconciled us. Now we are not opposed to God. We have peace with God. Now, I would like to draw out one homiletical application here, Josh. I believe that our preaching can become very rich and varied when we actually look at how the New Testament and the Old Testament look at the Gospel. These various vantage points. And that when we preach the Gospel, if we have the opportunity to take it from one particular point of view, that we preach it that way. In other words, if we're preaching on a text where justification is central, then we talk in the courtroom language. However, if redemption is central, we talk redemption language. God buying us back from slavery and sin to condemnation. If it's reconciliation, such as we see in Romans 5, we preach a sermon from a reconciliation point of view. We were enemies opposed to God. God has made peace with us through his Son. Because I think there is a tendency among Lutherans, especially in the Missouri Synod, to always focus upon justification. Now, I've made the point justification is very -- is most central to our understanding of the Gospel. Because it is most central to Paul's understanding of the Gospel. But note, again, this is not the only way that Paul talks. Paul uses redemption, atonement, forgiveness and reconciliation language, too. Nor is this the only way that the entire New Testament talks about the Gospel. And so I believe that it would benefit us and our people very much if when we preach upon the Gospel, we look at what this text here is actually saying. What vantage point of the Gospel that this it text is giving. And for instance, if you're preaching on Romans 5 then, you stress what God has done in reconciling us to himself. One further application of this, Josh, to be a little more gracious to our separated brothers and sisters in other denominations, very often different denominations have their own unique Gospel word that is their favorite word for talking about the Gospel. Now, for us Lutherans, indeed, it would be justification. And I believe we have a good reason to stress justification. Because it's so central to Paul's argument in the book of Romans. However, if we have brothers and sisters from another denomination who may, for instance, talk more about reconciliation or may talk more about redemption or may talk more about in participation language that we have participated in Christ's death and resurrection, we should be gracious to understand that these are other ways to talk about the Gospel, as well. I wish everybody would see as we do how in Romans justification really is the key way. And often people by ignoring that may confuse the Gospel. But at the same time I think we as Lutherans would be enriched if we would continue to see justification as the central motif. But see how varied the Gospel -- how many varied ways the Gospel is presented in the New Testament. And then if we would preach and teach all of those various ways that the Gospel is discussed, and then we might be enriched in understanding how the Gospel is presented by other denominations, as well. So Josh, thank you for that question about reconciliation.

***ROUGHLY EDITED TRANSCRIPT***

Load more

  51

Copy Link