A Servant of Christ

“A Servant of Christ” Romans 1:1-7 St. John’s, Bradford September 9, 2001

Lord Lyttleton and Gilbert West were two nineteenth century English lawyers. They were unbelievers who one day took it upon themselves to disprove Christianity. As they discussed their project they decided that there were two main bulwarks of the Christian religion: the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the conversion and apostleship of Paul. West undertook to write against the resurrection of Jesus, while Lyttleton’s task was to disprove the factuality of Paul’s conversion. Each was somewhat rusty in his knowledge of the facts, as unbelievers often are. So one lawyer said to the other, “If we are to be honest in this matter, we should at least investigate the evidence.” They agreed to do this. While they were preparing their books they had a number of conferences, and in one of them West told Lyttleton that there was something on his mind that he felt he should share. He said that as he had been studying the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection he had come to feel that there was something to it, since it was very well attested. Lyttleton replied that he was glad that West had spoken as he had, because on his part he had come to feel that there was some truth in the stories of Paul’s Damascus Road conversion. Later, after they had finished their books and the two met again, Lyttleton said to his friend, “Gilbert, as I have been studying the evidence and weighing it by the recognized laws of legal evidence, I have become satisfied that Saul of Tarsus was converted as the New Testament says he was and that Christianity is true; I have written my book from that perspective.” West replied that in a similar way he had become convinced of the truth of Jesus’ resurrection, had come to believe in Jesus, and had written his book in defense of Christianity. Today their books are found in many good libraries. Few Christians are surprised by this story, but it has at least one unusual element. Since it is clear that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is foundational to Christianity, it is easy to understand why a nonbeliever like West would want to write a book refuting the resurrection. But the conversion and apostleship of Saint Paul might initially seem to be a much less important matter. Yet here, as in many other places, first glances are misleading. Paul was not “the founder of Christianity,” as some have called him. Jesus alone deserves that title. Yet Paul is so important as the first and greatest of the church’s missionaries and as the articulator and systematizer of its theology that discrediting his claim to have been called and taught by Christ would seriously undermine Christianity itself. If Paul was not converted as a result of seeing the risen Lord while on the road to Damascus, as he claimed, and if he did not receive his gospel by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ, then Paul was a charlatan, his writings were not true, and Christianity is bereft of its single most important teacher after Christ. Here is the man who meets at the very beginning of our study, in fact in the very first word. Paul. It is a miracle that the word is even there. Paul is indeed the writer of this book. But we should remember that it was written to a largely Gentile church and that in his early days Paul was a fanatical Jew who would have little or no concern for a Gentile community, least of all a community that claimed as its Lord a man who had been crucified for blasphemy against the God of Israel only a few years before. Who was Paul? In an appeal to the Roman commander of the Jerusalem garrison, recorded in Acts, Paul identified himself as a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, which he modestly called “no ordinary city.” Tarsus was a Greek city, the seat of a well-known university. Therefore, since Paul was apparently from a well-to-do family, we must assume that he received an outstanding or Greek education in Tarsus. He shows some evidence of this by occasionally quoting from the pagan poets in his New Testament letters. Important as Paul’s Greek education may have been, however, there is no doubt that his education in Judaism was the chief factor in his academic and intellectual development. Paul trained under the renowned Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem where, as he claimed, he acquired a thorough knowledge of Jewish law and traditions. The son of a Pharisee, he became a Pharisee himself and was so zealous for the Pharisaic ideals of righteousness that he undertook a radical persecution of the early church, which he believed opposed those ideals. Paul thus had the benefits of the best possible secular and religious education. He was a thoroughly education man. Paul was a super achiever, after all, so he could have introduced himself by a long list of accomplishments. He could have cited his ancestral tree, his academic degrees, his success in founding churches—even his writings, since Romans does not seem to have been the first of his letters. But Paul does not do this. Why? It is not because he was embarrassed about these things; he mentions them elsewhere in their proper place. It is certainly not because he did not value them. Paul overlooks these achievements because what he is most concerned about simply overshadows them. Above all else, Paul saw himself as a servant of the Lord, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God. A Servant of the Lord. Paul’s letters are always filled with Jesus, no matter what he is writing about. In the first seven verses of Romans, the first half of Paul’s opening remarks, Jesus is mentioned by name, pronoun, title, or a descriptive phrase eight times: “Christ Jesus,” “his Son,” “a descendant of David,” “The Son of God,” “Jesus Christ our Lord,” “him,” “Jesus Christ,” and “the Lord Jesus Christ.” This provides a very good way of testing our Christianity. Many of us are convinced of the truthfulness of Christianity. Perhaps we can articulate the doctrines of the faith, as Paul does. We can attend church and work hard in the church. Ah, but do we love Jesus? Is he the centre? Is he the beginning and the end? When we talk to one another, do we speak often of him? Are we content to let the honours of this world pass by, so long as we can be known as Christ’s servants? This gets very close to what is chiefly wrong with contemporary Christianity. Our religion is one of personalities, plans, and programs, of buildings, books and bargains. Because it is not the faith of those who love Jesus, it is shallow and selfish, constantly shifting in the ebbs and flows of cultural standards. As we grow in grace we will think less of these things and more of him who “loved me and gave himself for me.” So perhaps we need to see ourselves more like Paul did as servants of the Lord. That is how Paul identified himself first and foremost. A Servant of the Lord. Next he identified himself as “Apostle.” What is an apostle? “Apostle” is one of the least appreciated and even misunderstood words in the Christian vocabulary. For some it means little more than “disciple.” This is unfortunate, because a misunderstanding of this word involves a misunderstanding of much about Christianity. The best passage for understanding the meaning of the word “apostle” is the first part of Acts, in which the eleven apostles elected a twelfth to complete their ranks after the treachery and death of Judas. As Peter explained, it was necessary for the replacement to have known the risen Lord and to have been chosen by him for this office. The disciples nominated two who met the first qualification: Joseph Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. This episode teaches that an apostle was to be a witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that he was also necessarily chosen and equipped by Jesus for this function. Yet there is even more to it even than this. We know that the very end of the Gospels and at the beginning of Acts, the Lord gives Christians a command we call the Great Commission. It means that we are all to be witnesses to Christ. If this is so, why is the apostolic office a special one? The answer comes from the observing the way these chosen representatives of the Lord regarded the office. It is not only that they saw themselves as witnesses. The apostles knew that they were to witness in an extraordinary, supernatural sense. Because they were apostles, God spoke authoritatively through them, so that what they said as apostles carried the force of divine teaching or Scripture. By calling himself an apostle in Romans, Paul reminds his readers that he is writing as no mere ordinary man, but rather as one who has been given a message that should be received by them as the very words of God. This also has bearing on ourselves, for it tells us how we are to receive this book and benefit from it. We can study it as a merely human book, of course. That cannot be bad, since Romans is a good piece of writing, one well worth studying, even in limited terms. But if we should profit by it greatly, we must receive it as what it truly is—a message from God to our hearts and minds—and we must obey its teachings, just as we would be obliged to obey God if he should speak to us directly. A servant of the Lord, called to be an apostle. The third phrase Paul uses to introduce himself to the believers in Rome is “set apart for the gospel of God.” This takes us back to the opening overview of Paul’s life. In the days before his meeting Christ on the Road to Damascus, Paul was a Pharisee, and the meaning of that word is “separation” or “a separated one.” This is the word that Paul now uses of his commitment to the gospel. Before he met Christ, Paul was set apart to the Pharisaic traditions. Indeed, he regarded himself as one sublimely set apart. Pharisees crossed the street rather than pass close to some unworthy sinner or vile publican. They held to dietary restraints, sacramental cleansings and sabbath restrictions. The list of things a Pharisee would NOT do was tremendous. But, when Paul met Christ, a life-shattering change occurred in him. Before, he was separated FROM all manner of things, and as a result he was self-righteous, narrow, cruel, and obsessive. Afterward, he was separated UNTO something, unto the gospel. That separation was positive—expansive and joyful, yet humbling. Paul never got over that divinely produced transformation. Nor should you. Do you know what it is to be released from a negative legalism into the liberation of a positive Christianity? I am sure that in his new calling there were many things Paul did not do. Certainly he did not make provision for fulfilling the fleshly sins. He did not lie or cheat or steal or commit adultery. But Paul never thought of the rejection of these sins as privation, because he had set his heart on something more, and that was a grand commitment that he always counted his calling to be the greatest of all privileges. Paul, a servant of the Lord, called to be an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God.