The Alpharetta Bible Study Breaking Down The Middle Wall Of Partition

Taking A Little Closer Look At the Jew-Gentile Thing

August 3-7, 2015

Hosted By Allan Turner

Accommodations Provided By: Allan And Anita Turner

Lunch & Dinner Catered By: Anita Turner, Allison Turner, And Holly (Turner) Johnson A Short Introductory Survey Of The Book Of Romans

Marc W. Gibson

A survey is a general view, examination, or description of someone or something. To survey a plot of land one must determine the boundaries and layout of that particular piece of real estate. To survey a book of the Bible, one must determine the intended purpose, arrangement, and thesis of the author.

Inspiration

The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1:1). As an apostle, Paul received the revelation of Christ by the Holy Spirit which he then delivered by speaking and writing the words that the Spirit taught (1 Cor. 2:7-13; Eph. 3:3-5). Paul alludes to the inspiration (God-breathed–2 Tim. 3:16-17) of Romans when he wrote:

15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (15:15-16)1

He speaks here of the grace given to him by God to reveal the gospel of God as a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. It is because of this grace given to him that he wrote this epistle as a reminder to them. This is, in effect, an affirmation by Paul of the divine inspiration of his epistle.2

Peter’s statement about Paul’s epistles also affirms the inspiration of the book of Romans:

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations will be taken from the New King James Version. 2 In Ephesians 3:2-3, Paul speaks of the “dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)…” By the grace of God given to him as an apostle, Paul was able to write and preach (v. 8) the “unsearchable riches of Christ,” i.e. the gospel of Christ. 1

Whether Peter had the book of Romans specifically in mind when he states that Paul had written that “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” cannot be known definitively, but Paul did speak of the subject in Romans (2:4; 9:22). Nevertheless, Peter goes on to say that Paul had spoken of these things “according to the wisdom given to him” in “all his epistles,” in which were “some things hard to understand” that some twisted to their own destruction “as they do also “the rest of the Scriptures.” This phrase “the rest of the Scriptures” clearly identifies the epistles of Paul, including Romans, as part of the canon of those writings known as the “Scriptures” (divinely-inspired writings – “God-breathed” theopneustos 2 Tim. 3:16).3

Purpose

Paul’s purpose in writing the epistle is to both doctrinal and practical. It was doctrinal in that he declared the saving gospel of Christ for both Jew and Gentile. There appeared to be questions and tensions among the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome. Paul lays forth the reason (sin), plan (justification by faith in Christ), and benefits (reconciliation, spiritual-mindedness, hope) of the salvation revealed by God in the gospel of Christ.4 In addition, Paul addresses God’s plan concerning the Jews and how their rejection of Christ had resulted in salvation coming to the Gentiles, and then again to the Jews.

It is practical in that Paul deals with the problematic attitude of pride in both Jews and Gentiles, as well as the obligations that Christians have to the body of believers, government, and brethren who differed in matters of liberties.

Underlying all of this is the fact that Paul plans to visit Rome on his way to evangelize Spain. He is looking forward to the opportunity to stop by Rome to preach the gospel and enjoy the company of Christians he has known and would like to know. He first must go to Jerusalem to deliver the gift of benevolence sent by the churches of Achaia and Macedonia to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.

Thesis

The thesis of Romans is summed up in two major themes:

1) God, according to His righteousness and the gospel, has freely by grace, through the death of His Son, provided to all sinners, Jew and Gentile, justification by faith in Christ Jesus, and all things within this divine purpose work together for good to all who love God and are called by Him.

2) Those justified by faith in Christ are to live with a spiritual walk according to a renewed spirit of mind, presenting their bodies as living sacrifices in faithful service to God, with both Jew and Gentile rejoicing together in the Holy Spirit and eagerly

3 “The result of the whole discussion is practically to compel us to take τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς in the obvious sense ‘the rest of the Scriptures,’ and we cannot escape the conclusion that the Epistles of Paul are classed with these” (Nicoll). 4 The book of Galatians deals with some of the same points concerning justification by faith as opposed to justification by deeds of the law, but is more polemic because of the immediate danger of those who were “turning away so soon” to a “different gospel” (Gal. 1:6-7) (see Bruce 30-31). 2

awaiting the hope of the redemption of the body unto eternal life at the final resurrection.

The second theme is argued upon the truth of the first theme. The first theme is the dominant theme in the first eleven chapters, while the second theme begins to be interwoven into the first theme in chapters 6-8 and becomes the dominant subject in chapters 12-16.5

Arrangement And Message

The flow of the epistle is evident as one examines its contents. After introductory comments (1:1-15), Paul begins with a propositional statement of truth concerning the gospel of Christ (1:16-17) after which he begins the first major section of doctrinal teaching (1:18-11:36).

Paul proceeds to show the need of gospel salvation due to the fact that all men have sinned, both Gentiles and Jews (1:18-3:20). Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, it is impossible to be justified by deeds of the law (perfect law-keeping). Paul affirms that justification is free by the grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus to all who believe (3:21-31). Abraham is offered by Paul as a supreme example of being justified by faith (grace), and not by works (debt; perfect law-keeping). This was true before he was circumcised and when he received the sign of circumcision, making him the father of all who walk in the steps of faith (ch. 4).

Justification by faith carries with it benefits including peace, perseverance, hope, reconciliation, and rejoicing because Christ died for us (5:1-11). Adam and Christ are contrasted, with Adam representing condemnation and death and Christ representing abundant grace and eternal life (5:12-21).

Paul then deals with certain questions that he anticipates will arise in response to the doctrine of Christ. Should one continue in sin that grace may abound? Paul answers in the negative, noting that one who has been baptized into the death of Christ is freed from sin, having died to it, and has become alive in Christ to present his members [body] as instruments of righteousness. Sin has no dominion over one who is under [justified by] grace (forgiveness) and not under [justified by] law (condemnation). Again, Paul denies that one should sin under grace. It is unthinkable that one would live in sin who has been freed from sin by obeying the doctrine of Christ. God’s gift is eternal life to those set free from sin (ch. 6). Here we also see Paul beginning to show that one justified by faith is expected to live in a way consistent with being raised to a new spiritual life.

Next, Paul makes it clear that those married to Christ have become dead to the law to serve God in the newness of the spirit (7:1-6). Paul then answers whether the law is sin

5 Clinton Hamilton explains that “the first 11 chapters are argumentative, or from Paul’s argument concerning the principle of the justification by faith. Chapters 12 through 16 which are hortatory, are based on the argumentative section. They lay out duties and responsibilities that belong to those who are justified by faith and who through it enjoy the grace of God” (Hamilton lxxiv-lxxv). 3 itself, which it is not, since the law itself is holy, just, and good. Looking back in time, Paul notes that sin did take advantage through the law to deceive and kill him in spirit (7:7-12). Paul then speaks in the present tense as he looks at his present condition before the law of God. What is observed is an intense struggle between the body [flesh] and spirit (7:13-25). Paul wills to do good, delighting in the law of God according to the inward man, but struggles against a law in his flesh that is weak in regard to sin and under the condemnation of death because of sin. His soul has been redeemed in Christ and enjoys forgiveness, but dwells in a body of death – a wretched state that he faced living in this corruptible world of sin!

Paul continues by affirming that there is no condemnation for those who walk according to the spirit (the way of God) and not according to the flesh (the way of sin) (8:1-8). The Spirit of God which dwells in us is life to our spirit, and will also give life to our wretched mortal bodies. The Spirit of God leads us as sons of God, bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God by adoption. This makes us heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ to be glorified together (8:9-18). The hope of a glorious future adoption, the redemption of our body, the deliverance from the bondage of corruption and futility, is expected by the creature who is eagerly waiting to be revealed in the glorious liberty of the children of God. The faithful are saved in this hope (8:19-25). Until then, the Spirit of God is a present help as our intercessor in our weaknesses and groanings of prayer (8:26- 27).

Paul announces a defining and concluding statement concerning the gospel of Christ toward all who love God and are called according to His purpose: All things work together for good! This is true because God predestined these ones to be conformed to the image of His Son, to be justified and glorified (8:28-30). Paul then rhetorically asks, If God is for us who can be against us? We are more than conquerors in Christ and no one can say or do anything that will separate us from the love of God (8:31-39).

Paul next deals with the particular issue of the rejection of his kinsmen, the Jews, and its repercussions (chs. 9-11). He defends the election of God based on His sovereign will and based on His choice of what character He would bless or punish (ch. 9). Israel had not pursued the righteousness of God by faith in Christ, and therefore was rejected by God. No distinction had been made between Jew and Gentile, and the Jews had no excuse for the word of faith had gone forth (ch. 10). The Jews were not cast away with no hope, for there was a remnant according to the election of grace. It so happened that the fall of the Jews became riches for the rest of the world, and that provoked the Jews so that some of them would be saved. The imagery of olive trees with the breaking off of unfaithful Jews and the grafting in of the Gentiles into God’s olive tree, along with Jews being re- grafted in, demonstrates the goodness and severity of God on the faithful and the unfaithful (11:1-32). Paul ends this section and the major doctrinal section (1:18-11:32) with a soaring doxology about the deep riches of God’s wisdom and knowledge, and His unsearchable judgment and ways.

In the second major section (12:1-15:6), Paul deals with hortatory admonitions concerning practical and obligatory applications of life. This would be based on the need

4 to present their bodies as living sacrifices and being transformed by the renewing of the mind (12:1-2).

There was the immediate obligation to be a humble member of the body of Christ working in conjunction with other members in service to one another (12:3-8). Paul gives a lengthy list of admonitions for godly living (12:9-21). Avoiding personal vengeance (12:19-21) leads into the obligation to be subject to governing authorities (13:1-7) who were God’s servants to avenge evil. Paul enjoined love for one another (13:8-10), and the urgency of putting on the Lord Jesus and the armor of light to fight against the darkness of sin (13:11-14).

Paul next discusses the obligation of brethren, weak and strong, to receive one another in matters of conscientious liberties, i.e. eating meats and observing days (14:1-15:6). Attitudes of judging and despite, whereby brethren were divided and/or made to stumble, was unacceptable. So also was violating one’s conscience, when doing something not from personal conviction. Brethren are to be unified and like-minded toward one another.

As Paul brings the epistle to a close, he states that Jew and Gentiles were to be unified together and be filled with hope because of God’s mercy (15:7-13). He was confident about the brethren at Rome as he states his intent to come to them on his way to Spain (15:14-33). He commends Phoebe to the brethren, and then gives a long list of brethren to greet (16:1-16). Paul warns them to take note of brethren who would cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine they had learned (16:17-20). After sending greetings from brethren with him (16:21-24), Paul concludes with a doxology repeating the same major themes as his introductory words (16:25-27; 1:1-6).

Introduction And Outline Of The Book Of Romans (With Comments)

Marc W. Gibson

Introduction To The Book Of Romans

Author: Paul, the apostle; servant of Jesus Christ, separated to the gospel of God (1:1)

Recipients: “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (1:7a)

Date of Writing: ca. AD 56-58

Place of Writing: Corinth – Gaius, who he baptized in Corinth, was Paul’s host (16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14); Erastus was the treasurer of the city of Corinth (16:23; 2 Tim. 4:20); Pheobe lived in nearby

5

Cenchrea (16:1); written during Paul’s third missionary journey as he prepares to go to Jerusalem to carry the contribution of brethren to poor among the saints in Jerusalem (15:25; 1 Cor. 16:3)

Themes: 1:16-17 – the gospel of Christ; justification by faith in Jesus Christ vs. perfect meritorious works of law; Jew-Gentile relationship; living by faith

Nature: Epistle – Doctrinal, Exhortation, Personal

Main Divisions: 1 – Introduction (1:1-17) 2 – Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus (1:18 – 11:36) 3 – Practical Exhortations and Obligations of Living for those who are in Christ (12:1 – 15:13) 4 – Personal Information, Salutations, and Final Admonitions (15:14 – 16:27)

Rome: Capital city of the Roman Empire; Emperor at the time was Nero (AD 54-68); founded in 735 BC by Romulus on seven hills on the east side of the Tiber River about 15 miles from its mouth at the Mediterranean Sea; estimated population of two million; major center of world wealth, politics, culture, and evil; Roman society was in a morally deplorable condition – heathenism, debauchery, excess, idolatry (Rom. 13:13)

Church(es) at Rome: Time and circumstances of establishment is unknown; could have been started by Pentecost converts or by disciples dispersed by persecution carrying gospel message back to Rome (Acts 2:10; 8:1-4); by the time of Paul’s epistle, he had known of the brethren for “many years” (15:23); composed of both Jews and Gentiles, with Gentiles probably the larger group; Paul hoped to come and see these brethren (1:11-15; 15:22-24; he did finally come to them in AD 61 – see Acts 28:15); known for their faith and obedience (1:8; 16:19); likely several congregations

6

7

“All roads led to Rome in the ancient world, and all roads in biblical exegesis lead to Romans sooner or later.”6 The epistle to the Romans has been described as “the most carefully thought through and constructed of his letters.”7 It is magnificent and daunting both in its length and depth. It is a bottomless source revealing the riches of God’s purpose in Christ Jesus, as well as a joyous message of salvation and victory for the faithful. Over the years, many have given lofty praise of this book and its influence:

6 N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity, 2009), 177. 7 Dunn, 838. 8

Luther said that Romans is “The chief part of the New Testament, and the very purest gospel, which, indeed, deserves that a Christian not only know it word for word by heart but deal with it daily as with daily bread of the soul. For it can never be read or considered too much or too well, and the more it is handled, the more delightful it becomes, and the better it tastes.” John Calvin wrote: “When anyone gains a knowledge of this epistle he has an entrance opened to him to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture.” The English poet, Samuel Coleridge, referred to Romans as, “The profoundest piece of writing in existence.” The noted scholar F.F. Bruce once said: “There is no telling what may happen when people begin to study the Epistle to the Romans.” William Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English, believed that every Christian should memorize Romans. John Chrysostom used to have someone read Romans outloud to him twice each week. After hearing it read so many times, he said this: “Romans is unquestionably the fullest, deepest compendium of all sacred foundation truths.”8

Is Romans the crowning presentation of the Christian gospel? Or is it the grandest statement of Christian doctrine? Actually, it is both. Romans is the theology of the New Testament; it is also the definitive statement of the gospel. In this epistle doctrine and gospel merge and the result is a spiritual feast for Christians.9

This book must not be thought of as a book on systematic theology. Rather, it should be viewed as a letter, which, in fact, it is. All the qualities of a letter it exhibits in attention to personal details and style of communication. Like all the other letters in the NT, it is based in concrete history and contains specific details and circumstances both about the author, Paul, and the persons to whom it is written. There is no question, on the other hand, that it is one of the most significant books in the NT and treats subjects fundamental to the revelation of God to man, and his redemption from sin. In this respect, this letter is a monumental one. That this is the case probably explains why more commentaries have been written on it than on any other NT book.10

Romans 1:1-17

I) Introductory Salutation (1:1-7) A) Paul introduces himself as the author of this epistle (1:1) 1) A servant of Jesus Christ (Titus 1:1) 2) Called to be an apostle (Acts 9:15; 26:16-18) 3) Separated to the gospel of God (Gal. 1:15-16; 1 Tim. 1:11; Acts 13:2) B) Expounds further concerning the “Gospel of God” = good news, divine revelation 1) Promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures 2) Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord

8 Bill. 9 Cottrell 18. 10 Hamilton xx. 9

a) Born of the seed of David according to the flesh (2 Sam. 7:12; Psa. 132:11; Acts 2:30) b) Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Psa. 2:7; Acts 13:32-33) C) Paul had received grace and apostleship in order that people of all nations would manifest “obedience to the faith” [gospel] (16:26; Eph. 3:1-11; Gal. 1:15-16; Matt. 28:19) 1) “Obedience of faith” (ASV, NASV, ESV) – obedience as a result of one’s faith 2) The Christians at Rome were among those “called of Jesus Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9) D) Epistle addressed to “all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” 1) Paul’s typical greeting of grace and peace from God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ

This epistle begins with a very formal and detailed introduction by Paul even before giving his typical greeting of grace and peace. Central ideas are the gospel, Jesus Christ, and obedience of faith – all themes further expounded upon in this epistle. Compare these beginning comments to the concluding doxology in 16:25-27.

“In the Greek this section is one long sentence. It has the same general form as a standard epistolary greeting of the time, but is much longer. A normal greeting would have been something like this: “From Paul, to the saints in Rome, greetings.” (See Jas 1:1 for something close to this.) It is lengthy even for Paul, and is the longest greeting of all his epistles.”11

There is no greeting specifically given “to the church at Rome,” strongly suggesting that the brethren in Rome were meeting in separate congregations scattered throughout the city instead of in one location (see outline on 16:3-16).12

II) Paul’s Desire To Visit The Brethren At Rome (1:8-15) A) Paul thanked God for them 1) Their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world B) Paul made mention of them always in his prayers “without ceasing” 1) Making particular request by the will of God to come to them 2) Longed to see them, to impart some spiritual gift, that they may be established 3) Be encouraged [refreshed] together with them through their mutual faith C) Paul had often planned to come to them to do spiritual work (but had been hindered) 1) He was a “debtor” to all men [Greeks, barbarians, wise, unwise] 2) He was ready to preach the gospel to them in Rome also

Paul had not yet been to the city of Rome to see the brethren there, but he knew of their faith and wanted to see them to impart some spiritual gift (an apostolic privilege). Spiritual gifts were imparted to establish and enrich brethren in the first century (see 1 Cor. 1:5-7). Paul explains his plans and purpose in coming to see them in 15:22-24. He

11 Cottrell 37. 12 “The Letter in hand was written to ‘all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called holy’; in other words, and briefly, it was written to all Christians living in Rome at the time. But it was written to them as individuals, and not as a body or church. This is a remarkable difference between the present Letter and some others written by Paul…That there was no one single church, or consolidated body, I think most likely. The better supposition is, that there were several churches” (Lard xv, xvi). 10 declares that he is ready to preach the gospel to them in Rome, and was a debtor to all men to preach the gospel. Notice that the gospel can be preached to Christians. It is false distinction to say that one can only preach the gospel (to non-Christians) and teach doctrine (to Christians) (see Rom. 6:17; 1 Tim. 1:10-11).

III) Just Shall Live By Faith (1:16-17) A) Paul was not ashamed of the gospel [of Christ] 1) Power of God to salvation – divine force and ability to save through the gospel a) For the Jew first, and also for the Greek [Gentile] B) In the gospel the “righteousness of God” is revealed [what God has accomplished for the salvation of sinful man – justification by faith in Christ Jesus – 3:21-26] 1) Revealed “from faith to faith” – from what is revealed in “the faith” [gospel] to the producing of our faith, belief (10:17) unto salvation 2) Quotes Habakkuk 2:4 – “The just shall live by faith” a) Salvation would be for those justified by faith – witnessed in the law and prophets (3:21b)

These two verses begin the formulation of one of the primary themes of the book of Romans and explains why Paul said it was necessary for him to preach the gospel – the gospel is God’s power to save all who believe, Jew and Gentile, and the righteousness of God is revealed therein from faith to faith, for the just shall live by faith. The sub-themes of gospel, salvation, faith, righteousness of God are developed throughout the epistle.

“The Jew first and also for the Greek [Gentile]” is used three times in Romans, to emphasize that both Jew and Gentile are equally in sin, condemned before God, and called by grace through the gospel unto salvation in Christ. The Jew and the Gentile must both believe unto salvation (see Appendix 2 for further discussion of the equal problem of sin and equal solution of salvation for the Jews and Gentiles).

That “the just shall live by faith” is an axiomatic spiritual truth which has been true from the beginning. Faith is our access to the grace of God that provides the free gift of salvation. If we are to be declared just, we must live by faith.13 Why Jew and Gentile are in such desperate need of salvation is explained by Paul next.

Romans 1:18-32

I) The Unrighteousness Of The Gentile World (1:18-23) A) Why Paul is ready to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome (v. 15): 1) “For” [because] he was not ashamed of the gospel – power of God to salvation (v. 16) 2) “For” in the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith (v. 17)

13 This quotation from Habakkuk 2:4 begins a saturation of quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament, those oracles of God committed to the Jews (3:2). Steve Moyise gives a conservative estimate of 60 Old Testament references, though, as he states, “there is sometimes debate as to what constitutes a quotation” (Moyise 2, 3). Romans, by far, has the most Old Testament references of Paul’s epistles (see Appendix 5 for more information on Paul’s use of the OT in the NT). 11

3) “For” the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress [hold back, hinder] the truth in unrighteousness (v. 18) B) The wrath of God was revealed against the unrighteous Gentile peoples of old 1) What may be known of God is manifest among men because God has shown it a) Since the creation, God’s invisible attributes, eternal power and Godhead [divine nature], are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (cf. Psa. 19:1- 2; Isa. 40:21-22) b) They are without excuse – cannot claim that they could not, or did not, know 2) They did not glorify God, nor were thankful a) Became futile in their thoughts; foolish hearts were darkened b) Professing to be wise, they became fools (cf. Jer. 10:14) c) Changed the glory of incorruptible God into image of man and animals – idolatry!

The reasons Paul gives for being ready to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome is because 1) he was not ashamed of the gospel wherein is revealed the righteousness of God, and 2) the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Ungodly men “suppress” the truth in unrighteousness. Evil cannot tolerate the bright light of truth and, therefore, seeks to hold it back from view.

Paul identifies the ancient Gentile world as an example of such unrighteousness and ungodliness. These ancient societies were without excuse because God’s invisible attributes could be clearly seen (note the paradox of “seeing” the “invisible”). This understanding was by the physical creation (natural revelation). Instead of glorifying and thanking God, they foolishly looked to their own wisdom and created idols in the form of the creation itself.

II) Further Unrighteousness Of The Gentile World (1:24-32) A) God “gave them up” (v. 24), “gave them up” (v. 26), “gave them over” (v. 28) 1) Allowed evil men to follow their own path of sinful destruction B) Uncleanness in the lust of their hearts, dishonor their bodies, worshiped the creature 1) Exchanged the truth of God for the lie – deception, evil C) Vile passions – women and men doing what is “unnatural,” “shameful,” “error” 1) Women doing what is against nature, and men with men burning in lust for one another – homosexual activity (cf. Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) a) Violation of God’s order of sexual union [in marriage] of a man and a woman (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5-6; 1 Cor. 7:2) D) Not retaining God in their knowledge, they developed a debased [corrupt] mind 1) Characterized by -- sexual immorality, wickedness, maliciousness, envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful (sins people commit against one another) 2) Those who practice such things are worthy of death (cf. Rom. 6:23; Rev. 21:8) a) Also, those who “approve of those who practice them”

12

Three times in this context it is said that God gave such sinners up/over due to their unrepentant course of evil. Their hearts were given over to lust, their bodies to dishonor, and their worship to the lie of idolatry, and this evil continued down a worsening path. Vile, unnatural, shameful passions of homosexual activity among women and men illustrated the depths of depravity in the ancient Gentile world which continued even into Paul’s day (the first century AD, especially Roman society).14 The debased mind that rejected God continued to manifest itself in ever-worsening vile characteristics of societal evil. Even today we are seeing the practice and fruit of this same ungodly behavior. The approvers, as well as the practitioners, of such things are worthy of death – eternal separation from a holy God.

Romans 2

I) God’s Righteous Judgment Against Jews (2:1-16) A) Inexcusable for Jews to judge others guilty of what they themselves practice 1) Hypocritical judgment (see Matt. 7:1f) 2) Will not escape the judgment of God (Jews addressed in this section – see v. 17) B) Sinners despise the goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering of God 1) Should have led them to repentance 2) A hardened and impenitent heart treasures up the wrath of God C) No partiality with God – will render to each one according to his deeds, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (cf. Acts 10:34; 1 Pet. 1:17) 1) Eternal life – to those who patiently continue in doing [working] good and seek for glory, honor, and immortality 2) Indignation, wrath, tribulation, anguish – to those who are self-seeking and do not obey truth but obey unrighteousness [does evil] 3) Sin without law [of Moses] – perish without law; sinned in the law – judged by the law a) Secrets of men will be judged in the last day by Jesus according to gospel D) Some Gentiles, who do not have the law, and by nature do the things contained in the law, although not having the law, are a law to themselves 1) Not hearers, but doers of law will be justified

14 “Both the highly pejorative description and the extended attention that the apostle Paul gives to homosexual practice in Rom 1:24-27 indicates that Paul regarded homosexual practice as an especially serious infraction of God’s will. As a complement to idolatry on the vertical vector of divine-human relations, Paul chose the offense of homosexual practice as his lead-off example on the horizontal vector of inter-human relations to illustrate human perversity in suppressing the obvious truth about God’s will for our lives perceptible in creation or nature. It makes little sense to argue that Paul took extra space in Rom 1:24-27 to talk about how homosexual practice is “dishonorable” or “degrading,” “contrary to nature,” an “indecency” or “shameful/ obscene behavior,” and a fit “payback” for their straying from God in order to show that homosexual practice was no worse than any other sin. Paul obviously gave idolatry and homosexual practice more airtime because they were two classic, not-uncommon examples of great human depravity that could only occur after humans had first blinded themselves to the truth around them. In the case of homosexual practice, humans would have to suppress the self-evident sexual complementarity of male and female (anatomically, physiologically, psychologically) before engaging in intercourse with members of the same sex” (Gagnon 8, emphasis his) 13

2) Did not have codified law (i.e. law of Moses) but did things contained in law (by nature – learned both by what was handed down and observed in nature) 3) Showed the work of the law written in their hearts (conduct reveals knowledge) 4) Their conscience, bearing witness, accused or excused them (role of conscience)

Having condemned the Gentile world of sin before God, Paul now turns to the Jews, who will not escape the judgment of God. The Jews themselves were guilty of sin even as they hypocritically pronounced others guilty of the same. God was longsuffering, but they had despised it and turned from it. God shows no partiality, either to Jew or Gentile, but will render judgment to each one according to his deeds.

To the shame of the Jews, who had the codified Law of Moses, the Gentiles, who did not have that law, by nature did the things contained in the law, showing the law written on their hearts, and which was policed by their consciences. It is those who are doers of the law that will be justified, not just hearers, regardless of whether one is a Jew or Gentile.

The “law written in their hearts” refers to the fact that, though they did not have the codified Law of Moses, they had learned and practiced what was lawful. It was “by nature,” that is, they had gained knowledge of moral righteousness without a codified law – through knowledge handed down through the generations and what is observed and learned in nature itself.15

II) Jews Do Not Practice What They Teach (2:17-24) A) The boast of the Jews: 1) Rest [rely] on law, make boast in God, know His will, approve the things that are excellent, instructed out of the law; confident as a guide to the blind, light to those who are in darkness, instructor of the foolish, teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law B) If you teach another, do you not teach yourself? (“practice what you preach?”) 1) Examples – stealing, adultery, robbing idol temples 2) Boast in law, but dishonor God through breaking the law 3) Name of God blasphemed among the Gentiles because of them (see Ezek. 36:19- 22; Isa. 52:5)

The Jew felt he had plenty to boast in as a Jew (and rightly so), but none of it excused his failure to practice the truth that he taught others to do. Such hypocrisy would give others a reason to blaspheme the name of God.

III) Outward Circumcision Avails Nothing (2:25-29) A) If a Jew breaks the law, circumcision becomes uncircumcision – worthless, of no avail 1) If uncircumcised keep the law, will be counted as circumcision (approved of God) 2) Faithful uncircumcised will judge unfaithful circumcised as a transgressor of the law

15 “Their sense of ‘ought,’ springing from inherent moral capacity, genders principles that accord with moral aspects of revealed law. This is sometimes called ‘universal moral law,’ but should not be regarded as a specific ‘covenant’…Paul’s main point is that they had sufficient awareness of moral obligation to be responsible for their sins; hence, God is just in condemning them” (Robert Turner 30). 14

B) True Jew is one circumcised inwardly – of the heart – in the spirit, and not in the letter (cf. Deut. 10:16; Acts 7:51) 1) Praise is from God, not from men (cp. Jn. 12:43) 2) Justification comes through obedient hearts of faith, not by perfect law-keeping

God is a fair, impartial judge, and those who keep the law will be approved of God, regardless of whether one is circumcised (Jew) or uncircumcised (Gentile). A true child of God has always been determined by the inward state of the heart. Not “in the letter” indicates that perfect keeping of law is not the basis of our salvation. Obedient hearts of faith receive the gift of grace from a loving God, which shall be explained further in the next chapter.

Romans 3

I) God’s Just Judgment (3:1-8) A) Did the Jew and his circumcision have any advantage? 1) Yes, to them were committed the oracles of God (cf. Deut. 4:7-8; Psa. 147:19-20) B) Jew’s unbelief did not make God’s faithfulness of no effect 1) Let God be true and every man a liar 2) Quotes Psalm 51:4b – David’s confession of sin that God had condemned C) Man’s unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God (cf. Amos 3:2) 1) Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? No! God must judge the sin of the world D) Some slandered Paul as saying, “Let us do evil that good may come” 1) Never right to do wrong! God is just in condemning evil (lottery, lying, etc.)

Paul affirms the advantage of the Jew, especially in possessing the oracles of God. The unbelief of the Jew did not make God’s faithfulness of no effect. God condemns unrighteousness in whomever it is found and is just in judging that sin.

Paul had been slandered by some claiming that he said that evil should be done that good may come. Some may have misunderstood what Paul said (things hard to understand—2 Pet. 3:16), but others intentionally twisted Paul’s words. Paul would never encourage sin under any circumstance or for any reason!

II) All Have Sinned (3:9-20) A) Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin 1) No one better than another—all condemned B) Series of OT quotes as to the sinfulness of mankind 1) Psalm 14:1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isa. 59:7, 8; Psa. 36:1 C) Law speaks to those under law to stop every mouth (boasting) and bring all the world to account by revealing its guilt D) By the deeds of law (perfect works) no man will be justified 1) By the law is the knowledge of sin – identifies sin (cf. 7:7; Gal. 3:22)

15

This is the point and conclusion of Paul’s first section. All men, Jew and Gentile, are under the condemnation of sin. Paul then strings together a series of Old Testament quotes from Psalms and Isaiah to illustrate the fact that man has been sinful in the sight of God, and there has been no one (except Jesus) who has perfectly kept God’s law.

The purpose of law is to provide the knowledge of sin for sinful man. By revealing the divine standard, the law informs man that he has fallen short of the standard (the glory of God). No one has kept the law perfectly, a requirement to be justified by law. Therefore, no flesh is justified by law. It is impossible due to the sin of every individual. Hamilton rightly observed,

Paul has demonstrated that man without an adequate atoning sacrifice is doomed to be penalized by God. The reason is that he does not keep law perfectly. Once he has sinned, there is no work that he can do, even in the observance of law, that can save him. It matters not whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. All men are in this predicament.16

III) The Righteousness Of God Through Faith (3:21-26) A) Now the righteousness of God is revealed (apart from law – not by perfect works) 1) Is revealed in the gospel of Christ (1:16-17) 2) Witnessed by the Law and the Prophets – principle of justification by faith 3) Through faith in Christ Jesus to all who believe (cf. 1:16) 4) For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God B) Justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus 1) Justified – acquitted, pronounced and treated as righteous 2) Freely – not earned (merited), gift 3) Grace – unmerited favor kindly bestowed 4) Redemption – payment of ransom, buy back, deliverance C) God set Christ to be a “propitiation” by His blood through faith 1) Propitiation = that which expiates [atones for], or means of expiation [atonement] 2) See 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10; Heb. 2:17; Lk. 18:13; Jesus is the expiation for our sins 3) Blood of Christ sufficient to cover sin and satisfy justice of God (avert wrath) 4) This blessing is acquired by our faith in Christ Jesus D) Demonstrate the righteousness of God 1) God had, in His forbearance, passed over sins previously committed (cf. Acts 14:16; 17:30; Heb. 9:15) a) God waited in view of the sacrifice of Christ that would forgive sins of faithful 2) Be just (righteous) and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus

Thankfully, the righteousness of God apart from the law (i.e. apart from perfect law- keeping), which is through faith in Jesus Christ has been revealed to all who believe. Faith continues to be a key condition of accessing the justification God has provided man through His grace. It is a free gift provided through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Justification is through faith in Christ, not perfect law-keeping (see Appendix 4 for a further examination of Paul’s discussion of the law, faith, and justification).

16 Hamilton, 209. 16

Paul addresses these same points in the book of Galatians. He affirms the truth that man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ (2:16). The Law of Moses was added because of transgressions (3:19), and its curse upon all who did not continue “in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them” (3:10) was a quandary that sinful man could not solve. The law confined all under sin (3:22) and pointed men to Christ to be justified by faith (3:24). This fulfilled the seed promise to Abraham and was for all, Jew and Gentile, that they may be one in Christ Jesus, Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (3:13-14, 26-29).

By his sacrificial blood, Jesus was a propitiation (expiation, atonement) for our sins. By this means, God is shown to be just and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus.

IV) Boasting Excluded (3:27-31) A) Boasting excluded, not by a law of works, but by the law of faith 1) Boasting in works performed – trying to achieve perfection 2) Law of faith is dependent on God’s free grace to save (praise and thanksgiving) B) Man is justified by faith, not by the deeds (works) of law 1) Not justified by perfect meritorious works (cf. Gal. 2:16) C) God is the God of the Jews and Gentiles – justify all by faith D) Make void the law? No! Rather establish the law 1) Obedience to divine law always necessary for the faithful to please God, but not saved by perfect law-keeping 2) Need of forgiveness establishes the power of God’s law over sinful man

There can be no boasting of perfect law-keeping when one is justified by faith. Such boasting is excluded. We can only glory in the Lord who saved us freely by His grace (see Appendix 4 for more discussion on the legalistic nature of this boasting).

The law is not voided through faith. On the contrary it is established. The law demand for obedience must be respected. The law “serves to show us our sins (3:20) and thus shows us our need for justification by faith. Also, it properly functions as a norm or standard for holy living. Even under grace, we have an absolute obligation to obey God’s law.”17

True faith is a faith that works (Jas. 2:14-26), and those saved by grace through faith have been created for good works (Eph. 2:8-10). Fortunately for all who believe, the violations of that law are expiated by the blood of Christ.

Romans 4

I) Abraham Justified By Faith (4:1-8) A) Example of Abraham – highly respected by all Jews 1) “Our father” – Paul addresses his Jewish brethren

17 Cottrell 155-6. 17

B) If Abraham justified by works (perfect law-keeping), he would have reason to boast, but not before God C) Abraham believed God (faith), and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6) 1) Referenced to three periods in Abraham’s life: Told he would have innumerable descendants (Genesis 15:6); told that Sarah would have a child (Rom. 4:19-22); sacrifice of Isaac (Jas. 2:23) – living by faith was his pattern of life 2) “Accounted” = credited, imputed, reckoned, counted (bookkeeping term – “put to one’s account”) 3) The righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us, nor is our sin imputed to Christ 4) Righteousness is accounted to us based on our faith in Christ D) One who works (keeps law) perfectly, wages are counted as debt (earned) not as grace 1) One who does not keep law perfectly (cannot claim justification on the basis of perfection), but has faith in God (trusts not in self but in God), his faith is accounted for righteousness (free of guilt) 2) Paul does not contradict James concerning faith and works (Jas. 2:14-26) a) Paul: perfect law-keeping (works) vs faith; James: obedience (works) of faith E) David describes the blessedness of the man counted righteous apart from works 1) Psalm 32:1-2 – forgiveness of sins, sins are covered, not impute sin

Paul’s prime exhibit of justification by faith is Abraham, one who was beloved by the Jews as their “father.” Abraham could not boast of perfect law-keeping, but it was his faith that was accounted (credited, imputed, reckoned, counted – put to his account) for righteousness. Please note that it was not the righteousness of another that was imputed to Abraham (contra Calvinsim), but his own faith was imputed to his account for righteousness.

If one were able to keep the law perfectly, God would owe him salvation as a matter of debt. But salvation is a matter of grace, because none of us have perfectly kept the law. Paul quotes David (Psalm 32:1-2) about the blessedness of the man who is counted righteous apart from works, that is, by being forgiven of sins (sins not imputed).

II) Abraham Justified Before Circumcision (4:9-12) A) Is this blessedness of justification by faith upon both circumcision and uncircumcision? 1) Uses example of Abraham again to answer this question B) Abraham’s faith was accounted for righteousness while he was uncircumcised (Gen. 15:6; 17:10-14) 1) Sign of circumcision = seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while uncircumcised 2) Became father of all who believe, whether uncircumcised (Gentile) or circumcised (Jew) a) All who “walk in the steps of the faith” of Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:26-29) b) Justification not based on circumcision

Paul continues to emphasize the example of Abraham by pointing out that his faith was accounted to him for righteousness while he was uncircumcised. Abraham was circumcised as a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while uncircumcised. In this way he became the father of all, Jew and Gentile, who believe and walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham. Since Abraham’s faith was accounted to him for righteousness before

18 he was circumcised, justification by faith is not based on whether or not one is circumcised.

III) The Promise Granted Through Faith (4:13-25) A) Seed promise not given to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through righteousness of faith (Gen. 12:3) 1) If by law, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect 2) Law brings about wrath, not salvation (if no law, no transgression) (cf. Jas. 3:4; 5:13b) B) Promise is of faith, according to grace, that it may be to all the seed 1) To those of the law and those of faith – Abraham is the father of us all (cf. Gal. 3:26-29) 2) Abraham believed in God, who gives life to the dead and calls things which do not exist as though they did C) Abraham in hope believed, contrary to [earthly] hope, and became the father of many nations 1) Not weak in faith, even when he was past childbearing age and Sarah barren 2) Did not waver [staggered not - KJV] at the promise of God through unbelief, but strengthened in faith, giving glory to God 3) Fully convinced that God was able to perform what He promised – total trust 4) Therefore, this faith of Abraham was accounted to him for righteousness D) This was written not just for him, but for our sakes (cf. Gal. 3) 1) Righteousness will be imputed (accounted) to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised for our justification

The seed promise was given to Abraham through righteousness of faith, and he became the father of all those who believe. Abraham was not weak in faith, and did not waver at God’s promise. All of this is written for our benefit that our faith in Christ might be accounted to us for righteousness.

Romans 5

I) The Benefits Of Justification By Faith (5:1-5) A) Having been justified by faith, we have… 1) Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ 2) Access by faith into divine grace through our Lord Jesus Christ a) Faith is the condition by which we access the grace of God b) This grace in which we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God (cf. 8:17-18) 3) Glory in tribulation (cf. Matt. 5:11-12; Jas. 1:2-4; 2 Cor. 12:10) a) Tribulation produces perseverance [endurance], perseverance produces approved character, and approved character produces hope B) Hope does not disappoint 1) Love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us

Having now established the fact that one is justified by faith, not by works of law, Paul extolls its benefits: 1) peace with God through Christ, 2) access by faith into God’s

19 grace, and 3) glory in tribulation. The endurance produced by tribulation leads to approved character and hope in those who are justified. The Christian’s hope does not disappoint because it is based in the love of God poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us (a subject Paul will explore further in chapter 8).

II) Demonstration And Benefits Of God’s Love For Us (5:6-11) A) Because of the love of God, Christ died for the ungodly when we were without strength 1) “Without strength” – hopeless and helpless because of sin 2) Scarcely would one die for a righteous man; someone might dare to die for a good man 3) God demonstrated His own love toward us in that while were still sinners (ungodly, not righteous or good), Christ died for us (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9-10) B) Having been justified by Christ’s blood, we will be saved from wrath through Him 1) Were enemies, but now reconciled to God (reconcile – “make friends again”) C) Having been reconciled through Christ’s death, we will be saved by His life 1) Christ lives, and we are alive to God in Christ (6:10-11; Eph. 2:5) 2) Rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have now received the reconciliation 3) 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 – Paul’s ministry of reconciliation; Christ died as a sacrifice for us that we might become righteous, and be reconciled to God!

The love of God was demonstrated when Christ was sent to die for us while we were still sinners. By His blood we are reconciled (made friends again) to God and saved from His wrath. Through His death we are saved by His life, which leads into the contrast with the death of sin laid out in the next section.

III) Contrast of Adam And Christ – Death And Life (5:12-21) A) Through one man [Adam] sin entered the world – sin and its results introduced by Adam, but his sin does not produce those results in others; others fall by their own sin 1) Death spread to all men because all sinned (spiritual death due to each one’s sin) 2) Until the Law [patriarchal period] sin was in the world – violation of God’s moral law and moral conscience (sin not imputed where there is no law; see 1 Jn. 3:4) 3) Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who sinned in a different way than Adam – all are responsible for their own sins (see Ezek. 18:20) 4) Adam is a “type” of Him who was to come [Christ] a) A “type” is a person or thing that prefigures a future person or thing (“antitype”) b) Adam = type, Christ = antitype – will be used to teach a contrast B) The contrast of ADAM and CHRIST

1) By his offense many died In Him God’s grace abounded to many

2) Condemnation of sin Free gift of justification

3) Reign of death Reign in life

4) Condemnation came to all Justification made available to all

20

5) Many were made sinners Many will be made righteous

C) Law entered that sin might abound, but grace abounded “much more” 1) Sin reigned in death, but grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord D) Condemnation of death is justly due the sinner, while eternal life is the merciful gift of God – gift of God’s grace far outweighs and outbalances the condemnation of sin!

A contrast is given between the man (Adam) who introduced sin into the world, and the Man (Christ) who brought life. Death (spiritual) spread to all men because all sinned.18 Sin was in the world from the time of Adam to Moses (patriarchal period), and continued under the Law of Moses. There has been no time that man has not been under law, whether codified or revealed through the fathers.

Paul uses type-antitype to compare and contrast Adam and Christ. Condemnation and death was brought into the world by Adam, while justification and life were made available in Christ. The joyous conclusion is that grace abounded much more than sin.

Romans 6

I) Dead To Sin, Alive To God (6:1-14) A) Since grace abounds much more when sin abounds [5:20-21], some might say, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (cf. 3:8) 1) First of a series of four questions – 6:1, 15; 7:7, 13 2) Paul’s answer: “Certainly not!” (“God forbid!”) a) How can those who died to sin live any longer in it? b) Grace does not tolerate sin; forgiveness of sins should cause one to abandon sin B) As many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death 1) The act of baptism is connected to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Col. 2:12) a) Buried with Jesus through baptism into death

18 Some contend that “death” here refers to physical death (Hamilton 327-8, Cottrell 194, Lard 165-6), but such death afflicts those who have not sinned or are not accountable (children, mentally handicapped, etc.) (see 1 Cor. 15:20-22). “Death” in this passage spreads to all “because all sinned,” and sinners are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). Even though Moo believes that death here could be seen as both spiritual and physical (320), he presents a “neatly balanced” chiasm of verse 12 that strongly supports the spiritual death interpretation (321): A sin (12a) produces B death (12b) B all die (12c) A because all sin (12d)

Whiteside (120) and Vinson (99-100) argue that death here is spiritual, as well as Robert Turner (46-7) who writes, “Adam sinned, therefore Adam died (‘in the day,’ Gen. 2:17); all men sin, therefore all men die – in context, spiritually. The ‘pantes hemarton’ (all sinned) of 3:23 is repeated here. Each man is individually responsible for the sin that separates him from God. This principle, established here so clearly, must be remembered and applied to the dramatic contrasts which follow.” 21

b) As Christ was raised from the dead, so also we are raised to walk in newness of life 2) If united in the likeness of Christ’s death, then shall be in the likeness of His resurrection C) Old man (body of sin) crucified with Christ and done away (Gal. 2:20; 5:24; 6:14; Col. 2:11) 1) No longer slaves of sin! Freed from sin! D) If we died with Christ, we will live with Him 1) Christ was raised from the dead to die no more – death has no more dominion over Him 2) We are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord 3) Must not let sin reign [have dominion] in our mortal body to obey its lusts (fall into sin) 4) Do not present your members [body] as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but as instruments of righteousness to God (God must be our master – Matt. 6:24) 5) Develop godly character; conform to His image (8:29; Phil. 3:11; Gal. 2:20) E) Sin will not have dominion over the Christian, for not under law but under grace 1) Not hopelessly condemned as sinners under law’s demand of perfection, but forgiven by the gracious free gift of redemption in the blood of Christ 2) To attempt to be justified by law is to fall from grace (Gal. 5:4)

Based on what he just said, Paul anticipates that some might say that they should continue in sin that grace might abound. This is the first of four questions that Paul anticipates in response to what he is teaching. His answer is “Certainly not!” One who has died to sin can no longer live in it. Paul then explains why this is so.

All those who were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death and raised to newness of life. Why would such a one live anymore in the sin of the old life? The old man of sin was done away and he is now freed from sin. Since we are dead to sin and alive to God we must not let sin reign in our bodies. Our members (body) should be used as instruments of righteousness to God.

Sin will not have dominion over us, for we are not under law (condemnation of sin) but under grace (forgiveness by God). Those who seek to be justified by perfect law-keeping will be confined under the bondage of sin without recourse. Grace is the only hope sinful man has for full and free redemption in Christ.19

II) Slaves Of Sin Set Free To Be Slaves Of Righteousness (6:15-23) A) Should we sin since we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 1) We are either slaves of sin to death, or slaves of obedience to righteousness (cf. Matt. 6:24) 2) “Obedience” – submission to Christ as instruments of righteousness (vv. 4, 13) B) Obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine [truth, gospel of Christ] 1) Set free from sin – became slaves of righteousness (absurd to ask “Shall we sin?”) C) Just as once slaves of uncleanness/lawlessness, now slaves of righteousness for holiness D) Difference of fruit and reward 1) When slaves of sin, shame and death 2) As slaves of God, holiness and eternal life

19 “Paul here contrasts law and grace as opposing ways of salvation…His point is that law cannot set us free form sin’s penalty or power. It cannot justify a person once even a single sin has been committed, nor can it give sinners the strength necessary to obey its own commands…But the blessed grace of God does what the law cannot. Its double cure sets us free from both the penalty and power of sin” (Cottrell 232). 22

3) Wages of sin is death; gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

Paul answers the second anticipated question – being under grace gives no one a license to sin. This continues the answer to the original question in verse one. As Christians saved by the grace of God, we are not servants of sin, but of righteousness, having obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that set us free from sin.20 A change of allegiance has taken place in our spiritual lives. This shows how absurd it is to ask, “Shall we sin?”

We now can look forward to a life of holiness and as a reward, eternal life. The wages of sin may be death but eternal life is available in Christ to all who believe.

Romans 7

I) Freed From The Law (7:1-6) A) Law has dominion [rule] over a man as long as he lives B) Illustration of the law of marriage 1) Woman who has a husband is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives 2) If her husband dies, she is released [loosed] from the law of her husband 3) If while her husband lives she marries another man, she is an adulteress 4) If her husband dies, she is freed from that law – would not be an adulteress if she marries another man (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39) C) Those justified by faith have become dead to the law through the body of Christ 1) In order that we may be married to another, Christ, and bear fruit to God (cf. 6:22) 2) Jews dead to the Law of Moses, and all men dead to the curse of the failure to perfectly keep law code D) When in the flesh [following things of the flesh], passions of sin aroused by law [which identified and condemned sin] were at work in our members [body, 6:13, 19] to bear fruit to death (cf. 6:21) 1) Now been delivered from law, having died to what we were held by [law that demanded perfection], we now should serve in the newness of the spirit [renewed, cleansed, forgiven servants of righteousness] and not in oldness of the letter [law-condemned servants of sin]

Paul uses the law of marriage to illustrate that since we have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, we are now lawfully married to Christ and justified by faith. The law (and its requirement of perfect law-keeping) has no more dominion over a man when he is in Christ.

The newness of the spirit is contrasted with the oldness of the letter (see 2 Cor. 3:2-6 for a similar argument contrasting the old and new covenants). When once we were confined

20 “That form of doctrine” refers to the same thing as the “gospel” that Paul introduced this letter with in 1:16. “The sense is that the teaching, the gospel, is the mold and norm by which one is to pattern his conduct…At conversion, the Christian was given over to the controlling power of the gospel as a mold or pattern to shape his conduct” (Hamilton 403, 404). 23 under the condemnation of sin, we now serve God justified and forgiven in the newness of spirit, our faith being accounted to us for righteousness.

II) Sin’s Advantage In The Law (7:7-12) A) Another question: Is the law sin (is the law at fault)? Paul’s answer: “Certainly not!” 1) Paul now uses his own experience with law and sin as an example 2) Paul would not have known sin except through law (knowledge of sin, 3:19-20) 3) For example, he learned about covetousness because the law said, “You shall not covet” (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21) 4) Law not responsible for man’s conduct, but evaluates it by a divine standard B) It was sin that took opportunity by the commandment to produce evil desires; for apart from the law, sin is dead (cf. 5:13; 1 Cor. 15:56) C) Paul was once alive [spiritually] without the law [child – before accountability], but when the commandment came, sin revived [became alive] and Paul died [helplessly doomed] 1) The commandment which was to bring life (cf. Lev. 18:5; Deut. 30:15-19) brought death instead (Deut. 27:26; 2 Cor. 3:6-7) 2) Sin, taking advantage by the law, deceived and killed; sin is responsible, and all have entered into sin 3) The law itself remains holy, just, and good (cf. Psa. 119:137-138); law is not sin!

Paul now answers the third anticipated question – the law is certainly not at fault for sin. He uses his own experience with law and sin as an example. The law gave him the knowledge of sin by teaching the divine standard. It did not cause him to sin. Sin took opportunity by the law to tempt and produce in him evil desires.21

Paul was alive once without the law. This refers to his being a child before the age of accountability. Eventually, though, Paul sinned. The commandment informed Paul of his sin and his helpless state of spiritual death. Sin itself is responsible for deceiving and killing souls, while the law has the character of the Lawgiver who gave it – holy, just, and good.

This section and the next has been the subject of much discussion as to whether Paul is speaking of himself (autobiographically) or not. The following analysis of this issue gets to the heart of the issue and takes what I consider the most consistent view:

The major exegetical problems in this section stem from Paul’s use of the first person singular. Who is the “I” whose experiences are being described here? Some say Paul is putting himself in the place of Adam and speaking in his name. Some say the “I” stands for the collective nation of Israel; others say it stands for mankind as a whole. Still others say that Paul is speaking autobiographically, i.e., he is giving intimate details of his own personal spiritual history. I believe this last view is the correct one. It is the commonsense way of interpreting first person singular.

21 “Satan…uses the commandment as an occasion or circumstance to plant in the person’s mind thoughts of resentment, rebellion, arrogance, or doubting what God says and his motive for the commandment” (Ibid., 438). 24

The next question is whether the spiritual events described here are true only of Paul, or whether they are true of Paul as the representative of a larger group. I along with most modern interpreters take the latter view.

But this leads to another question: what is this larger group of which Paul’s experiences are representative? Some say Paul is describing his life as a Jew under the Law of Moses, and thus as a representative of all Jews under the Law. Others say his experiences are those of all people when confronted by the law of God in any of its forms, be it the Mosaic Law or the moral law in general. I accept the latter view, which is in keeping with the fact that Paul has been using the term law in this general sense at key points throughout the letter thus far.

A final question remains: what particular stage in his life is Paul describing? One possibility is that he is referring to his “coming of age” as symbolized in the bar mitzvah ceremony, when every thirteen-year-old Jewish boy formally became a “son of the commandment” and accepted personal responsibility for his own behavior. This would be representative of the time when every person reaches the age of accountability.22

III) Law Cannot Save From The Human Predicament Of Sin (7:13-25) A) Paul asks, “Has then what is good [law] become death to me?” Answer: “Certainly not!” 1) Culprit was sin, not the law; sin produced death in Paul; sin became exceedingly sinful through being exposed by the law 2) Contrast: Law is spiritual (divine in origin, 1 Cor. 2:13), but Paul is carnal, sold under sin B) Paul’s struggle between the flesh and the spirit, sin and obedience (cf. 6:12); he presents himself as an example of the universal experience of all men 1) What he wants to do, he doesn’t do; what he hates, he does 2) When he sins, he agrees with the law that it is good (in its condemnation of his sin) 3) Struggles against flesh where nothing good dwells; strives to do good, but difficult 4) Though he wills to do good, he sins; he still delights in the law of God in his spirit 5) The law [compulsion/coercion, condemnation] of sin fights against the law of his mind – no hope, no recourse, no escape? C) Paul declares that in this struggle [battle, conflict] he is a wretched man in a body of death 1) Paul, alive in spirit, struggled in a body still subject to the curse of sin and death 2) Thankful for God, through Jesus Christ our Lord – mercy, grace, forgiveness (hope) 3) Still able to serve God in spirit, while battling with law of sin in the flesh 4) Hope is on the horizon, as explained in the next chapter

Paul answers the fourth and final anticipated question in this section. Has that which is good (law) become death to him? Again, no, for sin is the true culprit. The law remains holy, for God who gave it is holy. Paul, though, is exceedingly sinful and carnal due to the condemnation of sin by the law.

22 Cottrell 246-7. 25

Again, it is debated whether Paul speaks of himself in this chapter. The present tense first person singular pronouns would clearly suggest that he is using himself as an example of the universal struggle that all men have between flesh and spirit, sin and obedience.23 What he knows to do he does not do, and what he knows he should not do, that he does. He thus agrees with the law that he is a sinner. While he delights in the law of God, the law (compulsion, coercion) of sin fights against the law of his mind.

There are three different laws at work here. The law of God is holy and good. The law of sin is the condemnation of sin. The law of the mind is Paul’s desire to obey the will of God. In this struggle Paul’s desire is to live for God, but he must do so in a perishable, dying body. He spiritually delights in the law of God but is a wretched man in a body of death. But there is hope and that hope is through Christ. In Christ, Paul and all who are in Christ are able to serve God in the spirit, even while the flesh continues to suffer under the condemnation of sin, and eagerly waiting for the hope of glory to come (see Appendix 3 for further discussion of this passage and the body-spirit dichotomy).

Romans 8

I) Walking According To The Spirit (8:1-11) A) There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus 1) Not walk [pattern of life] according to flesh, but according to the spirit 2) Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus makes us free from the law of sin and death 3) What the law could not do (forgive sins), God did by sending His own Son a) Sent in likeness of sinful flesh – condemned sin in the flesh 4) Righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk according to the spirit a) Sin removed, forgiven by the blood of Christ; justified by a just God B) If live according to the flesh, then will set mind on things of the flesh; if live according to spirit, the things of the spirit (what motivates you determines how you live) 1) Carnal mindedness is death, but spiritual mindedness is life and peace a) Carnal mind is enmity against God; not subject to the law of God; cannot please God b) Spiritual if Spirit of God indwells; if not have spirit of Christ, then not His 2) Body is dead because of sin, but spirit is life because of righteousness a) If Spirit of God indwells, God will give life to our mortal bodies i) Present members [mortal body] alive as instruments of righteousness (cf. 6:12-13) ii) Future hope of eternal life for the created body subjected to bondage of corruption

Paul now begins to explain why there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. It takes the form of a “now-not yet.” Now our spirit is freed from sin, but not yet do we see the redemption of our mortal body. One will lead to the other as all things work together for good in God’s plan.

23 Cottrell writes that Paul is “talking about his present experience as a regenerated, mature believer, and by extension the experience of all believers,” after which he offers eight reasons why he believes this view is correct (Ibid., 253-4). 26

He first explains that we have been freed from the law of sin and death by the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. God made possible in Christ our forgiveness and justification. Now we must live and set our minds on the things of the spirit (spiritual mindedness – see Col. 3:1-4). Carnal mindedness will lead to death – it is against God, not subject to the law of God, and cannot please God. Spiritual mindedness is only possible if we have the Spirit of God/Christ dwelling in us.

The body continues to be in a corruptible, perishable, dying state because of sin, even as our spirit is alive because of righteousness. If we continue to have the Spirit of God dwelling in us, God will give life to our mortal bodies. The point here may very well be a combination of what Paul has said and what he is about to say. He has noted that the present members (our body) are to be used as instruments of righteousness (6:12-13), but he is about to speak of something even greater – the glory that shall be revealed in us, the redemption of our body, the hope that is yet to be seen, as the “creature” which was subjected to futility is delivered from the bondage of corruption in the revealing of the sons of God (8:18-25).24

II) Sons And Heirs Of God (8:12-17) A) We are debtors not to live according to the flesh, for that is death 1) To live by the spirit will be life, putting to death the deeds of the body 2) Flesh = carnal mindedness; spirit = spiritual mindedness B) As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (spiritual mind prevails) 1) Led by Spirit of God = heed inspired message revealed by the Spirit and follow instructions 2) Not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out “Abba, Father” – spiritual kinship, family a) “Abba” = Aramaic word for “my/our father” (cf. Mk. 14:36; Gal. 4:6; child to father) C) Holy Spirit bears witness [testimony] with our spirit that we are children of God 1) Spirit instructs and we heed – appeal to objective truth, not subjective feelings 2) Also heirs – heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ (of eternal blessings; Gal. 3:29; 4:7; 1 Pet. 1:4) a) If we suffer with Christ we will be glorified together with Him (Rom. 2:7; Phil. 2:9; 3:21; Col. 3:3-4)

Paul emphasizes again that we are debtors to live by the spirit (spiritual mindedness), and not the flesh (carnal mindedness). Being led by the Spirit of God is the key to spiritual mindedness and being sons of God. The Spirit leads man by the revelation of the mind of God (1 Cor. 2:10-13). We have been adopted in the family of God, to child-father relationship with God (“Abba, Father”), to which the Holy Spirit bears witness (divine revelation) with our spirit (giving heed to truth) (see Gal. 4:4-7).

Based on this spiritual relationship, we are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ of a glorification to come. Those who suffer in this life with Christ have a wondrous hope of being glorified together with Him (cf. Col. 3:4; Phil. 3:21). This suffering would include

24 Lard believes that this has reference to “the general resurrection of the just at the last day. The identical body in which we now live is to be literally restored to life. No hope touches the christian to the quick like this.” (Lard 260). 27 persecution, but really encompasses the entirety of life in this corruptible, perishing body of death (2 Cor. 4:16).

III) The Glory To Come (8:18-30) A) Sufferings of present time not comparable with glory which shall be revealed in us B) Earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God 1) What or who is the “creation” or “creature”? a) Physical creation (animate and inanimate) cursed by sin but delivered at judgment day b) Spiritual creation – those created anew in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) c) Physical body that suffers in the bondage of corruption and awaits its redemption 2) Creation subjected to futility, but in hope of something better 3) Creation delivered from bondage of corruption into glorious liberty of children of God 4) Whole creation now groans and labors with birth pangs (anticipating a change to come) 5) Those who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan within themselves a) Waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body – mortal to immortal, perishable to imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42-54) 6) We are saved in this hope, eagerly awaited, but yet not seen (cf. 2 Cor. 5:7) C) The Spirit helps in our spirit’s weaknesses (blessing of being led in truth by the Spirit of God) 1) Don’t know what we should pray for as we ought (imperfect, struggle of spirit) 2) The Spirit makes intercession for us communicating [our] groanings which cannot be uttered 3) He who searches the hearts knows the mind of [our] spirit, because He [Spirit of God] makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God D) All things work together for good to those who love God and called according to His purpose 1) “All things” = God’s work on behalf of the salvation of man, our faith and hope 2) Whom He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren 3) These He also called, justified, and glorified as ones who walk in the spirit 4) Spoken as completed actions for God’s people in the eternal mind and purpose of God

Paul here contrasts the sufferings of the present time with the glory which shall be revealed in us. This is a contextual key because the glory that he shall speak of in the following verses is equal to what is revealed in those who walk by the spirit.

The identity of the “creation” or “creature” is important. Most understand it as the animate and inanimate creation that was cursed by sin. Others see it as the spiritual creation, God’s people. Considering the context, the interpretation is best understood as the physical body. Paul mentioned the “body of death” within whose members is the law of sin, which is condemnation and death (7:23-24). The spirit of the child of God is alive in Christ, but the body is dead because of sin (8:10). Resurrected life is promised to this mortal body if we continue to walk in the spirit (8:11). Though we suffer in this life, we are promised glorification as heirs of God, and it shall be revealed in us who believe (8:17-18).

The expectation (hope) that we have eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God (resurrection), for the body was subjected to futility (mortality) in the hope of being

28 delivered from the bondage of corruption (suffering, death) into glorious liberty (immortality) of the sons of God. All that is physical groan and labors, but the Christian groans eagerly awaiting the adoption, the redemption of our body which is a hope yet to be seen. This interpretation fits nicely with the message of 2 Corinthians 4:16 – 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-58 (see Appendix 3 for an in-depth study of “the creation” [] and this context).

Paul adds that the Spirit helps us in our weaknesses, helping us when we do not know how to pray as we should, making intercession for us.25 When all is considered, it can only be concluded that all things that God has purposed for man’s salvation work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose. From God’s foreknowledge in the beginning to the final glorification of those called in Christ, all these things work for good according to the will of God and for His glory.

IV) More Than Conquerors (8:31-39) A) What shall we say in light of these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 1) If did not spare own Son but delivered Him up for us all, will He not give us all things 2) Who can bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies, not man 3) Who is he who condemns? Christ died and is risen, who is at the right hand of God, and who makes intercession for us (divine love, power, authority = great confidence!) 4) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ – tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, or sword? a) Psalm 44:22 – sufferings of faithful for sake of God B) In all these things we are “more than conquerors” through God who loved us! 1) Fully persuaded that neither death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord 2) Gift of victory given through Christ for those who are faithful in Christ

A series of questions follows the exhortation that if God is for us, who can be against us. These rhetorical questions and their answers emphasize that God is truly for us in every way. Those justified by God are more than conquerors over all obstacles and enemies, and no thing or no one can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ. What assurance and hope this provides the Christian!

Romans 9

I) Paul’s Sorrow Over His Lost Jewish Kinsmen (9:1-5) A) Paul strongly words his introduction to this section

25 “…there are urgings and longings in the heart of a sincere child of God that he cannot express. He has a feeling of helplessness, or of a deep need, without knowing what that need really is, or what would meet the need. It is what Paul calls ‘unutterable groanings’…These groanings are silent groanings – unutterable feelings of need. The Spirit helps us in these groanings, for he understands our needs and longings and can make them known to God” (Whiteside 185-6). 29

1) Telling the truth in Christ and not lying [cf. Gal. 1:20], his conscience bearing witness in the Holy Spirit 2) He has “great sorrow and continual grief” in his heart over the lost condition of his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh B) Wished he could be accursed from Christ for his lost Jewish kinsmen 1) Willing to sacrifice his salvation to save his nation (cf. Moses – Ex. 32:29-33) 2) They are Israelites (Gen. 32:28), to whom pertain the adoption (Ex. 4:22), the glory (Ex. 16:10; 2 Cor. 3:9), the covenants (Ex. 2:24), the giving of the law (Deut. 5:3), the service of God (Heb. 9:1f), and the promises (Gal. 3:16) 3) Of whom are the fathers (Ex. 3:15) and from whom Christ came, according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3), who is over all, the eternally blessed God – makes Israel’s rejection by God a serious matter! a) Paul will now argue the justice of God in rejecting unbelieving Jews

Paul, in this section (chs. 9-11), deals with the rejected state of the Jews, their need of Christ, and how they can be saved.26 With great emotion he confesses his great sorrow and continual grief over the lost condition of his kinsmen. He was even willing to unselfishly sacrifice his own salvation to save his nation. As Israelites, they were the God’s blessed covenant people from whom Christ came, according to the flesh. As such, their rejection of God was a serious problem.

II) God’s Sovereign Election Of His People (9:6-13) A) Israel’s rejection is not due to the word of God taking “no effect” 1) They are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham – some are chosen, some are rejected B) Just because they are children of the flesh does not automatically make them children of God 1) The children of the promise are the chosen seed of God (cf. Rom. 4:16; Gal. 4:28) C) God chose Isaac, son of Sarah, and Jacob, son of Rebecca (Gen. 21:12; 18:10; 25:23) 1) Rejected Ishmael and Esau (Gen. 17:18-19; Mal. 1:2-3) D) God elected [chose, called, selected] certain ones to be the physical children of promise based not on their good or evil works, but according to His own sovereign purpose

Paul refutes the idea that the rejection of Israel was due to the word of God taking no effect. God had made a sovereign choice/election as to who would be His chosen seed. Not all those of the physical seed of Abraham were the chosen children of God. God had chosen Isaac and Jacob, and rejected Ishmael and Esau. Certain ones were chosen to be the children of promise not based on their works but according to God’s sovereign purpose. God cannot be charged with breaking His promises.

III) God’s Justice In His Rejection Of Unbelieving Jews And Call Of Gentiles (9:14- 29) A) Paul deals with an objection: “Is there unrighteousness with God?” Answer: No!

26 For a good overview of this section, see the lecture manuscript by Chris Reeves (The People of God), 18- 34. 30

B) God’s sovereign choice as to whom He shows mercy/compassion (said to Moses Ex. 33:19) 1) God raised up Pharaoh to show His power and declare His name in all the earth (Ex. 9:16) 2) God has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills (see Ex. 7:3) a) Magicians and Pharaoh hardened his heart (Ex. 7:22; 8:15, 32); God’s will/purpose is fulfilled through the free will choices of both good and evil men C) Objection: “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 1) Must be careful replying against, or questioning, the purpose of God (cf. Isa. 45:9) 2) The thing formed must not question the use made of it in God’s purpose (cf. Isa. 29:16) D) Potter has power over the clay to make use of it as he sees fit – vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor - nations and individuals are responsible as to how they will make themselves fit for the master Potter’s use (Isa. 64:8; Jer. 18:1-11; 2 Tim. 2:19-21) 1) God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured vessels of wrath with much longsuffering – expression of mercy in hope of repentance (Rom. 2:4) 2) God made known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which were prepared beforehand for glory – even us whom He called, Jew and Gentile! (Who can question God allowing Gentiles as well as Jews to receive His mercy?) E) Gentiles called by God as vessels of mercy for glory 1) Quotes Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 – God would accept the Gentiles as His people 2) Quotes Isaiah 10:22-23 – only a remnant of Israel would be saved 3) Quotes Isaiah 1:9 – a seed [remnant] of Israel was preserved; not totally destroyed

Paul rejects the objection that there was unrighteousness with God in making the choices that He did. The raising up of Pharaoh showed that God will have mercy on whom He will and hardens whom He wills. His purpose is fulfilled in and through the free will choices of good and evil men.27 Man is responsible for his own unrighteousness and its consequences. God cannot be charged with a lack of justice.

Paul then deals with the objection that since no one can resist the will of God, He cannot fault Israel. Paul cautions that the clay must not question the potter who has power over it. If the clay is a vessel of dishonor, God will endure in hope of repentance. If the clay is a vessel of honor, God will make known the riches of His glory on them. Vessels that resist God will be destroyed by the Potter, while those who are made fit for the Potter’s use will be saved, both Jew and Gentile. It is the character of the vessel that determines the use or non-use that God will make of it. Paul quotes from Hosea that God would accept the Gentiles, and from Isaiah concerning a faithful remnant of Israel.

IV) Present Condition Of Unbelieving Israel (9:30-33) A) The Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith B) But, Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness 1) Did not seek it by faith, but by the works of the law 2) Stumbled at the stumbling stone – Messiah Jesus (quotes a mixture of Isa. 28:16 and 8:14) C) God made Christ the testing stone by which the vessels of mercy would be determined

27 “Paul is saying God is in control; these matters are God’s business. He is not saying Moses or Pharaoh had no will in the matter, as Exodus shows. While the subject of free will is not a part of Paul’s argument here, we must keep the whole of God’s truth in perspective” (Robert Turner 76). 31

1) It is God’s business as to who qualifies to be His spiritual children of promise 2) Jews’ mistake was rejecting faith in Christ unto righteousness – why lost and rejected by God

With irony, Paul contrasts the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness, but have attained to righteousness, with Israel, who did pursue the law of righteousness, but had not attained to the law of righteousness. Israel failed because their pursuing was not by faith, but by the works of law, having stumbled at the stone, Christ. Faith in Christ became the main determination of who God’s spiritual children would be.

“This whole division [chs. 9-11] is a masterpiece in dealing with a delicate issue in the rejection of many Israelites in which Paul shows due consideration and deference to what they had been in relation to God, and at the same time firmly upholds God’s system of justification through faith in Christ.” 28

Romans 10

I) Israel’s Need of the Gospel (10:1-13) A) Paul strongly expresses his heart’s desire and prayer for Israel’s salvation 1) For the Jews have a zeal for God (Acts 22:3; Phil. 3:5-6; Gal. 1:14), but not according to knowledge (1 Tim. 1:13; misdirected zeal) a) For they were ignorant of God’s righteousness (Rom. 1:17), and seeking to establish their own righteousness (9:31), have not submitted to the righteousness of God [in Christ] i) For Christ is the end [goal and termination] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (cf. 3:20-22; Matt. 5:17-18; Gal. 3:24-25) A) For Moses wrote about the righteousness which is of the law – “The man who does those things shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5; Gal. 3:10, 12) B) The righteousness of faith speaks in this way (an OT passage removing all excuse for not knowing the Mosaic law is adapted by Paul to remove all excuse for lack of belief in the gospel) 1) Who will ascend into heaven? (Deut. 30:12) [to bring (word of) Christ down from above] 2) Who will descend into the abyss (Deut. 30:13) [to bring (word of) Christ up from the dead] 3) The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart (Deut. 30:14) a) The word of faith [gospel of Christ] which is preached C) If confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in the heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved 1) For with the heart one believes to righteousness (Rom. 4:5), and with the mouth confession is made to salvation (active faith involving the inner man) a) For whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame (Isa. 28:16) i) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (as to salvation) – same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him A) For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; 22:16 – “call upon” = know, trust, submit, obey)

28 Hamilton 535. 32

Paul had a strong desire for the salvation of his fellow Jews. He follows this statement with a series of connected thoughts: For they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge, for they were ignorant of God’s righteousness and have not submitted to the righteousness of God, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes, for the righteousness which is of the law is that the man who does the things of the law shall live by them.

Paul then uses the principle established in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 that God has made his revelation accessible to all (see Appendix 5). This removes any excuse of not knowing the gospel of Christ. Belief in the heart and confession with the mouth the Lord Jesus is necessary for salvation. There is no distinction between Jew and Greek for the Lord is rich to all who call upon Him, and whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. This “calling on the name of the Lord” is the trust and obedience required of all who come to God for salvation. Those who “call” by faith obey His will (see Acts 22:16).

II) Israel’s Rejection Of The Gospel (10:14-21) A) Series [chain] of connected rhetorical questions arguing a series of conditions necessary toward one conclusion: The necessity of calling on the Lord for salvation 1) How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? 2) How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? 3) How shall they hear without a preacher? 4) How shall they preach unless they are sent? B) Ones were sent to preach – beautiful “feet” of those who bring glad tidings (Isa. 52:7) 1) NT apostles and prophets sent first to preach the gospel (Mk. 16:15; Eph. 3:5; Rom. 10:8) C) Not all Jews have obeyed the gospel – “who has believed our report?” (Isa. 53:1) 1) Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (the word of God – divine facts, propositions, commands, examples – produces faith in those who hear and believe) a) Did they not hear? Yes, they did – sound had gone forth (Psa. 19:4; Col. 1:23) b) Did Israel not know? Yes, Moses said they were provoked to jealousy by those who were not a nation (Deut. 32:21; Rom. 11:11) and Isaiah boldly said that God was found by those who did not seek Him (Isa. 65:1; Rom. 9:30) c) Isaiah said that to Israel God stretched out His hands in longsuffering to a disobedient and contrary people (Isa. 65:2) – God wants them to be saved! 2) Israel rejected the gospel, while Gentiles were accepting the truth (consider Acts 13:42-51)

Based upon his declaration that all who call upon the Lord Jesus will be saved, Paul connects a series of rhetorical questions which argue the conditions necessary for this to be true: 1) the necessity of faith in order to call, 2) the necessity of hearing in order to believe, 3) the necessity of a preacher in order to hear, and 4) the necessity of sending those in order to preach. There were those who were sent, and the Jews heard the preaching of the gospel. Even Moses and Isaiah had spoken that Israel would be provoked to jealousy by the Gentiles and God would be found by the Gentiles even when they did not seek Him. Meanwhile, God is still longsuffering toward His disobedient and contrary people, waiting on them to be saved.

33

Romans 11

I) Israel’s Rejection Not Total – A Remnant Preserved (11:1-10) A) Had God cast away His people (utterly rejected without hope)? No! 1) Paul was an Israelite of the seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin, yet also a Christian saved in Christ (Phil. 3:3-10) B) God had not cast away His people (Jews) whom He foreknew (the faithful) 1) Elijah had pleaded to God against Israel that he alone was left faithful (1 Kgs. 19:10, 14) 2) God responded that He had reserved for Himself seven thousand [a remnant] who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kgs. 19:18; cf. Isa. 1:9; 10:20-23 [Rom. 9:27-29]) C) At this present time [in Christ] there is a remnant according to the election of grace 1) If by grace, it is no longer of works (perfect law-keeping), otherwise grace is not grace 2) If by works, it is no longer of grace (faith), otherwise work is not work D) Israel (as a nation) had not obtained what it sought (righteousness) 1) The elect (chosen remnant) has obtained salvation (by faith), and the rest (non- believing Jews) were hardened (9:17-18; 10:21); faithful individual Jews can find salvation in Christ, but those who refuse to do what God requires harden their hearts against the truth (Matt. 13:14-15) a) God gave a spirit of stupor (Isa. 29:10), and non-functioning eyes and ears (Deut. 29:4) b) David said that they would have a snare, trap, and a stumbling block, and darkened eyes that cannot see (Psa. 69:22-23) i) Psalm 69 is a messianic passage; quoted portion speaks of the enemies of God

Paul deals with the question of whether God has cast away, or utterly rejected His people without hope. The answer is “no” – even Paul himself had been saved in Christ. God has always reserved for Himself a remnant of the faithful, just as He did in Elijah’s day (see Appendix 5 on the use of this OT example). Now, in Christ, there is a remnant “according to the election of grace.” As a nation, Israel had not obtained the righteousness of God it sought. A chosen remnant had obtained it by faith in Christ, but the rest of the Jews were hardened and rejected it. Paul quotes from Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Psalms to the effect that this had happened before and was fulfilled in his day.

II) Israel Not Left Without The Hope Of Salvation (11:11-15) A) Has Israel stumbled (rejected Christ) that they should fall (be eternally lost)? No! 1) Through their fall, salvation had come to the Gentiles a) Israel did not “fall” (pipto to fall away, be completely ruined); Israel did “fall” (paraptoma to fall beside, stumble, trespass, sin) b) Salvation coming to Gentiles would provoke Israel to jealousy (10:19; Deut. 32:21) as they see God’s riches (10:12) bestowed on another people (see Acts 13:42-51; 18:4-6; 28:16-28) B) If Israel’s sin turned out to be riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more would their fullness be beneficial and bring glory to God

34

C) Paul speaks to the Gentiles as an apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17-18, 20; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:1, 8) 1) Magnified his ministry (to the Gentiles) if by any means he could provoke to jealousy his fellow Jews and save some of them (remnant) 2) If their being cast away (rejected as unfaithful nation) brought about the reconciling of the world (“whoever” Acts 10:35), what will their acceptance be but life from the dead (spiritual resurrection from death of sin for individual Jews who believe)

But had Israel stumbled so as to be lost eternally without hope? No! They had not fallen in the sense of apostasy, but had fallen by sinning against God. Through their fall salvation had come to the Gentiles, and the salvation which came to the Gentiles would provoke Israel to jealousy to seek that same salvation that is freely offered in Christ.

Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles would be magnified if he could provoke his fellow Jews to jealousy and save some of them. Their acceptance would be life from the dead, even as their rejection had brought about the reconciling of the world.29

III) The Olive Trees – Grafting In The Broken Branches (11:16-24) A) Firstfruits and lump are holy; root and branches are holy – Israel set apart by/to God as his special people (OT Israel likened to an olive tree in Jeremiah 11:16-17 and Hosea 14:4-6) 1) The good olive tree has a “holy root” – Abraham and the promise given to him by God to bless all nations; it came via the faithful remnant of OT Israel through whom the fulfillment of the promised messiah/Christ was realized for Jew and Gentile 2) Some of the branches [individual Jews] were broken off – sin, unbelief B) Gentiles were a wild olive tree, and faithful, obedient Gentiles were grafted in among the natural branches of the good olive tree (faithful Jews) to partake of the root and fatness 1) Wild branches = Gentiles; natural branches = faithful Jews 2) Branches grafted in (Gentiles) are not to boast against the branches (Jews) 3) If boast, remember that they do not support the root, but the root supports them a) “Root” – faithful Jewish remnant through whom was fulfilled the messianic promise C) Gentiles will claim that Jewish branches were broken off that they might be grafted in 1) True, but Jews broken off because of unbelief (not race), and the Gentiles stand by faith 2) Should not be arrogant, but fear (take heed lest they fall – 1 Cor. 10:12) a) If God did not spare natural branches (Jews), He may not spare the Gentiles D) Consider the goodness and severity of God 1) Severity toward those who fell; goodness toward the Gentiles, if they continue in His goodness; otherwise, they will be cut off 2) If Jews do not continue in unbelief (repent), God is able to graft them in again 3) If Gentiles cut out of wild olive tree can be grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more the natural branches (Jews) be grafted into their own olive tree

Paul now employs an illustration of two olive trees, one wild and one good (cultivated). The good olive tree has a “holy root” indicating that gospel salvation is “rooted” in the promise to Abraham and the Old Testament remnant of faithful Jews. Some of the

29 “Jewish rejection by God, led to Gentile acceptance by God, which in turn led to Jewish acceptance by God” (Reeves 23, emphasis his). 35 original branches had been broken off of this good olive tree – these were unfaithful Jews.

The Gentiles are represented in the wild olive tree, and faithful Gentiles were “grafted in” among the branches of the good olive tree to enjoy the blessings of God’s salvation.30

The Gentiles needed to be careful not to boast against the Jews, even when claiming that the Jews had been broken off to graft them in. This is because the Jews had been broken off due to unbelief, and the Gentiles needed to fear. If God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare the branches grafted in if they fall into unbelief. All must consider the goodness and severity of God: goodness if we continue in His will, and severity if we do not and are cut off.31

The best news is that the Jews who had been broken off could be grafted in again, if they repent of their unbelief. If the wild branches (Gentiles) could be grafted in again – contrary to nature – then all the more the natural branches could be grafted in again!32

IV) Divine Mercy On All And The Depth Of God’s Wisdom (11:25-36) A) Paul did not want the Gentiles to be ignorant of this mystery, lest they be wise in their own opinion 1) Mystery was that the hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in 2) God’s purpose revealed concerning the means to accomplish the spiritual fullness of Gentiles and Jews B) “And so [in this manner] all Israel will be saved” – faith and repentance (v. 23) and being grafted back into the good olive tree by God 1) Not that Israel as a whole is going to be saved, but that in this way (faith in Christ) each individual Jew can be saved and grafted back in if he believes and repents 2) Quotes Isaiah 59:20 and 27:9 – salvation in Christ made available to the Jews C) Concerning the gospel, the Jews were the enemies of the Gentiles, but concerning the election of God, they were beloved for the sake of the fathers (Abraham, et. al.) 1) Why? The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (irreversible) (cf. Rom. 9:6-13)

30 “The grafting in (Romans 11:17, 19, 23-24) that Paul speaks of is the engrafting or implanting of a new branch (scion) into an established, but aged root or trunk. This practice is known as oleiculture. The process is basically this: first, a branch is cut off an older tree leaving a stub a few inches long; second, the stub is split a few inches leaving a place for the new engrafted branch to be inserted; third, a small branch is cut from another tree and the cut end is shaped into a wedge that will slide into the split; fourth, the wedge end of the new branch is forced into the split and the joint is tightly bound with string to encourage the old tree and the new engrafted branch to grow together. The result of grafting is the rejuvenation of the aged stock and the production of useful fruit” (Reeves, Ibid., footnote 95). 31 This is a clear argument for the possibility of falling from grace. There is no doctrine here of “once grafted in, always grafted in.” 32 “The normal process of grafting would call for the cultivated branch to be grafted in the wild olive tree. However, this is not what occurred; rather, the wild olive was grafted in the cultivated olive. This is contrary to nature…” (Hamilton, 658) 36

2) As the Gentiles who were once disobedient to God but obtained mercy through Jewish disobedience, even so the Jewish disobedient will obtain mercy through the mercy shown the Gentiles 3) God committed them all to disobedience (3:9, 23), that He might have mercy on all! D) Paul proclaims the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God 1) His judgments are unsearchable (Eph. 3:8) and His ways past finding out (unknowable and untraceable by human wisdom and effort, Eph. 3:19) 2) Quotes Isaiah 40:13 and Job 41:11 – we are totally dependent upon God to reveal His unsearchable wisdom to man (1 Cor. 2:7-13; Eph. 3:3-5) 3) All things are of, through, and to God (He is the source, medium, and goal of all things), to whom be the glory forever. Amen!

The hardening of the hearts of the Jews was until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in. This was all according to the purpose of God in bringing salvation to all, Jew and Gentile. “And so all Israel will be saved” has reference to the means of salvation – that “in this way” would all Israel be saved, that is, by faith in Christ, and being grafted back into the good olive tree.33 The disobedient Gentiles had found mercy and salvation through Jewish disobedience, and the disobedient Jews would find that same mercy and salvation through the mercy shown to the Gentiles. All were condemned in sin, that all might enjoy the mercy of God in Christ. This grand plan was all perfectly arranged and executed by a God of unparalleled wisdom, knowledge, and love.

Paul ends this section with a soaring doxology about the unsearchable depths of the wisdom and knowledge of God. To God, who has made all things possible for man to be saved from the death of sin, belongs all the glory.

Romans 12

I) Being A Living Sacrifice (12:1-2) A) Based on the truth of the gospel that we are justified by faith in Christ, Paul beseeches his brethren, by the mercies of God, to present their bodies a living sacrifice 1) “Beseech” – (Gk. parakaleo) to admonish, exhort (Thayer); ask urgently, entreat, implore, solicit (Webster) 2) “Mercies of God” – based on the fact that God has freely provided salvation by His grace 3) Our obligation as justified individuals is to present our bodies as a living sacrifice a) Sacrifice – body dedicated to God and His service in this life (Rom. 6:13) B) This “living” sacrifice is to be holy (set apart, sanctified) and acceptable to God 1) It is our “reasonable service” – rational and spiritual worship in service to God C) Do not be conformed to this world (1 Jn. 2:15-17; Eph. 2:2), but instead be transformed (Gk. metamorphoo) – in the world but not of the world 1) Transformation is by the renewing of the mind (Eph. 4:17-24; Col. 3:1-11; Rom. 8:6-8)

33 “The point is not when all Israel will be saved, but how” (Cottrell 436, emphasis his). “Those among Israel that are saved will be saved or delivered in the manner referred to. This future does not put all the salvation of all Israel at some future point. Rather, the idea that those to be saved henceforth will be saved in the same manner as those who have been saved heretofore” (Hamilton 663). 37

a) Accomplished by the knowledge and understanding of the truth of God 2) Goal is to “prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” a) Test and approve God’s wisdom in our service to His will (Eph. 3:8-12)

This chapter begins the last major section of this epistle. Paul now turns to more hortatory language of practical applications of living for those justified by faith in Christ.

Those justified by faith (beneficiaries of the mercies of God) are to present their bodies as living sacrifices in the service of God (recall his admonitions in 6:12-19). These sacrifices are “living” in contrast to the dead animal sacrifices of the Law of Moses. This is to be for “reasonable service” – rational and spiritual worship in service to God.

They are also not to be conformed (formed with) this world, but be transformed (changed, metamorphosed) by the renewing of the mind (soul, heart, inner man). This is accomplished in and through the understanding and application of the wisdom of God revealed by the Spirit in the word of God. This is for the goal of proving what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God in our life.

II) Obligations Of Service As Members Of The Body Of Christ (12:3-8) A) Paul speaks by the grace given to him (to preach the gospel, Eph. 3:8) 1) No one is to think of himself more highly than he ought to think – pride, haughtiness (11:20) 2) Should think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith a) God gives faith by the hearing of His word (10:17) B) Many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function 1) The church is one body with many members – individually members of one another (1 Cor. 12:14, 20; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23) C) Differing spiritual gifts and talents given by God’s grace to be used in His service 1) Prophecy – in proportion of faith (revealing only what God has revealed) 2) Ministry – in ministering 3) Teaching 4) Exhortation 5) Giving – with liberality 6) Leading – with diligence 7) Mercy – with cheerfulness

As a transformed individual, the Christian has certain obligations, which Paul explains in the following sections. One must not be prideful, but soberly serve as a member among other members in the one body. Service can be offered with differing spiritual gifts and helpful talents possessed by each individual. Each member offers something that contributes to the good of the whole body. No one is less or more important to their function than others.

III) The Behavior Of The Christian (12:9-21) A) Series of admonitions concerning godly conduct 1) Love without hypocrisy [genuine, sincere]

38

2) Abhor what is evil, cling to what is good [spiritual discernment] 3) Kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another [treatment of brethren] 4) Not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord [work ethic] 5) Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer [inner strength] 6) Distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality [helping the needy] 7) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse [loving our enemies] 8) Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep [empathy] 9) Be of the same mind toward one another; do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble; do not be wise in your own opinion [humility] 10) Repay no one evil for evil; have regard for good things in the sight of all men [goodness] 11) If possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men [go second mile] B) Do not avenge yourselves (take law into own hands) 1) Give place to divine wrath (Deuteronomy 32:35; Heb. 10:30) a) God will properly judge in divine and civil matters 2) Not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Proverbs 25:21-22) a) Be Christ-like, and seek to touch heart of enemies for good

With an impressive list of admonitions, Paul here reveals the godly conduct of the Christian. He touches upon such things as the discernment, labor, brotherliness, empathy, benevolence, humility, and goodness of the Christian. He particularly focuses on the evil of avenging oneself instead of giving place to God’s wrath. One is not to be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 13

I) Obligation To Submit To Governing Authorities (13:1-7) A) Every soul is to be subject to the governing authorities (1 Pet. 2:13-14a; Titus 3:1) 1) Civil rulers – earthly governments; enacting and enforcing civil and social law 2) “Subject” – obedient, submissive to higher authority 3) Christian has dual citizenship (Matt. 22:21; Acts 16:37; 22:25-28; Phil. 3:20) 4) No authority except from God, and those that exist are appointed by God (Jn. 19:11) 5) Whoever resists this authority resists the ordinance of God, and will bring judgment on themselves (from God and man) a) The only exception to this is when we must obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19; 5:29) B) Earthly rulers are not a terror to good works, but evil (1 Pet. 2:14b-16) 1) To be unafraid, do what is good and you will have praise from the same 2) They are God’s minister to us for good (1 Tim. 2:2); if do evil, be afraid 3) Does not bear sword in vain – an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil a) “Sword” = power of life and death; means of punishment of evildoers b) Capital punishment (Gen. 9:6; Num. 35:33; Jn. 19:10-11; Acts 25:11) 4) Pray for earthly rulers that they may fulfill their proper role (1 Tim. 2:1-2) C) Be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake 1) Conscience follows true standard causing us to do what we “ought” to do 2) This is the reason to pay taxes – support governing authorities

39

3) Render taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Matt. 22:21; 1 Pet. 2:17; Jude 8)

One way of giving place to God’s wrath is to understand one’s obligation to be subject to the governing authorities on this earth. God has appointed all such authorities and whoever resists them resists God’s divine authority. These earthly rulers are to be a terror to evil, bearing the sword to execute wrath on evil. There is no need to be afraid if we do what is good. This is the ideal of the proper role of earthly authorities. If they fail in this role, the authorities themselves will fall under the condemnation of God.

In view of this, we are to be subject not just because we fear God’s wrath, but for conscience’ sake – paying taxes, customs, fear, and honor to whom it is due.

II) Obligation To Love Our Neighbor (13:8-10) A) Owe no man anything except to love one another (Gal. 5:13) 1) He who loves another has fulfilled the law [in principle] (Gal. 5:14) B) The commandments – not commit adultery, not murder, not steal, not bear false witness, not covet (Ex. 20:13-17; Deut. 5:17-21; Mk. 10:19; Lk. 18:20) 1) These and any other commandments of moral conduct summed up in “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39; Jas. 2:8-9) C) Love does no harm to a neighbor (Matt. 7:12); therefore, love is the fulfillment of law (Lk. 10:25-37)

Furthermore, the Christian has the obligation to love his neighbor. The moral commandments of the law are summed up in the principle of loving others and doing them no harm.

“My neighbor, therefore, is any human being or fellow creature who chances to be near me, whether for the moment or permanently. This human being I am to so love that I would no more harm him, than I would have him to harm me; and more than this, I am to do him whatever good, if in my power, I would wish him to do me. Such is my neighbor, and such the law which regulates my conduct towards him.”34

III) The Urgent Need For Godly Living (13:11-14) A) Should do what Paul is teaching because it is now high time to awake out of sleep (1 Cor. 11:30; 15:34; Eph. 5:14) 1) Our salvation is now nearer than when we first believed a) Each of us drawing closer to the end of our spiritual journey – eternal salvation b) Need to remain alert, ready, and vigilant, not apathetic nor inattentive B) The night is far spent, the day is at hand 1) “Night” = immoral world; “day” = eternal new order (cf. Heb. 10:25) 2) Cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light (1 Thess. 5:4-8) 3) Walk properly [decently] as in the day [light] (Gal. 5:16; 1 Thess. 4:12) a) Not in revelry and drunkenness (unrestrained partying and intoxication) b) Not in licentiousness and lewdness (sexual promiscuity and unbridled lust)

34 Lard 406. 40

c) Not in strife and envy (contentions and jealousy) 4) Put on the Lord Jesus Christ a) Make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts (2 Pet. 1:4)

The urgency for godly living is seen in the fact that the end of our spiritual journey (eternal salvation) is drawing ever nearer day by day. The new “day” of eternity is at hand for all men, and the Christian must be sure to put on the armor of light, and walk properly in the light of day.

Paul warns of three classes of immoral lusts of the flesh: 1) revelry and drunkenness, 2) licentiousness and lewdness, and 3) strife and envy. These illustrate the lack of soberness, self-control, and love that is characteristic of those in Christ. Life must be an exercise of putting on Christ, not providing for the fulfillment of fleshly lusts.35

Romans 14

I) Obligation To Receive One Another Despite Differences Over Matters of Liberty (14:1- 13) A) Receive one who is weak in the faith (receive such a person into fellowship) 1) “Weak in the faith” = person’s conscience not fully convinced about matters of liberty a) Brethren described as weak [having scruples of personal conscience] or strong [having no scruples] (15:1); strong applied knowledge of truth about liberties (14:14; 1 Cor. 8:7a) 2) Not to dispute over “doubtful things” [passing judgment on another’s conscience, opinion] a) Not dispute over personal opinions in matters of liberty b) Some are obsessed with relentless dispute, argument, and wrangling which leads to envy, strife, and evil suspicions – we are to withdraw from such (1 Tim. 6:3-5) B) Example of such a dispute 1) One believes he may eat all things (strong, informed, undoubting conscience) 2) Another eats only vegetables (weak, not convinced of eating all things, personal doubt) C) Problem attitudes 1) He who eats [meat] should not despise him who does not eat [meat] a) “Despise” = look down on, treat with contempt, due to being puffed up (1 Cor. 8:1) 2) He who does not eat [meat] should not judge him who eats [meat] a) “Judge” = find fault with, condemn 3) God has received him (both the one who eats and the one who does not eat) a) God has “received” him, so brethren are to “receive” one another (14:1) 4) No one is in position to judge another’s servant – to his own master he stands or falls a) He will stand for God is able to make him stand [approved] D) Another example of such a difference 1) One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike

35 “…Paul’s exhortation to ‘put on the Lord Jesus Christ’ means that we are consciously to embrace Christ in such a way that his character is manifested in all that we do and say. This exhortation appears to match the exhortation at the beginning of this section, ‘be transformed by the renewing of the mind,’ suggesting that it is into the image of Christ that we are being transformed (cf. 8:29) (Moo 825-6). 41

2) Background – Judaism forbade certain meats to be eaten and esteemed certain days (Col. 2:16); Gentiles did not, but had concerns about meats offered to idols (1 Cor. 8:7) 3) Each person is to be “fully convinced in his own mind” (personal conscience/conviction) a) Issues of difference did not involve beliefs or practices affecting fellowship with God (therefore were not to affect fellowship between brethren) b) Issues of difference did not involve sin – immorality or false teaching (Rom. 13:13; 16:17) c) Issues of difference involved non-essentials, opinions, and matters indifferent to God E) Each person practices observing/not observing days and eating/not eating meats “to the Lord” (reverent, committed action of personal conscience/conviction) 1) No person lives or dies to himself, but to the Lord – we are the Lord’s! 2) Christ died and arose from the grave to be Lord of both dead and living F) Some were wrongly judging and showing contempt 1) All will stand before the judgment seat of Christ/God (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:11-12; Matt. 25:31f) a) Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10-11) b) Each person shall give account of himself to God (1 Pet. 4:5) 2) Should not judge one another anymore, but resolve not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in a brother’s way (God makes him stand – 14:4; 1 Cor. 8:9) b) No cause for judging a brother if no sin is involved in his choice or action of personal conscience toward God in a matter of liberty c) Strong should not act within his liberty IF it would lead the weak to violate his conscientious conviction (see 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:23-33)

Paul now turns to the obligation of receiving one another even while differing in matters of liberty. He addresses the concerns of two classes of brethren, the weak and the strong. Paul identifies himself as one of the “strong” (15:1), and admonishes them to receive one who is weak in the faith – a weakness in understanding divinely allowed liberties that led to certain scruples of personal conscience and action.

There seems to be a combination of both Jew and Gentile matters involved: Judaism forbade certain meats to be eaten and they esteemed certain days; Gentiles did not observe these, but did have concerns about meats offered to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8 and 10). This may have led some to eat only vegetables and to avoid meat altogether. These issues of difference were not of a type to involve beliefs or practices that involved one in sin, whether immorality or false teaching, that would affect their fellowship with God (God had “received” them, thus they were to receive one another). The issues of eating meats and observing days were examples of non-essentials, opinions, matters of indifference to God. They had become matters of difference between brethren to the extent that they were judging and despising one another, instead of receiving one another. This is the problem Paul is addressing.36

36 “…our ‘receiving’ a brother into fellowship is not conditioned upon an agreement or forced decisions concerning all his internal doubts. Brethren may worship together even when they disagree in matters about which God is indifferent (1 Cor. 8:8). A weak brother may have personal, inward doubts about authorized liberties that a strong brother may practice, but fellowship is not restricted because of this disagreement. 42

Paul makes it clear that since God is the ultimate Judge, and He had received both the strong and the weak despite their differences in these matters, they were wrong to judge and show contempt toward one another. In particular, the strong had the obligation not to judge or put a stumbling block in the way of the weak to cause him to fall. This is the central admonition of the chapter (14:13).

II) Pursuing Love, Peace, And Edification (14:14-23) A) Paul was convinced that there was nothing unclean of itself (1 Tim. 4:4; Col. 2:16; Acts 10:9-16); knowledge of truth informed his strong conviction 1) But to him who considers anything unclean, it is unclean [scruple of personal conscience] 2) If a brother is grieved because of my food [led to sin by violating his conscience], I am no longer walking in love – must not destroy with my food one for whom Christ died (1 Cor. 8:11) 3) Do not let your good [eating all things] be spoken of as evil [selfish disregard for a brother’s conscience] (1 Cor. 10:23, 30) a) Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit – spiritual concerns are greater than earthly concerns (1 Cor. 10:31, 33) b) Giving priority to spiritual concerns is acceptable to God and approved by men B) Pursue the things which make for peace and things by which one may edify another 1) Do not destroy work of God [weak brother, Eph. 2:10] for the sake of food 2) All food may be pure, but evil to purposefully cause offense by it (1 Cor. 8:12) 3) Good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything to cause a brother to stumble, be offended, or be made weak (appeal to humility, selflessness, patience, understanding, love; 1 Cor. 8:13; 10:32) C) Do not violate your personal faith before God (“faith” = personal conviction/conscience) 1) Do not condemn yourself [in conscience] in what you may approve a) If one doubts [in his conscience] about eating meat, and then goes ahead and eats meat [violates his conscience], this action is condemned – whatever actions are not “from faith” [personal conviction of what is right] is sin

Paul reveals the principle of truth that all should understand – there is nothing unclean of itself. Yet, some, because of their conscientious convictions, held scruples (opinions) that meat was unclean. Instead of showing contempt and causing another to stumble, they were to walk in love and not destroy one another. The kingdom of God highlights spiritual relationships above earthly differences. Brethren who differ on these matters must pursue the things that make for peace and unity, with understanding and love. They must avoid causing another to stumble, be offended, or made weak because of their obstinate, unloving attitude in matters that do not affect our salvation and fellowship.

One is not to violate his personal convictions. If one doubts in his conscience that his actions are correct, and then violates his personal conviction with his actions (not “from faith”), it is sin. This is why it is so important to grow in spiritual knowledge and to be fully convinced in one’s mind. This does not mean that we may change our convictions to

Obviously this “agreeing to disagree” does not involve sinful doctrines and practices but with things inherently ‘good,’ ‘clean,’ and ‘pure’” (Tom Roberts). 43 match our increasing knowledge of God’s word, but we must act consistently with the convictions that we have at any given time.

Romans 15

I) Receiving One Another To The Glory Of God (15:1-13) A) The strong ought to bear with the scruples [opinions, personal convictions] of the weak 1) Not seek to please ourselves (1 Cor. 10:33) 2) Seek to please neighbor for his good (Phil. 2:3-4), leading to edification (building up in Christ) a) Christ did not please Himself (Psa. 69:9 – bore our sins) i) Things written before (OT) were written for our learning (2 Tim. 3:16), that through patience and comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope (1 Cor. 10:11) 3) May God grant that [the strong and weak] be like-minded toward one another (unity, harmony – Phil. 1:27; 2:2, 5; 1 Cor. 1:10) a) With one mind and one mouth glorify God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ B) Receive one another (strong and weak; Jew and Gentile), just as Christ received each one to the glory of God – healing of all unnecessary divisions (cf. Philemon 12) 1) Jesus has become a servant [minister] to the circumcision [Jews] to confirm the promises made to the fathers 2) And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy 3) Jew and Gentile coming together confirmed by Scripture a) 2 Samuel 22:50; Psalm 18:49; Deuteronomy 32:43 b) Psalm 117:1; Isaiah 11:10 4) By the God of hope they are to be filled with all joy and peace in believing, that they may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit

If we ignore the chapter break, Paul continues his thoughts by admonishing the strong to bear with the conscientious scruples of the weak according to the principle of seeking to please our neighbor for his good. Christ did not please Himself, in that He unselfishly bore our sins on the cross.

Unity and like-mindedness is the goal of receiving one another (Jew and Gentile). There need be no division in Christ, who became a servant to the Jews to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and make it possible for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy. This coming together is confirmed by quoted Scriptures as God’s purpose in Christ. These things written aforetime were written to give hope from the God of hope who saves all who believe.

II) Paul’s Apostolic Ministry And Aim In Preaching The Gospel (15:14-21) A) Paul is confident [persuaded] about them 1) They are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another B) He had written more boldly on some points in order to remind them [of truths they knew] 1) Had done so because he was a minister of Christ to the Gentiles, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit

44

C) Paul had reason to glory, but only in Christ Jesus in things pertaining to God 1) Would not speak of anything that Christ had not accomplished in him in word or deed, in mighty signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit of God (2 Cor. 12:12), to make the Gentiles obedient (Acts 26:17-18) 2) Fully preached the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum (N of Macedonia) 3) Made it his aim to preach not where Christ was named lest he build on another man’s foundation (Isa. 52:15; 1 Cor. 3:6-10)

Paul now begins the final section of his epistle. He expresses his confidence in them and explains his bold writing as one who is a minister to the Gentiles to remind them of the truth. Paul’s work gave him reason to glory in Christ in what he accomplished for his Gentile ministry as he preached in the areas where Christ had not been named (from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum.

III) Paul’s Future Plans Of Travel (15:22-33) A) Had a great desire to come to them at Rome 1) Had previously been hindered by his busy working, but now had no more plans in areas he has worked 2) Would come to them at Rome whenever he journeyed to Spain, and was hoping to be helped by them [support, assistance] B) Now going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints (Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:3-4; 2 Cor. 9:12) 1) Brethren from Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8-9) 2) Since the Gentile brethren are debtors, having been partakers of their spiritual things, it is their pleasure and duty to minister to them in material things (2 Cor. 8:1-5) 3) After this is done, he will come to them on the way to Spain in the fullness of the blessings of the gospel C) Paul begs them to strive together [be intense] with him in their prayers to God for him 1) That he may be delivered from unbelievers in Judea (Acts 20:22-24; 21:10-13; 23:10-35) 2) And that his service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints (Acts 21:17) 3) So that he may come to them with joy and be refreshed together with them D) Benediction that the God of peace be with them; “amen” – let it be true 1) Peace with God and brethren is provided by God in Christ through the gospel

Having completed his work in the area of the world from Jerusalem to Illyricum, Paul’s desire is to come to them at Rome, be refreshed, and assisted by them on his way to Spain. Before that can happen, though, he must go to Jerusalem to carry the benevolence from brethren in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor among the saints there. Paul makes sure to mention how this is an extension of fellowship from the Gentile saints to the Jewish saints. He desires their prayers for a successful and safe journey.

Romans 16

I) Commending Phoebe (16:1-2)

45

A) Paul commends Phoebe (probably carried Paul’s epistle to Rome) 1) A sister in Christ 2) A servant of the church in Cenchrea a) Cenchrea was a port city about seven miles east of Corinth (cf. Acts 18:18) b) “Servant” deaconos – one who serves; no evidence she was in an official capacity of a “deaconess” (office of a deacon could only be filled by a man – “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:12) B) They are to receive her in the Lord, in a manner worthy of the saints 1) Assist her in whatever business she has need of them 2) She had been a helper of many and of Paul himself

Paul commends to the brethren Phoebe, a sister in Christ and servant of the church in Cenchrea. They are to receive her and help her, for she has helped others, including Paul himself. As seen here and in the following verses, women are vital to the work of the Lord in so many ways. Phoebe is probably the carrier of this letter to Rome.

II) Greetings To Various Brethren (16:3-16) A) Paul greets a large number of brethren at Rome 1) Priscilla [Prisca] and Aquila – fellow workers with Paul (Acts 18:1-3, 18-19, 26; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19) a) Risked their own necks for his life b) Gave thanks to them and as did all the churches of the Gentiles c) Greeted the church in their house (1 Cor. 16:19) i) Could refer to members of their household who are Christians, or that their house was used as a meeting place for saints in Rome (latter is most likely) 2) Epaenetus – firstfruits of Achaia (KJV) Asia (ASV) to Christ a) Textual variance – best manuscripts have “Asia” (household of Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia, 1 Cor. 16:15) 3) Mary – labored much for Paul (KJV), for the brethren at Rome (ASV) (textual variance) 4) Andronicus and Junia [or Junias] – Paul’s kinsmen [Jews, 9:3] and fellow prisoners a) “Junia” (feminine) or “Junias” (masculine)? Junia found in many contemporary Roman inscriptions, while Junias is not found; likely husband and wife b) Of note among the apostles i) Perhaps had distinguished themselves as outstanding in the eyes of the twelve apostles ii) “Apostle” could be used in general sense of one sent out on a mission (Acts 13:4; 14:14; Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23 “messenger”) c) In Christ before Paul was converted (were early converts to Christ) 5) Amplias – beloved in the Lord 6) Urbanus – fellow worker 7) Stachys – beloved by Paul 8) Apelles – approved [genuine, tried and true] in the Lord 9) Those of the household of Aristobulus (would have included slaves) 10) Herodion – Paul’s kinsmen [Jew] 11) Those of household of Narcissus who are in the Lord 12) Tryphena and Tryphosa – women (sisters?) who labored in the Lord

46

13) Persis – beloved, labored much in the Lord 14) Rufus and his mother – he is chosen [outstanding] in the Lord, she was a mother to Paul a) This Rufus might be the son of Simon of Cyrene (Mk. 15:21). 15) Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren who are with them 16) Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, Olympas, and all the saints who are with them B) Several women are named and praised for their activity (more than 1/3 of 27 persons specifically named/identified [Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus’ mother, Julia, and Nereus’ sister]) C) Several names were common among slaves and former slaves [freedmen/women] 1) Gospel is for all regardless of social status (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Philemon 10, 16) D) Paul had a bond to some as fellow Jews (“kinsmen”) and some as personal acquaintances (“beloved,” “fellow worker”); they likely migrated to Rome from areas of Paul’s work and could vouch for Paul’s character and work on the verge of his visit and seeking of aid E) True fame and notoriety is found in being a faithful child of God (“in the Lord,” “in Christ”) F) Evidence of small “house” churches rather than one large congregation (vv. 5, 14, 15) 1) Epistle addressed to the saints “who are in Rome” (1:7) not to the “church at Rome” G) They are to greet one another with a holy kiss (spiritual affection and fellowship, 1 Pet. 5:14; cf. Acts 20:36-38) 1) “Holy” – sincere, pure, without guile (1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26) 2) The churches of Christ greet you – local congregations from other areas of Paul’s work sent greetings to saints at Rome a) “Church” used in local sense; a local congregation was a church “of Christ” b) There is one church/body (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4) – used in universal sense of all Christians

This is a long list of names of those known to Paul, either personally or through others. Paul wanted the brethren to know that though he had never been there personally, he knew many of them, which might help in encouraging those who did not know him to hear his admonitions and be ready to help him in his further work to the west (Spain).

It is impressive to see the number of women named by Paul. As mentioned earlier, women have an important and vital work in the kingdom of God. Paul was appreciative and indebted to quite a number of them.

III) Avoiding Brethren Who Cause Division And Offenses (16:17-20) A) Paul urges them to take note of [look out for, mark] and avoid [shun] those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine [inspired teaching] they had learned (cp. Titus 3:10-11; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Thess. 3:14) 1) These ones do not serve the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly (Phil. 3:18-19) 2) By smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple [naïve] B) Their obedience had become known to all, and Paul was glad on their behalf 1) They should be wise [discerning] in what is good and simple [innocent] concerning evil 2) God of peace will crush Satan under their feet shortly (defeat efforts of evil) a) God is not discord and division, but peace among His people 3) Second benediction – the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with them (15:33)

47

Though some think this section of warning is out of place, it is logical that as Paul commends and greets many faithful brethren, he would take a moment to warn about the ever present danger of brethren that would cause divisions and offenses. Smooth words and flattering speech substitute for the words of truth. The brethren needed to be wise in what is good and simple concerning evil. What we fill our mind with is critical to the state of our soul.

IV) Greetings From Paul’s Friends (16:21-24) A) Timothy – Paul’s fellow worker (Acts 16:1ff) 1) Fellow traveler and son in the faith (1 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 2:19-23; 1 Tim. 1:2) B) Lucius (Acts 13:1?), Jason (Acts 17:5-9?), Sosipater (Acts 20:4?) – Paul’s kinsmen (fellow Jews) C) Tertius – writer of epistle (secretarial scribe); sends greetings “in the Lord” D) Gaius – Paul’s host and of the whole church (at Corinth; see 1 Cor. 1:14) E) Erastus – treasurer of the city (of Corinth) (Acts 19:22?) F) Quartus – a brother (in Christ) G) Third benediction – grace of Lord Jesus Christ be with them all (15:33; 16:20) 1) Not included in some ancient manuscripts

Paul is in the company (in Corinth) with friends and fellow workers, like Timothy, Gaius, and his personal secretary, Tertius. They also send greetings to the brethren at Rome.

V) Concluding Doxology (16:25-27) A) God is able to establish them (1:11) 1) According to the gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ (1:1) 2) According to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began but has now been made manifest (Eph. 3:1-6) and by the prophetic Scriptures (1:2) has been made known to all nations (1:5) according to the commandment of the everlasting God a) For obedience to the faith (1:5) B) To God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever (Rom. 11:36; Eph. 3:21) 1) Amen [so let this truth be so] 2) A most wonderful and succinct doxological tribute to God and His divine purpose in Christ to conclude this grand epistle to the Romans!

Paul concludes his epistle with a doxology37 that has parallel thoughts to his introductory remarks (1:1-5). It deftly sums up the message of this book of Romans – the revelation of the mystery (the gospel of Christ), made known to all nations (Jew and Gentile), for obedience to faith (living a transformed life).38

37 “The function of a doxology is primarily to ascribe praise and honor to God for who he is and for what he does; sometimes the reason for the ascription is contained in the immediate context, but at other times it is included within the doxology itself. It is an expression of thanksgiving and awed wonder at the graciousness and greatness of God. Thanksgiving and worship belong together” (Marshall 178). 38 I. Howard Marshall writes that “the effect of the doxology is to gather together the main themes of the letter regarding God’s plan of salvation for the Gentiles in accordance with the gospel revealed to Paul” (Ibid., 183). 48

Appendix 1 Select Bibliography For The Book Of Romans

Archer, Jr, Gleason L. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959.

Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Brown, John. Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Bruce, F. F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Cottrell, Jack. Romans. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 2005.

Deaver, Roy C. Romans: God’s Plan for Man’s Righteousness. Austin, TX: Biblical Notes Publications, 1992.

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized. The Bible Study Textbook Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Donified, Karl P. ed. The Romans Debate. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Dunn, J. D. G. “Romans, Letter to the.” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, eds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, 838-850.

Foerster, W. “ktisis, ktisma,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged). Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Abridged in one volume by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985, 481-6.

Grubbs, Isaiah Boone. An Exegetical and Analytical Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, n.d.

Hamilton, Clinton D. The Book of Romans. Truth Commentaries. Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1998.

49

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Volume 1, Chapters 1-8. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

______. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Volume 2, Chapters 9-16. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans. Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.

Longenecker, Richard N. Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011.

Macknight, James. A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek of all the Apostolic Epistles with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical to which is added, A History of the Life of the Apostle Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n.d., 49-138.

Marshall, I. Howard. “Romans 16:25-27 – An Apt Conclusion.” Romans and the People of God, Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, 170-184.

McClish, Dub, ed. Studies in Romans. The Fifteenth Annual Denton Lectures. Denton, TX: Valid Publications, 1995.

McClister, David. “The New Perspective on Paul.” 2009 Florida College Lectures Audio CD. Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College, 2009.

McGarvey, J. W. and Philip W. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. The Standard Bible Commentary. Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Foundation, n.d.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. “The Redemption of Our Body: The Riddle of Romans 8:19-22.” Romans and the People of God, Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, eds. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, 92-114.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

Moule, H. C. G. Studies in Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977.

Moyise, Steve. Paul and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

50

Packer, J. I. “The ‘Wretched Man’ Revisited.” Romans and the People of God, Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, eds. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, 70-81.

Rea, Lena. Romans – From a Woman’s Point of View. Hamilton, TX: Rea Publications, 1978.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007, 607-94.

Soderlund, Sven K. and N. T. Wright, eds. Romans and the People of God. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc. http://biblehub.com/

The Holy Bible. The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

Turner, Robert. Reading Romans. Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 1995.

Tyra, Steven W. “When Considering Creation, Simply Follow the Rule (of Faith): Patristic Exegesis of Romans 8:19-22 and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 8.2 (2014) 251-273.

Vinson, Sr, Bryan. Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome. Las Vegas: Nevada Publications, 1974.

Welch, Robert. Obedience of Faith: Commentary on Romans. Erlanger, KY: Faith and Facts Press, 1976.

Whiteside, Robertson L. A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome. Denton, TX: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945, 1976.

Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991.

Internet Articles

Bill, Brian. Why Preach Romans. 24 July 2006. Guest blog on the weblog of Dr. Ray Pritchard. http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-ray-pritchard/why-preach-romans- 1409052.html

Chiastic Structuring. Author unknown. http://newtestamentresearch.com/nt%20research- mk%202/chiastic_structuring.htm

51

Gagnon, Robert A. J. Is Homosexual Practice No Worse Than Any Other Sin? 7 January 2015. http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexAreAllSinsEqual.pdf

Geoffrey, Kevin. To the Jew First – Doctrine of Favortism? 22 June 2011. http://www.perfect-word.org/2011/05/27/to-the-jew-first/

Gibson, Marc W. Hermeneutics (II): Concerning the New Perspective on Paul. http://www.alpharetta-bible-study.com/images/PDFs/2013/05%20- %20HERMENEUTICS%20(2)%20by%20Marc%20Gibson.pdf

______. Jewish “Legalism”: “Proto-Pelagian,” or Just an All Too Often Human Response to God’s Marvelous Grace? http://www.alpharetta-bible- study.com/images/PDFs/2013/13%20- %20JEWISH%20LEGALISM%20by%20Marc%20Gibson.pdf

Nicole, Roger. New Testament Use of the Old Testament. http://www.bible- researcher.com/nicole.html

Nicoll, W. Robertson. "Commentary on 2 Peter 3:16". The Expositor's Greek Testament. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/view.cgi?bk=60&ch=3

Reeves, Chris. The New Perspective on Paul: A Historical, Critical, Appraisal of a New Approach to Judaism and Paul. http://www.alpharetta-bible-study.com/images/ PDFs/2013/02%20-%20New%20Perspective%20 by%20Chris%20Reeves.pdf

______. The People of God: A Study of the Continuity and Discontinuity Between OT Israel and the NT Church. http://www.alpharetta-bible- study.com/images/PDFs/2014/Reeves%20-%20People%20of%20God.pdf

Roberts, Mark. Commended Commentary List. http://bibleclassmaterial.com/commentary/ https://www.dropbox.com/s/82e4t0lctjx6qf5/Commended%20Commentary%20List% 202015%201.1.pdf?dl=0

Roberts, Tom. Liberty in Christ: An Analytical Exegesis of Romans 14:1 - 15:7. http://soundteaching.org/fellowship/fellowship7.htm

Turner, Allan. What, If Any, Is The Continuity Between The Current Heavens And Earth And The New Ones Of 2 Peter 3?: A Study Of The Then, Now, And Not Yet. http://www.alpharetta-bible-study.com/images/PDFs/2014/Turner%20- %20New%20Heavens%20and%20New%20Earth.pdf

What is a chiasm / chiastic structure in the Bible? © Copyright 2002-2015 Got Questions Ministries. http://www.gotquestions.org/chiasm-chiastic.html

52

Appendix 2

A Short Survey Of The Jew-Gentile Relationship In The Book Of Romans

At the heart of Paul’s epistle to the Romans is the dynamic of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles.39 This relationship is found both in the social context of Roman society and in the spiritual context of the Lord’s church.

There is no information on the beginning of the church in Rome, but it is safe to say that Jews made up a significant number of the members in the early years. We do know that among the Jews at Pentecost there were Jews and proselytes from Rome (Acts 2:10). It is likely that converts eventually made their way home to Rome and effected conversions among other Jews in the synagogues. Eventually Gentiles would join that number as conversions branched out from the synagogues.

A large Jewish community existed in Rome, estimated at 40-50,000,40 but tensions arose between them and the Romans. The Jews were banished from Rome in AD 49 by Emperor Claudius (cf. Acts 18:2), most likely over a disturbance that Suetonius said was “instigated by Chrestus” which is “almost universally taken as a reference to Christ.”41 This would have left a large void in the church, with only Gentiles remaining. When Jews were allowed to return, the resulting tension between the returning Jewish Christians and established Gentile Christians may be a large motivation in Paul writing the epistle to the Romans.42

Certain themes emerge in Romans that illustrate Paul’s concern over the relationship of Jewish and Gentile brethren:

First, there is the theme of the equal problem of sin and the equal solution of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. Paul uses the phrase “for/to the Jew first, and also for/to the Greek [Gentile]” three times (1:16; 2:9, 10). The term “first” has to do with

39 I. B. Grubbs wrote that Paul’s design in Romans was “to adjust all differences between Jewish and Gentile believers, and to point out the ground on which alone we must be saved” (Grubbs 18). 40 Dunn, 838. 41 Ibid. 42 “We know Paul is writing to the Roman community of believers (Romans 1:7), which is apparently an ethnically-diverse group. We also know that both the Jewish and Gentile members of the Roman community were having some serious issues with judgmentalism and pride (on the Jewish side, see Romans 2; on the Gentile side, see Romans 11), each thinking he had some specially-favored status with God. This is essentially the core issue of Paul’s entire letter to the believers in Rome—resolving the Jewish/Gentile conflict in that community” (Geoffrey). 53 time. The gospel would be sent to the house of Israel first,43 then into the entire world.44 The Gentiles were welcomed into kingdom of Christ under the same conditions as the Jews.

The equal problem of sin is explained in the first three chapters. Chapter 1 condemns sin in the Gentile world, chapter 2 does the same for the Jews, and chapter 3 concludes that all have sinned.

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:9, 23).

The equal solution of salvation is noted immediately in the latter part of chapter 3.

24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. (Rom. 3:24-30)

Furthermore, in chapter 4, Abraham, whose faith was accounted to him for righteousness, is the father of all, Jew and Gentile, who walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham. There is no distinction made by Paul between Jew and Gentile as he continues to speak of the benefits of being justified by faith (ch. 5), presenting ourselves as servants of righteousness (ch. 6), and being freed from death in our spirit and body according to the purpose of God (chs. 7-8). The Jews and Gentiles had been brought fully and equally into the blessings of the salvation in Christ.

Second, there is the theme of God’s rejection of the Jews due to unbelief which became the riches of salvation for the Gentiles, which then, in turn, would provoke the Jews to salvation. Paul defends the sovereign purpose and justice of God in choosing the faithful character of His people and rejecting those who did not believe (9:6-29). As Paul further explains, what the Jews [Israel] did not attain because of their lack of faith, the Gentiles did attain because of faith.

43 Consider the fact that Jesus, even while He was still on this earth, sent His disciples first to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). The spread of the gospel, as recorded by Luke in the book of Acts, begins at Jerusalem with the Jews, then to the Samaritans, then to the Gentiles (Acts 1:8, 2:5; 8:4-5; 10:1–11:18). 44 Kevin Geoffrey takes the view that “being first, then, is not an issue of favoritism, but of seniority and obligation—like an elder brother is responsible to look out for and take care of his younger siblings” (Ibid.). 54

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom. 9:30-32)

God had prophetically foretold of the inclusion of the Gentiles (9:23-26; 10:19-20), and that most of Israel was disobedient except for a faithful remnant (9:29). The stumbling of the Jews was not to the extent that they could not repent and return, but it did turn out to be riches for the Gentiles that they might hear the gospel of justification by faith.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Rom. 11:11-15)

Jews had the opportunity to hear the gospel they had once rejected and turn to Christ as their savior. God would “graft” them back into the tree of salvation to be a part of the remnant of grace. All of this hardening of the Jews, turning to the Gentiles, and provoking the Jews to desire the salvation that the Gentiles enjoyed was according to the purpose and plan of God to have mercy upon all men.

24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness [hardening] in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Rom. 11:24-33)

Thirdly, Jews and Gentiles were to receive one another in matters of liberty before God, and not to cause one another to stumble. In 14:1-15:6, Paul does not speak of

55

“Jews” and “Gentiles,” but of “weak” and “strong” brethren. The issues involved matters that involved differences between Jews and Gentiles.

Those who did not eat certain meats and observed days due to conscientious scruples would indicate primarily Jewish concerns. Gentiles did not distinguish certain meats as unclean, and did not observe certain days as Jews did under the Law of Moses.45 Those that were “weak in the faith” due to conscientious scruples and long-held convictions had yet to be fully convinced concerning the truth in Christ on these matters. But in the end, each was to be convinced in his own mind and know that the one he differed with was received by God. Though they differed they were to receive one another.

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. (Rom. 14:3-5)

Paul’s main concern in this entire section is that both the strong and the weak are to quit judging and despising one another and putting a stumbling block before a brother. They were to pursue peace and the things by which one may edify another.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. (Rom. 14:13-19)

Unity must be based upon mutual desire for one another’s good. They were to receive one another and with one mind and mouth glorify the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This applied to the Jews as equally as to the Gentiles.

5 Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, 6 that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises

45 It is true that Gentiles had concerns over meats offered to idols, but this is not directly addressed here in Romans as it is in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. It is important to note that many of the same principles are taught by Paul in both contexts. 56

made to the fathers, 9 and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy…. (Rom. 15:5-9a)

These three themes present the major ideas that Paul pursues in the book of Romans concerning the Jew-Gentile relationship in the Roman congregation(s). They address both the doctrinal and practical sides of this relationship. In the end, both Jews and Gentiles should humbly admit that they are both in need of justification by faith as sinners, understand both the goodness and severity of God for those who believe or reject that salvation, and seek the peace that must characterize the body of believers in Christ. These themes continue to speak to all men today regardless of their ethnic or cultural background.

Appendix 3

Another Look At  And The Interpretation Of Romans 8:18-25

One of the most difficult and controversial passages in the book of Romans is 8:18-25:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

The debate concerning the interpretation of the passage centers on the translation and meaning of , specifically in verses 19-22. The translation has usually been given as “creation,” “creature,” or “created thing.”46,47 “In three dense Greek sentences, the apostle Paul has bequeathed to modern criticism a number of enigmas, for the precise identity of the “creation” remains contested, as does the nature of its “subjection.” Two or

46 The English Revisions of 1885 changed the translation from “creature” in vv. 19, 20, and 21 (found in the KJV, and earlier versions such as Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and Rheims) to “creation.” Nearly all the translations since have “creation” (Michaels 93). 47 “2. equivalent to κτίσμα, creation i e. thing created; used a. of individual things and beings, a creature, a creation: Romans 1:25; Hebrews 4:13; any created thing, Romans 8:39” (Thayer, ). “ktisma means “creature,” “the creature,” or “creation” as the totality of created things, sometimes humanity as in Mk. 16:15, sometimes nature as in Rom. 1:25” (Foerster 484). 57 three centuries of intense historical-critical scrutiny notwithstanding, consensus on these 48 issues has been difficult to achieve.”

Ten different possibilities have been suggested as to the meaning of :49

1) Mankind both believing and unbelieving and also the angels 2) All mankind 3) Unbelieving mankind only 4) Believers only 5) Angels only 6) Sub-human nature together with the angels 7) Sub-human nature together with mankind in general 8) Sub-human nature only 9) Gentile world in distinction from the Jews 10) The body, whether of humans generally or believers in particular

Though these many possible meanings exist, without question “the overwhelming majority of interpreters agree in identifying it as the whole created order except for humanity”50 (#8 in the above list). This has led a number of these interpreters to argue an eschatological doctrine of the “restoration” or “renewal” of the present heavens and earth at the second coming of Christ, a doctrine which has become known as “New Creation Theology.”51 This is of particular interest because in last year’s Alpharetta Bible Study (2014), Allan Turner espoused this view and discussed Romans 8:18-23, saying,

But, and I simply do not know how it could have been more plainly said, in connection with the restoration and regeneration of “all things,” “the creation itself” (i.e., the creation other than man) “will be delivered [eleutherōthēsetai] from the bondage of corruption”…So, there should be no mistake that God intends to deliver or set free the creation from its bondage (enslavement) to “corruption” (phthoras), i.e., decay and deterioration. There is no doubt, then, that this present universe will be delivered from (apó) the bondage of decay into (eis) something else….

To me, this passage makes it clear that the present heavens and earth will not be completely destroyed, but will somehow, by the power of God, be transformed into the glorious liberty (i.e., the glorified state) that is promised to those who, at the end- time judgment-destruction-redemption event, “will be found” to be in a right relationship with the blood of Christ. This means that what was corrupted and lost as a result of the first Adam’s sin is finally restored, reconciled, and regenerated in connection with the propitiation of the last Adam—our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.52

48 Tyra 252. 49 Michaels 105, footnote 23. 50 Ibid.,105. 51 For example, see Anthony Hoekema (The Bible and the Future, 1979) 280; Moo 517; Cottrell 279; Lard 273. 52 Allan Turner 37-38. 58

Though other New Testament passages are involved in this discussion,53 the interpretation  in Romans 8:18-23 as “the creation other than man” is admittedly a central element of this New Creation Theology and its restored universe. This makes the present study one of critical importance.

The key to understanding the correct interpretation (or at least getting as close to it as possible) is the context of the passage, both of the book of Romans in general and the immediate context around 8:18-25.54 What must be avoided is the “tendency of commentators…to make up their minds as to the identification of the  when it first appears in Romans 8:19, and then adjust their interpretations of verses 20-22 to fit a predetermined conclusion.”55 The majority interpretation of scholars, commentators, or brethren is not the final arbitrator of truth. Difficulties and problems are found in nearly all competing interpretations. Determining the best and most consistent interpretation of this passage requires careful thought and exegesis which hopefully will inform the Bible student accurately concerning divine truth.

As to the general context of the book of Romans, Paul first uses in 1:25,

25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The “creature” here would refer back to verse 23 where he speaks of “an image made like corruptible man – and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things.” Clearly he has in mind that which is physical, earthly, or of this earth, including man himself in his physical form.

In addition to our text in 8:19ff, Paul again uses in 8:39,

39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The point here is that no single created thing of this earth can separate us from the love of God. It is difficult to think that Paul had in mind non-rational created things. It makes more sense to understand this as those human “creatures” that are worldly enemies of God and truth which would seek to do us spiritual harm. This passage, and 1:25, at least in part, certainly point to human beings as to who Paul has in mind when he uses .

The immediate context of 8:18-25 finds Paul speaking of the blessing that we have now received in our spiritual adoption in Christ, and a hope of glory that is a future

53 Such as 2 Peter 3, Acts 3:21, and Matthew 19:28. For a good discussion of 2 Peter 3, see Chris Reeves, “2 Peter 3 and New Creation Theology,” Truth Magazine (March 2015), 12-14. 54The importance of context is demonstrated by the use of  in passages outside of the book of Romans. For example, in Colossians 1:15-16, Paul uses the word to refer to all of God’s creation, human and sub-human, and then just a few verses later (v. 23) uses the same word in the limited sense of humanity to whom the gospel was preached (cf. Mk. 16:15). 55 Michaels 109. 59 inheritance.56 There is a clear distinction in this immediate context, as well as in the larger context of Romans, between the spirit and body of man. Where the spirit of man is the recipient of the spiritual resurrection in Christ and newness of life from the death of sin, the physical body and its weakness due to sin and death creates a constant struggle of suffering and sacrifice.

We see this theme very early as Paul describes the ungodliness and unrighteousness of the Gentile nations as pertaining to their hearts [spirits] and bodies:

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. (Rom. 1:24)

Later, Paul spoke of Abraham’s faith in God “who gives life to the dead” (4:17). This faith was rewarded in giving “life” to Abraham’s “dead” body and Sarah’s “dead” womb to bring forth a son of promise, Isaac. This kind of faith is an example to “us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (v. 24). The resurrection of Jesus is the key to our own resurrections, first in spirit, then in body.

As we come to chapter 6, the comments of Jack Cottrell concerning the dualistic use of body and spirit in 6:1–8:39 are instructive:

Scripture in general and Paul especially describe the individual human being as a twofold creature composed of a physical body or flesh, and a spiritual entity known variously as the spirit, the soul, the heart, and the inner man. Both body and spirit are created by God and are inherently good (Gen 1:31). There is no natural antithesis or antagonism between body and spirit. Both together form the whole human being; an individual is not complete without both. The body without the spirit is dead (Jas 2:26), and the spirit without the body is naked (2 Cor 5:3).

This view of man, known as anthropological dualism, is presupposed and asserted throughout this section of Romans. It is a key for understanding these chapters. It is crucial for a proper view of what sin has done to us and how we are saved from its effects. It is crucial for understanding both the nature of our present struggle against sin, and the content and significance of our hope. In brief, we are saved in two stages. In conversion only the spirit or inner man is changed, through the act of dying and rising again in baptism. The body is still under the curse of death and remains a stronghold from which sin continues to assault the spirit. The result is a serious struggle between the renewed spirit and the sin-weakened flesh.57

Paul links the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus with our being baptized into death, buried with Christ, and “just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (6:3b-4). This spiritual

56 This is one of those “already…not yet” themes that one finds revealed in scripture concerning God’s plan for man. There is a sense in which we have redemption already, but not yet in the full sense of what God has promised us. This final sense will be fulfilled when Christ returns. 57 Cottrell 213. 60 resurrection results in being freed from the dominion of sin (v. 7), and the spiritual death sentence of sin (6:23). Our physical bodies are still mortal (v. 12), subject to temptation and physical death, but we are not to let sin reign in, or dominate, our spirit through our bodies. Instead, we are to use our members (bodies) as instruments of righteousness. Paul says he must speak in such human terms due to the “weakness” of their flesh” (v. 19). Here we see the struggle that each Christian will engage in – the spirit must dominate in righteousness, not in sin, even though we are weak in the flesh and subject to the ever- present temptation of sin.

In chapter seven, this struggle between the redeemed spirit of man and the deadness of the sinful flesh is described by Paul personally and dramatically. Though he has died to the law to be delivered from its demand of perfect law-keeping to be justified (vv. 1-6), he still struggled with the problem of sin which the law condemned. The law of God was never the problem (it is holy, just, and good, v. 12), but sin took advantage by deceiving him, and he died under the condemnation of the law. He then describes the spiritual conflict that occurs within the believer (7:14-25):

14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Cottrell comments that these words of Paul reflect the body-spirit conflict:

But how can we account for such an intense conflict within the life of the believer? How can a person who experiences such hatred for sin still be a slave to it? How can a person who so strongly desires to do good and who takes such joy in the law say that “nothing good lives in me”? The answer lies in the fact that our nature is twofold, i.e., in the distinction between the flesh (outer man, body) and the spirit (inner man, soul). As we have already seen, we are redeemed in two stages. First, at conversion the sinful soul is crucified with Christ and raised up into a state of spiritual life (6:1-6). Then, at the second coming the sin-infested body will be redeemed through resurrection (8:23) or transformation (1 Cor 15:51-54). But in between these two events, while we are still living on this earth, we exist as an awkward combination of redeemed soul and as-yet-unredeemed body. This is the source of the conflict of which this passage speaks.58

58 Ibid. 254. 61

Paul distinguishes between his “inward man” that delighted in and served the law of God (vv. 22, 25), and his flesh in which nothing good dwelt and served the law of sin (vv. 17, 25; “sinful flesh” 8:3).59 It is not that Paul could not, as he told the Romans earlier, serve righteousness with his members [body], but the flesh was under the curse of the law of sin – death.60 Thus he exclaims, “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (v. 24). This “body of death” is not the metaphoric body of sin condemning his soul under the curse of perfect law-keeping justification, for this had been “done away with” when he was crucified with Christ (6:6) and became “dead to the law through the body of Christ” (7:4). This “body of death” is his physical body which “is dead because of sin” (8:10). He had been delivered in his spirit from the wages of death, but not yet from his physical body of death.61 But he thanked God through Christ – the deliverance he desired would be fulfilled in God’s plan! Until then the struggle of serving with his mind the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin continued (v. 25).

J. I. Packer’s comments are helpful on 7:25:

…the verb to supply in verse 25a will be the same tense (future) as is the “wretched man” outcry, which is what in any case the ordinary rules of Greek grammar require: “Who will rescue me…? Thanks be to God that he will rescue me (in the coming aeon, when bodily resurrection and transformation will be mine: see 8:23) through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The thanksgiving proclaims, not present justification or present enabling, as the other views would require, but personal Christian hope, the theme of chapters 5 and 6, soon to be taken up again in chapter 8. Both the outcry and the thanksgiving are parenthetical, that Paul goes straight on to summarize what he was saying from verses 14 to 23 about the way things are now: “So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin” (7:25b, NRSV).62

Chapter 8 begins by emphasizing that now there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus and walk according to the spirit [spirit-mindedness]. They were not to live according to the flesh [to practice sin], but according to the spirit [to practice righteousness]. They had received the spirit of adoption, and were heirs to be glorified with God.63 Our present spiritual adoption anticipates a full, complete bodily adoption to come.

59 This language does not support the Calvinistic doctrine of the inherited depraved nature of man. Those in the flesh are sinful when they live according to the flesh (8:5). Paul never blames his sinfulness on the fact that he had a sinful nature, but that he committed sin against the law of God. He took full responsibility for his sins, but emphasized that there was no hope for him outside of faith in Christ. 60 Compare Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” 61 “He cries out for rescue not from bodily existence as such, but from this corrupted body from which sin still wages war against his spirit. He yearns to be free from the constraining power exerted upon him by the lusts of the body (6:12; 7:5)” (Cottrell 259). 62 Packer 76. 63 Note the same language in Galatians 4:4-7: 62

Paul explains this coming glory in terms of the indwelling of the Spirit of God who raised Jesus from the dead. This indwelling Spirit would give life to our “mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” (8:11). This speaks to more than just using our members unto righteousness (6:13, 19) and presenting our bodies as living sacrifices (12:1). This is our hope that our suffering,64 dying body will experience the “redemption of our body” (8:23). The “bookends” of the glory that shall be revealed in us (v. 18) and the redemption of our body (v. 23) provide a pathway of interpretation for the verses in between (vv. 19-22).

Understanding that this two-part adoption, the combined redemption of the spirit and body of the one who is justified by faith in Christ, is the focus of Paul’s argument in this context, we take a closer look at his language in vv. 19-22. “For” in v. 19 connects what he is about to say with what he just said, and the “eagerly waits” is parallel with the “eagerly awaiting” of v. 23. The “revealing of the sons of God” is the same as the “glory which shall be revealed in us” (v. 18). Now who or what is the “creation” or “creature” that eagerly waits for this? Keeping consistent with the context and the flow of Paul’s argument, it is the suffering, perishable body of death possessed by each of God’s children who has the earnest expectation of that revealing glory that will be brought at the bodily resurrection in the final day at Christ’s coming.

This body, the suffering fleshly creature of God, was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of the sentence of death placed on all of the human family (v. 20). It was subjected in hope – hope of what? The adoption, the redemption of our body (v. 23):

24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

Note that again Paul uses the language in these verses of “eagerly wait,” connecting it to the statements in verses 19 and 23. Who eagerly waits in these verses? It is the ones to whom the promises of verses 17 and 18 are made, those redeemed in spirit and who await the redemption of the body.65,66

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 64 Our “sufferings” (vv. 17, 18) are more than just persecution. This language involves the experience of living in a perishable, corruptible body in a world of corruption. We are born to die – an experience of suffering. 65 R. L. Whiteside comments, “Every statement indicates that he was talking about intelligent beings who had a real interest in the resurrection and glorification of the children of God. The verses are closely connected with verse 18, and evidently were written to encourage the Christian to endure the suffering for the sake of glory that shall be revealed to usward” (Whiteside 182). 66 Roy Deaver adds, “It is clear that Paul was speaking of that which longed for, expected to receive, and to participate in future glory. Paul speaks of that which could ‘will’ (verse 20). The only ones who can expect 63

Furthermore, the corruptible, fleshly creature will be “delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (v. 21). This is the point in Paul’s discussion of the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians 15:42, 53. The mortal shall put on immortality, and the corruptible shall put on incorruption. The liberty from this wretched body of death is exactly what Paul knew was God’s purpose in Christ to complete His plan of predestining those He foreknew, called, and justified to be glorified by being conformed to the image of His Son in spirit and body (8:29-30):

18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

The “whole creation” of verse 22 likely does include not only the suffering physical bodies of the faithful, but the larger corruptible world of humanity around us,67 which Paul says, “groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” But no remedy is given for this groaning, only for those with the Spirit.68 They are promised the adoption for which they eagerly wait, the redemption of their body (v. 23). Their groanings are also relayed by the Spirit who makes intercession for us (vv. 26-27). Groanings are also mentioned by Paul as characteristic of those who are in their earthly tent awaiting something better:

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven (2 Corinthians 5:1-2).

Again, the familiar themes in this parallel passage of “earnestly desiring” along with the groaning, and the glory to come (4:17), make the interpretation much more plausible of “the creature” as the saints in the flesh awaiting their glory in a bodily resurrection.

Please note the parallel lines of the language throughout Romans 8:17-23:

Who Now Then v.17 We suffer with Him be glorified together and anxiously await the glory that is to be revealed unto the children of God are God’s children, Christians” (Deaver 281). 67 This is the use of the word in Mark 16:15: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” See also this use in Colossians 1:23 and Hebrews 4:13. 68 “In verse 22, Paul speaks of the whole human race. He reminds Christians that sufferings, death, and decay are not peculiar to Christians, but are the common lot of all human beings. But the reader will notice that no hope – no future outlook – is attributed to the whole creation” (Whiteside 183-4). 64

v.18 Us sufferings of present time glory which shall be revealed v.20 Creature eagerly waits revealing of the sons of God v.21 Creature subjected to futility in hope v.22 Creature bondage of corruption glorious liberty of the children of God v.23 Whole creation groans and labors v.24 We groan within ourselves adoption – redemption of our body v.25 We saved hope that is not seen v.26 We eagerly wait what we do not see (hope)

These parallels are compelling evidence in tracing the flow of thought in these verses and determining the best interpretation of the passage. The “we” and “us” is parallel to “creature” just as the now and then lines are parallel throughout these verses. But why would Paul switch to  to describe the “we”/”us”? Perhaps it was to emphasize the physical, earthly nature of our body of death in which we suffer and groan, subjected to futility and the bondage of corruption, until the glory, the revealing, the liberty of our adoption, the redemption of our body to the immortal and incorruptible body conformed to the image of Christ’s body. Again, this interpretation fits the larger context and is the most consistent interpretation of the passage’s flow of thought.69

The comments of I. B. Grubbs, in his dealing with the question, “What is ‘the creation,’ and how does it wait ‘for the revealing of the sons of God’?” provides a helpful summation:

It means man under his present creaturely probation of suffering by which he is under bondage of corruption as contrasted with what he shall be. The antithesis is four times stated: (1) Present sufferings; (2) earnest expectation vs. revealing of the sons of God; (3) subjected to decay vs. in hope of deliverance; (4) groaning, travailing, waiting vs. the redemption of our body.

This does not mean the material creation personified, as some would say – such talk is fancy and not exegesis. Compare 1 Cor. 15:47-49 with Genesis 3:22-24. God shuts the gate, that Adam may not return and live forever in the corruption of sin; but he wishes to redeem him and bring him to the glorious liberty of the sons of God. For this reason he subjects man to vanity – “decay” – “physical death” – that he might “deliver him from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.” We are new creatures; after a while we shall be sons of God in a

69 This interpretation also provides no support for the New Creation Theology mentioned earlier. If, as the contextual evidence shows, this passage does not speak of a renewal of the present heavens and earth, then that doctrine is without a central element of its argument, and, therefore, finds itself on a very tenuous foundation in opposition to the testimony of other scriptures (such as 2 Peter 3). 65

higher sense. We have not yet reached that state of glorious liberty (see also Luke 20:34-37).70

As a final note, Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:13-14,

“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”

The “redemption of the purchased possession” is spoken as future. Until this redemption takes place, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, “the guarantee of our inheritance to come.” God’s faithful people are His purchased possession, and He will bring full and final redemption of the body for His people at the resurrection. The Holy Spirit’s role as a guarantee of our inheritance in this promise reminds us of the important role of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:11, 16-17, 23. It is not hard to see the parallel themes in these two passages. And all of it is to the praise of His glory!

Appendix 4

A Few Thoughts Concerning Paul, Law, And The Jews In The Book Of Romans (Revisiting The New Perspective On Paul)

The question of Paul’s view of the law and its relationship to the Jews (and by extension, to Christians) has been debated by scholars and Bible students for many years. Of particular interest in this study is Paul’s view of the subject in the book of Romans.

This matter has been amplified in the last few decades by the rise of the New Perspective on Paul. This “new perspective” found its main voice in E. P. Sanders’ influential work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) in which Sanders examined the Jewish literature from the Second Temple period to reconstruct a more accurate view of Judaism which then led to a reinterpretation of Paul’s opposition to it in his epistles. What Sanders concluded was that Second Temple Judaism was not legalistic, and therefore Paul was not opposing Jewish legalism when he denied that justification came by the “works of the law.” Instead, the Jews were God’s people by the grace of God, and remained so by obedience to the law which also provided for atonement for transgressions. Sanders called this concept “covenantal nomism.” What Paul opposed, according to Sanders, was the Jewish exclusive mindset that insisted Gentiles take on the “identity badges” of Judaism, namely, circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary laws in which Jews boasted

70 Grubbs 110. 66 of their Jewishness. Other writers such as James G. D. Dunn and N. T. Wright have helped to popularize this “new perspective” since Sanders.71

This “New Perspective” has greatly affected the modern study of Romans among scholars today,72 as well as among our brethren. Mark Roberts, in his Commended Commentary List, noted in the section on Romans that “The New Perspective on Paul has radically affected the landscape of work on Romans.”73 David McClister, religious professor at Florida College, speaking approvingly of it, said,

So there is a new way of looking at the argument, a new way of looking at the debate as it were, that I think is very informative, very helpful, that we ought to take into consideration when we read Paul…

So I would suggest to you that the new perspective on Paul is a very fruitful way to look at Paul and is the way we ought to be thinking about Paul’s debate with the Judaizers, that it is a much more accurate picture of the situation.74

The New Perspective’s denial that Paul is confronting the error of Jewish legalism, particularly in the epistles of Romans and Galatians, creates a conundrum of interpretation. Not only does it contradict the careful exegesis of countless commentators, but causes serious issues within these texts themselves. It allows shifting human conclusions drawn from background studies of second Temple Judaism to control the interpretation of the text (instead of merely informing it). We will concentrate our attention on the book of Romans.

The law is something that is upheld in Paul’s writings as that which reflects the lawgiver. This was certainly true of the Law of Moses. The law of God is “holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good” (7:12). The Gentiles are commended in that they did “by nature” the things contained in the law and showed “the work of the law written in their hearts” (2:14, 15). Those under the law would be judged by the law (12:12) and whoever broke the law dishonored the law (2:23).

The fact that all are “under sin” speaks to the fact that all are under law before God, whether by the Law of Moses (Jews) or a moral “law written on the heart/conscience” (Gentile). The effect was that all human boasting was stopped, and all the world became guilty before God (3:19). Because all men have sinned and become guilty under the condemnation of the law (which requires perfect law-keeping to be proclaimed righteous,

71 For a more extensive discussion and evaluation of the “New Perspective on Paul,” see the articles by Reeves (The New Perspective) and Gibson. For other good evaluations of the “New Perspective” see Kent L. Yinger, The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011) and Moyise, 62-71. 72 One writer said that “one’s understanding of the ‘New Perspective’ with respect to both Palestinian Judaism and Paul’s teaching…is a critical issue in the study of Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome” (Longenecker 330). 73 Mark Roberts. 74 McClister. 67 see Gal. 3:10), it is a fact that “by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (3:20).

That no one, Jew or Gentile, can be justified by the deed/works of law is a major theme in the book of Romans. The law required strict obedience (Gal. 3:10; 5:3). Breaking the law, even in one point, brought condemnation. A law system of justification offers no hope to the sinner except death, for the wages of sin is death (6:23). This is why the righteousness of God “apart from the law is revealed…even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (3:21-22). Justification by faith in Jesus Christ is sinful man’s only hope, for by grace God set forth Jesus “to be a propitiation by His blood through faith” (3:24-25). Paul thus concludes that a man is “justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11).

Paul uses Abraham as his example of justification by faith. He recalls the Scripture that says that Abraham’s faith was accounted (imputed, credited, reckoned) to him for righteousness (4:3; Gen. 15:6). If he had been justified by works (perfect keeping of the works of law), Abraham could boast concerning his perfection, and God would be indebted to justify him (4:2, 4). But Abraham had not worked (perfectly kept the works of law), and needed the justification that comes by having his faith accounted for righteousness (4:5). Quoting David (Psa. 32:1-2), Paul describes the joy of the man justified by faith, whose sins are not imputed to his account but forgiven (4:6-8). Paul then goes on to point out that this example of Abraham applied to both Jews and Gentiles.

One must be careful not to confuse the fact that we are not now under a system of perfect law-keeping righteousness (6:14) with the false notion that we are not responsible to the law of God to obey it.75 Paul states emphatically that instead of making void the law through faith, “we establish the law” (3:31), that is, we emphasize the purpose of the law. In fact, Paul speaks of our obedience to God in becoming and living as slaves of righteousness (6:16-18). Under grace, we are still responsible to live “by patient continuance in doing good” and to “obey the truth” (2:7, 8). At the beginning and end of the book, Paul speaks of “obedience to the faith” (1:5; 16:26). Walking according to the spirit necessarily involves obedience to the revelation of the Spirit (8:4-5, 14). The key difference is that we are not saved or justified by perfect law-keeping, but by faith in Christ who by grace forgives the sins of the penitent faithful.

The problem with legalistic Jews was that they sought their own righteousness by the works of law (9:32; 10:3). To limit these works to but a few “identity badges” is to ignore the demands of a justification-by-law system and is an arbitrary restriction on the meaning of “works of law.” The demand of the law, which the Judaizing teachers would have been well aware of, was to “continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal. 3:10; Deut. 27:26). Paul speaks of the “works of the law” in

75 “Because of grace we are no longer under law as a way of salvation, but we are still under law as a way of life. Even though by grace we are not under the law’s penalties, we are still under its commands” (Cottrell 233). 68 the complete sense of the demands of the law itself, not in a limited sense of only certain works. There is no textual reason to restrict its meaning.76

The “boasting” that the Jews sought was not one of exclusivism, but one of legalism.77 If this is not so, what exclusive boasting would Abraham have done (4:2)? His could only be one of legalistic accomplishment, being justified by works, the same as the boasting of the Jews that Paul refutes (3:27). But they could not boast, no more than Abraham could (for all have sinned). It was excluded by the law of faith in which a sinner looks helplessly, but hopefully, to God for His promise of grace and forgiveness of sins.

Again, Paul teaches that we have been “delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by…” (7:6). This was accomplished through dying with Christ in His death (see 6:3-4), having become “dead to the law through the body of Christ,” that we might be married to Christ (7:4). Sin had once taken advantage through the law to deceive and kill (7:8-11), but now the inward man is alive in Christ, but the body is in wretched state of death, subject to the corruption of this sin-cursed world (7:22-25; 8:10). By the indwelling Spirit, we have the promise of the redemption of the body, a deliverance from the bondage of corruption due to sin (8:18-25).

In view of what God has accomplished in Christ, the divine grace offered to all men, Jew and Gentile are called by God in Christ to become the “remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace” (11:5-6). No more is Jew or Gentile under the curse of a perfect law-keeping system of justification that condemns sinful men to eternal death. In Christ is the promise of God fulfilled and revealed that justification is by faith in Christ. This faith, which is accounted to us for righteousness, obeys the divine conditions of grace in order to please God and access the blessed assurance of eternal life. This is the gospel that Paul preached, strongly opposed to the justification by perfect law-keeping that caused men to fall from grace then and now (Gal. 5:4).

Appendix 5

Exploring Paul’s Use Of The Old Testament In The Book Of Romans

76 Longenecker adds, “…the treatment of both Sanders and Dunn on Paul’s pejorative statements regarding ‘works of the law’ and ‘works’ in Galatians and Romans…misconstrue Paul’s teaching, and so fall short of a true understanding of what he said about the Jews and what his attitude was toward the mainline Judaism of his day” (Longenecker, Ibid.) 77Moo observes that “it is not the Jew’s pride in a covenant relationship, but the pride in accomplishments, the tendency for the Jew to think that his obedience to the law constituted some kind of claim on God, that Paul rejects.…This is not to say, either, that all Jews were prone to such a ‘legalistic’ attitude. Certainly, the centrality of the law in the Jewish religion rendered Jews very susceptible to such a tendency...” (Moo 247). 69

Studies concerning the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament can be very interesting and informative.78 Paul’s use of the Old Testament in the book of Romans does not disappoint in the course of such a study. Of all of Paul’s epistles, Romans has, by far, the most quotations and allusions to the Old Testament.79 Moule gave a count of sixty-one direct quotations from fourteen Old Testament books, and he adds, “the allusions to Old Testament history, type, and doctrine extend, of course, far beyond even these verbal references.”80 Moyise gives a conservative estimate of 60 Old Testament references.81

According to Richard Longenecker, Paul’s overall purpose in his extensive use of the Old Testament in Romans is two-fold, as he addressed Jews, Jewish believers in Jesus, and Gentile Christians who have been influenced extensively by Jewish Christianity: (1) to build bridges of commonality with his hearers and addressees, and (2) to support and focus his arguments in ways that they would appreciate and understand.82 To this I would add that it also emphasized the continuity between the Old and New Testaments as to the overall purpose of God. The Jews and the Gentiles needed to understand that all that had been accomplished in Christ was foreordained and prophesied beforehand according to God’s purpose.

Furthermore, Paul himself declares that “whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (15:4). Our hope in Christ is strengthened through the study and knowledge of the Old Testament. Knowledge of what God has done in times past for our good serves to build our faith and embolden our spirits:

The point is that when we read the OT accounts of and testimony to God’s just and faithful dealings with Israel, this reinforces our confidence in God’s promises to us through the New Covenant, and thus gives us patience and encouragement in times of personal spiritual doubt and distress. The result of such endurance and encouragement is that our hope — our assurance of salvation — is in turn strengthened.83

The Scriptures are no mere record of the past. They speak to the present, as do their human authors (4:3,6; 9:15,17,26; 10:6,8,11,16,20,21; 11:2,4,11; 15:12). The introductory formula “just as it is written” (kathosgegraptai) is a testimony to a present, eschatological reality and not a mere reminder of some past promise or demand (1:17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21)…. The Scriptures, according to Paul, are nothing other than God

78 A helpful introduction to this subject is Beale’s Handbook. See also Zuck, 250-78. 79 Of course, Romans is longer than Paul’s other epistles, but he still is much more liberal in his use of the Old Testament in his argument in Romans. Zuck writes that “the books with the highest concentrations of Old Testament citations are Matthew, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, with each book having several dozen” (Zuck 251). 80 Moule 31. 81 Moyise 2. 82 Longenecker 241. 83 Cottrell 517. 70

speaking to his people in the present through his words of judgment and salvation to Israel in the past.84

It is also vital to understand that Paul viewed the Old Testament as inspired of God. He called the Jewish Scriptures the “oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), and spoke of them as “inspired” [God-breathed] (2 Tim. 3:16). In fact, as Paul wrote Romans, he recorded words of inspiration, so that the use and meaning of the Old Testament quotations are just as inspired as the New Testament doctrine in which they are found.85

While we cannot examine every quotation, there are some notable and interesting examples of Paul’s use of the Old Testament in Romans:

1. Romans 2:23-24

23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.

This is a paraphrased quotation of a consequence stated in Isaiah 52:5 and alluded to in Ezekiel 36:19-22. In those passages, the name of God was blasphemed by Gentiles when Israel was oppressed by its enemies. Paul applies it as a consequence of hypocritical Jews who did not practice what they preached. The outcome of blaspheming God’s name is the same in either instance.

2. Romans 3:9-18

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.” 13 “Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit”; “The poison of asps is under their lips”; 14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;

84 Seifrid 607-8. 85 “By quoting the Old Testament so frequently, the New Testament writers demonstrated their trust in the authority of the Old Testament. Nowhere does a New Testament writer question or repudiate the truth of an Old Testament passage he cited” (Zuck 252). 71

17 And the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

This a series of quotations (Psalm 14:1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isa. 59:7, 8; Psa. 36:1) chained together by Paul to illustrate the truth that “both Jews and Greeks…are all under sin.” Interestingly, he uses passages mainly directed toward the wicked to illustrate that no one is faultless before God. This use of the OT also illustrates that bringing passages together from various contexts to prove a common principle of truth is a legitimate method of Bible teaching. In fact, Paul does it again on a smaller scale in 15:9-13 where he strings four passages together to prove that God intended for the Gentiles to glorify Him in Christ.

3. Romans 9:15

15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

Paul here quotes a statement from Exodus 33:19 spoken by God to Moses, and then applies it to his point about God’s sovereign choices of Isaac and Jacob (9:7-13). While there may be deeper connections to be observed between these Old and New Testament contexts,86 one will note that one true principle from one context may be cited in another context where that principle would equally apply.87

4. Romans 10:6-8

6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach).

In this passage, Paul takes the words of Deuteronomy 30:12-14, in which Moses tells Israel that God had made His law understandable and readily available, and applies it to the gospel of Christ. He deftly and parenthetically applies Christ and the word of faith to what had been true about the revelation of the Law of Moses. The principle concerning the availability of God’s revelation was true whether Old Testament or New Testament.

5. Romans 10:18

18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”

Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 which spoke of the natural revelation shown to man in the created universe (cf. Rom. 1:20). Paul uses this language concerning natural revelation and

86 See Cottrell 332-5. 87 See also 1 Tim. 5:18 as an example of this. 72 applies it to the fact that the Jews had heard the spiritual revelation of the gospel of Christ. This is again an example of the taking of a principle from one context and using it in another context to make a parallel conclusion.

6. Romans 11:2-5

2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Paul spends three verses reviewing and quoting the account of Elijah’s fears and God’s response to him concerning the faithful remnant of seven thousand (1 Kgs. 19:14, 18). He uses this example of a faithful remnant in the midst of unfaithful Israel to preface his statement concerning a faithful remnant “according to the election of grace” within the midst of a still unfaithful Israel. This new remnant was spiritual, made up of Jews and Gentiles. Paul himself was a member of this remnant (v. 1), as are all who come to Christ in faith.

Other examples could be given, but these will suffice for an introduction to Paul’s use of the Old Testament in the book of Romans, and the general use of the OT in the NT.88 Roy B. Zuck gives five procedures to use in interpreting the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. It seems good to conclude with these:

1. Investigate the New Testament context in which the quotation of or allusion to the Old Testament occurs.

2. Investigate the Old Testament context of the passage to which the quotation or allusion refers. Be sure not to read back into the Old Testament for the original readers what is now known only by New Testament revelation. In other words, note what the passage would have conveyed to the Old Testament readers before the New Testament quoted it, and then note separately how it is understood in the New Testament.

3. Note the differences, if any, between the Old Testament passage and its New Testament quotation or allusion.

4. Determine how the New Testament passage is using the Old Testament passage. …Is the New Testament passage citing the Hebrew text or the Septuagint or neither? Is it paraphrasing the passage or using synonyms? Does it include an introductory formula?

5. Relate these conclusions to the interpretation of the New Testament passage.89

88 For more information on this topic see Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), as well as Moyise, Beale, and Nicole (see Bibliography) 89 Zuck 278. 73

Appendix 6

A Chiastic Structure90 Of Romans Perry Hall91

A – Introduction (1:1-7) 1. Paul – apostle (1:1) 2. Christ Jesus (1:1) 3. Gospel [euaggelion (2098)] of God (1:1) 4. Promised (1:2) 5. Prophets [prophē tē s (4396)] 6. In the holy Scriptures [graphē (1124)] (1:1-2) 7. Gospel concerning Jesus (1:1-3) 8. Gentiles (1:5) 9. Obedience [hupakoē (5218)] of faith [pistis (4102)] (1:5) 10. To all who are beloved of God (1:7)

B – Personal Greetings (1:8-9a) 1. Paul thanks [eucharisteō (2168)] God (1:8) 2. Jesus Christ (1:8)

90 “Chiasmus (from the Greek letter Chi: X), or chiastic structuring is a literary device often used by Old Testament and New Testament writers. They use it to build up to their main point and then back off from it in the reverse order (so that the parts ‘cross over’ like the members of the letter Chi - X). A B C D The main point the writer is making D' lies at the center. C' B' A' A and A' may help to exegete each other, as may B and B', C and C'” (Chiastic Structuring).

“A chiasm (also called a chiasmus) is a literary device in which a sequence of ideas is presented and then repeated in reverse order. The result is a “mirror” effect as the ideas are “reflected” back in a passage. Each idea is connected to its “reflection” by a repeated word, often in a related form. The term chiasm comes from the Greek letter chi, which looks like our letter X. Chiastic pattern is also called “ring structure. The structure of a chiasm is usually expressed through a series of letters, each letter representing a new idea. For example, the structure ABBA refers to two ideas (A and B) repeated in reverse order (B and A). Often, a chiasm includes another idea in the middle of the repetition: ABXBA. In this structure, the two ideas (A and B) are repeated in reverse order, but a third idea is inserted before the repetition (X). By virtue of its position, the insertion is emphasized” (What is a chiasm…) 91 Perry Hall preaches for the Winston Salem church of Christ in Winston Salem, North Carolina (http://www.wschurch.com/). Perry developed this chiasm of Romans in the course of teaching the book. According to Hall it is not yet completely finished, and welcomes any feedback concerning any improvements. I am including it by permission because it encourages one to consider the interrelationship of thought in the book of Romans. 74

3. “Your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world” (1:8) 4. “I serve [latreuō (3000)] in my spirit” (1:9) 5. “Gospel of His Son” (1:9) 6. Witness [martus (3144)] (1:9) 7. “God is witness of how unceasingly I make mention of you” (1:9-10)

C – Prayers from Paul (1:9b-10) 1. Prayers [proseuchē (4335)] (1:10) 2. “Will [thelē ma (2307)] of God” (1:10) 3. Come [erchomai (2064)] (1:10)

D – Longs to See (1:11-15) 1. Long [epipotheō (1971)] (1:11) 2. Spiritual [pneumatikos (4152)] (1:11) 3. Established [stē rizō (4741)] (1:11) 4. May be encouraged together [sumparakaleō (4837)] with you (1:12) 5. Come [erchomai (2064)] (1:13) 6. Prevented [kō luō (2967)] from coming (1:13) 7. Might obtain fruit [karpos (2590)] among you (1:13) 8. Might obtain fruit among you (1:13) 9. Under obligation [opheiletē s (3781)] to Gentiles (1:14) 10. I am eager to come to Rome to preach (1:15) 11. I am eager to come to Rome to preach (1:15) 12. Rome, Greeks, Barbarians (1:14-15)

E – Preach the Gospel (1:16-17) 1. I am not ashamed (1:16) 2. Gospel of salvation to Jew first, then Greek (1:16) 3. Gospel power [dunamis (1411)] of God (1:16) 4. Gospel (good news) (1:16) - euaggelion (2098) – relation to aggelos (32) 5. Gospel (1:16) 6. Righteousness of God (1:17) 7. From faith to faith (1:17) 8. Quote – Righteous live by faith (1:17)

F – Sins of Gentiles and Jews (1:18-2:1-24) 1. Gentiles suppress the truth [alē theia (225)] (1:18,25; 2:8) 2. Futile (1:21) – “empty” (Thayer) 3. Gentiles did not honor (lit., glorify) [doxazō (1392)] God (1:21) 4. Did not give thanks (1:21) 5. Filled [plē roō (4137)] with unrighteousness, etc. (1:29) 6. Judgment of God (2:2,3,5) 7. Peace - [eirē nē (1515)] (2-10) 8. Tri-blessings from God in judgment - Glory, honor, peace (2:10) 9. Jew, Greek, no partiality (2:10-11) 10. God will judge through Jesus (2:16)

75

11. Quote - For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you (2:24)

G – Basis of God Accepting Us (2:25-29)

H – Law of God Given to Jews for Belief (3:1-8) 1. Scriptures demonstrate faithfulness of God (3:3) 2. Some did not believe scriptures (3:3) 3. [prographō (4270) – “written in earlier times” (NASB)]

I – God’s Dealings with Jews and Gentiles by Faith (3:9-26) 1. Question - Are we better than they? (3:9) 2. Quote – mouth full of cursing and bitterness (3:14) 3. Body parts used for sin – throat, tongues, lips, mouth, feet, eyes (3:13-18) 4. All the world may become accountable to God (3:19) 5. Apart from the Law God demonstrates Righteousness (3:21) 6. God passed over (3:25) 7. No Distinction (3:22) 8. Righteousness of God (vv.21,22,25,26) 9. Christ’s Death (3:24-25) 10. God justifies those who have faith in Christ (3:26)

J – Faith Establishes Law (3:27-31) 1. God’s relationship to Jews and Gentiles (3:29-30) 2. Faith does not nullify law (3:31)

K – God Justifies by Faith Not Works (4:1-5:21) 1. Abraham/David – works [ergon (2041)] (4:2,6 ) 2. Righteousness credited [logizomai (3049)] by faith not works from God (4:3,4,5,6,8,9,10,1122,23,24) as favor [charis (5485)] (4:4) 3. Due [opheilē ma (3783)] (4:4) 4. Justifies [dikaioō (1344)] the ungodly (4:5) 5. Lawless deeds are forgiven (4:7) 6. The Law brings wrath [orge (3709)] (4:15) 7. Christ died for ungodly, not righteous and good [agathos (18)] (5:6-7) 8. Saved from God’s wrath [orge (3709)] by Christ’s blood (5:9) 9. Death comes to all who sin (5:12) 10. Reign of death, life, sin, grace (5:14,17,21) 11. Judgment [krima (2917)] through Adam’s transgression (5:16)

L – Live Righteously (6:1-23) 1. Continue in sin? No (6:1-2) 2. Die to sin (6:2,10,11)

76

3. Grace [charis (5485)] (6:1,14,15) 4. Live [zaō (2198)] (6:2,10,11,13) 5. Newness [kainotē s (2538) – from kainos (2537)] (6:4) 6. Body [sō ma (4983)] (6:6,12) 7. Present [paristē mi/paristanō (3936)] body/self (6:13,16,19)

M – Israel’s Relationship to the Law (7:1-6) 1. You were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ (7:4) 2. Serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (7:6)

N – Law of Sin and Death (7:7-23) 1. What shall we say then? (7:7) 2. Law [nomos (3551) (7:7,8,9,12,14,16,21,22,23) 3. Sin [hamartia (266)] (7:7,8,9,11,13,14,17,20,23) 4. Alive [zaō (2198)] (7:9) 5. Life [zō ē (2222)] (7:10) 6. Death [thanatos (2288)] (7:10,13,24) 7. Sold into bondage [pipraskō /praō (4097)] (7:14) 8. Sold into bondage [pipraskō /praō (4097)] (7:14) 9. Flesh [sarx (4561)] (7:18,25) 10. Flesh [sarx (4561)] (7:18,25)

O – Set Free: No Condemnation in Christ (7:24-8:1) – Why? Because of the Righteousness of God - Theme of Romans (Romans 1:16-17)

N’ – Law of the Spirit of Life (8:2-39) 1. What shall we say to these things? (8:31) 2. Law [nomos (3551) (8:2,3,4,7) 3. Sin [hamartia (266)] (8:2,3,10) 4. Live, living [zaō (2198)] (8:12-13) 5. Life; alive [zō ē (2222)] (8:2,6,10, 38) 6. Death [thanatos (2288)] (8:2,6,38) 7. Slavery [douleia (1397)] (8:15,21) 8. Set Free [eleutheroō (1659)]; Freedom [eleutheria (1657)] (8:21) 9. Flesh [sarx (4561)] (8:3,4,5,6,7,8,9,12,12) 10. Spirit [pneuma (4151)] (8:4,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,15,16, 23,26,27)

M’ – God’s Relationship to Israel (9-11) 1. Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believes (10:4)

77

2. Pursue Righteousness which is by faith and not by law (9:30- 32)

L’ – Live Sacrificially (12:1-21) 1. Do not be conformed to world (12:2) 2. Prove will of God (12:2) 3. Grace [charis (5485)] (12:3,6) 4. Living [zaō (2198)] (12:1) 5. Renewing [anakainō sis (342) – from kainos (2537)] (12:2) 6. Body [sō ma (4983)] (12:1,4,5) 7. Present [paristē mi/paristanō (3936)] body

K’ – Government Justifies by Works (13:1-7) 1. Citizens – works [ergon (2041)] (13:3) 2. People render [apodidō mi (591)] and pay [teleō (5055)] what is owed [opheilē (3782)] to authorities 3. Due [opheilē (3782)] (13:7) 4. Opposition will receive condemnation [krima (2917)] (13:2) 5. Lawless deeds are punished (13:4) 6. Need to be in subjection because of wrath [orge (3709)] (13:5) 7. Good behavior [agathos (18)] brings life (13:3) 8. Minister of God who brings wrath [orge (3709)] (13:4) 9. Death (sword) comes to disobedient (13:4) 10. Subjection to Governing authorities (13:1) 11. Condemnation [krima (2917)] through resisting authority (13:2)

J’ – Love Fulfills Law (13:8-14) 1. Christian’s relationship to neighbors (13:8-10) 2. Faith fulfills law (13:8)

I’ – Our Dealing with One Another – Jews and Gentiles – By Faith (14:1-23) 1. Question - Who are you to judge? (14:4) 2. Quote – Every tongue shall give praise (14:11) 3. Body parts used for salvation – knee, tongue (14:11) 4. Christ is Lord both of the dead and living (14:9) 5. Apart from the Law (days, meats) is Kingdom Righteousness (14:17) 6. Do not pass judgment (14:1) 7. All stand before the Judgment Seat of God (14:10) 8. Righteousness of the kingdom (14:17) 9. Christ’s Death (14:15) 10. God accepts those who serve Christ (14:18)

H’ – Law of God Given to All for Instruction (15:1-6) 1. Scriptures give perseverance and encouragement (15:4-5) 2. Scriptures to give hope (15:4)

78

3. [logion (3051) – “oracles” (NASB)]

G’ – Basis of Us Accepting Others (15:5-7)

F’ – Salvation of Jews and Gentiles (15:8-13) 1. Jesus servant on behalf of the truth [alē theia (225)] (15:8) 2. Fill (15:19); abound (15:19) 3. Gentiles to glorify [doxazō (1392)] God (15:9) 4. Give praise (15:9,11) 5. God fill [plē roō (4137)] with joy, etc. (15:13) 6. Mercy of God (2:9) 7. Peace - [eirē nē (1515)] (15:13) 8. Tri-blessings from God in life - Hope, joy, peace (15:13) 9. Quote – Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people (15:10) 10. Quote – Root of Jesse to rule (15:12) 11. Quote - Therefore I will give praise to You among the Gentiles and I will sing Your name (15:9)

E’ – Preach the Gospel (15:14-21) 1. I have found reason for boasting (15:17) 2. Gospel of Christ preached from Jerusalem to Illyricum (15:19) 3. Power [dunamis (1411)]of signs and wonder, in the power [dunamis (1411)] of the Spirit (15:19) 4. No News (15:21) - anaggellō (312) – related to aggelos (32) (15:21) 5. Gospel (15:16,19,20) 6. Sanctified by the Holy Spirit (15:16) 7. You are full of goodness (15:14) 8. Quote – Shall see; shall understand (15:21)

D’ – Longs to See (15:22-29) 1. Longing [epipothia (1974)] (15:23) 2. Spiritual [pneumatikos (4152)] (1527) 3. Seal [sphragizō (4972)] (1528) 4. Enjoyed [empiplē mi (1705)] your company for a while (15:24) 5. Come [erchomai (2064)] (15:22,23,29) 6. Hindered [egkoptō (1465)] from coming (15:22) 7. This fruit [karpos (2590)] of theirs (15:28) 8. Be helped by you (15:24) 9. Gentiles indebted [opheiletē s (3781)] to Jews (15:27) 10. I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints (15:25) 11. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ (15:29) 12. Rome, Macedonia, Achaia, Spain, Jerusalem (15:24-26,28)

C’ – Prayers for Paul (15:30-33) 1. Prayers [proseuchē (4335)] (15:30)

79

2. “Will [thelē ma (2307)] of God” (15:32) 3. Come [erchomai (2064)] (15:32)

B’ – Personal Greetings (16:1-24) 1. Paul thanks [eucharisteō (2168)] Prisca and Aquila (16:4) 2. Christ Jesus (16:3) 3. “The report of your obedience had reached all” (16:19) 4. “Such men are slaves [douleuō (1398)] of their own appetites (16:17-18) 5. “Teaching which you have learned” (16:17) 6. “Keep eye on” [skopeō (4648)] (16:17) or “deceptive” (16:18) 7. Paul makes mention of more people (26) in this section than in any other letter.

A’ - Summary (16:25-27) 1. “My gospel” (16:26) 2. Jesus Christ (16:25,27) 3. Gospel [euaggelion (2098)] 4. Revelation (16:25); Manifested (16:26) 5. Prophets [prophē tikos (4397)] 6. By the Scriptures [graphē (1124)] of the (16:25-26) 7. Preaching of Jesus Christ (16:25) 8. Nations (16:26) 9. Obedience [hupakoē (5218)] of faith [pistis (4102)] (16:26) 10. To the only wise God (16:27)

Appendix 7

A Chronology of New Testament History

Roman Emperors Governors of Judea Augustus 27 BC-14 AD Pontius Pilate 26-36 AD Tiberius 14-37 AD King Agrippa I 41-44 AD Caligula 37-41 AD Felix 52-60 AD Claudius 41-54 AD Festus 60-62 AD Nero 54-68 AD Vespasian 68-79 AD Titus 79-81 AD Domitian 81-96 AD Nerva 96-98 AD Trajan 98-117 AD

New Testament Chronology 4 BC - Jesus born, Herod the Great dies 30 AD - Jesus killed, buried, arose, ascended to heaven, and church begins on Pentecost 34 AD - Conversion of Saul of Tarsus

80

37 AD – Saul’s escape from Aretas, king of Damascus, goes to Jerusalem, then to Tarsus 40-42 AD - Saul brought to Damascus to Antioch; conversion of Cornelius prior to this (37-39 AD) 44 AD - Saul and Barnabas bring contribution to Judea; apostle James killed; Peter imprisoned 44 AD - Death of Herod Agrippa I 45-48 AD - First Missionary Journey 49-50 AD - Jerusalem Conference 51-53 AD - Second Missionary Journey 53-58 AD - Third Missionary Journey 58 AD – Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem; appears before Felix 58-60 AD - In prison two years at Caesarea 60 AD - Paul appears before Festus and King Agrippa II 60-61 AD - Voyage to Rome 61-63 AD - Two years in Roman imprisonment; end of book of Acts 64 AD - Burning of Rome 64-67 AD - Further travels by Paul 67-68 AD – Paul’s second Roman imprisonment 68 AD - Death of Paul 68-70 AD - Jewish Revolt 70 AD - Destruction of Jerusalem

New Testament Books 1 Thessalonians (52 AD) Luke-Acts (62-63 AD) Jude (65-80 AD) 2 Thessalonians (53 AD) Ephesians, Philippians, John (60-80 AD) Galatians (56 AD) Colossians, Philemon (61-63 AD) 1 John, 2 John, 1 Corinthians (57 AD) James (60-62 AD) 3 John (90-94 AD) 2 Corinthians (57 AD) Hebrews (64-68 AD) Revelation (96-97 AD) Romans (58 AD) 1 Peter, 2 Peter (64-67 AD) Mark (57-65 AD) Titus, 1 Timothy (64-65 AD) Matthew (62-68 AD) 2 Timothy (66 AD)

81

Galatians

By John Humphries

We believe that determining the motivation for Paul to write the Book of Galatians must take into consideration the Jewish opposition to the gospel of Christ. This opposition is seen all through the Book of Acts and is a continuation of the conflict that began with Jesus and the Jewish leadership as recorded in the gospel accounts (Matt. 12:14).92 In this series of studies we are confining our perspective to the New Testament historical timeframe. It is true that Jewish rebellion against God persisted long before the New Testament era and manifested itself early on at the beginning of God’s dealing with Israel as a covenant people as they “turned aside quickly out of the way” that God commanded them (Exod. 32:7-8). But, as we have indicated, we are confining our perspective to the time of the apostles as they went from place to place preaching the gospel. They met with serious and, at times, even deadly opposition. The Jewish leadership threatened and beat the apostles in their efforts to stop the spread of the gospel (Acts 4 & 5). The Jews soon murdered Stephen because he sharply rebuked their obstinate unbelief and opposition to God, their prophets, and the gospel (Acts 7:59). A young Jewish Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus opposed Christ as the Messiah and was making havoc of the church in Jerusalem as well as in other places (Acts 8 & 9). The apostle James, to the delight of the unbelieving Jews, was executed with a sword (Acts 12). Please note that we are not attempting to give a complete summary of the record, but only a sampling of the Jewish attitude and hostility towards the gospel of Christ. The gospel was certainly a stumbling block to the Jews because of the notion of their Messiah being crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). Jewish expectation was that a heroic Messiah would burst forth upon the scene and lead Israel to a great liberating victory over their Gentile enemies (John 6:15; Acts 1:6). But instead of conquering the Gentiles, Christ, through the gospel, was inviting the uncircumcised Gentiles to come to God without having to submit to the demands of the Law of Moses (Acts 15). It therefore became an additional stumbling block to the Jews that uncircumcised Gentiles could be on equal terms with them before God without obeying the Law of Moses (cf. Eph. 3:6; Matt. 20:12). A crucified Messiah and uncircumcised Gentiles were just too much for most of the Jews to tolerate. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that the Jews were under the Law of Moses for over 1500 years. It was difficult for them to accept the teaching that God was going to “take away the first that He may establish the second” (Heb. 10:9). After all, the Law of Moses was a God-ordained covenant and God explicitly warned again and again that man was not to tamper with any of the teachings of His Law (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7;

92 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version. 82

Prov. 30:5-6). Following his conversion (Acts 9), Saul (who is also called Paul, Acts 13:9) began his gospel efforts. Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5), preached the gospel to many uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 13:46) and led them to God apart from submission to the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-5). This infuriated the Jews to no small degree and their opposition to Paul was fierce, continuous, and with deadly intent (Acts 14:19; 23:12). Indeed, as one reads on through the Book of Acts, time and time again opposition to the gospel efforts of Paul by the Jews was recorded (13:42-45; 14:1-2, 19; 17:5, 13; 18:5-6; 19:9; 20:3 etc.). Paul summed up the Jewish problem in his letter to the church in Thessalonica: 14For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Jews, 15who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thess. 2:14-16).

The opposition to Paul, and the gospel of Christ that he proclaimed, was not confined to the unbelieving Jews, but also included influential Jews who became believers (cf. Acts 6:7; 21:20). Some of these misguided Jewish brethren wanted to compel Gentiles to live “as do the Jews” (Judaize, Gal. 2:14; cf. 6:12; Acts 15:1, 5). These were the troubling Judaizers (“false brethren” of 2 Cor. 11:26?) that plagued the churches of Galatia and viciously attacked the apostleship of Paul, attempting to discredit him in the eyes of the brethren. Note that “Judaizers” is derived from the Greek verb ioudaïzō (ἰουδαΐζω, Gal. 2:14) “to conform to ‘Jewish’ religious practices and manners” (Vine). Please note what Acts 15:1 states to be the issue in the light of the New Testament: “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, ‘unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” Please note the last phrase. They did not say, “You cannot be accepted socially or culturally into the Jewish community and therefore be considered justified.” No, indeed, the Judaizers (see v. 5) said that the Gentiles could not be saved (v. 1). This “saved” (Acts 15:1) means saved from sin and go to heaven after one dies. Not saved from social discrimination, etc., but saved from sin is the way the apostles and elders in the New Testament took it. This is clearly the obvious meaning of being saved in this context (cf. Acts 2:21, 40, 47; 4:12; 11:14; 15:1, 11; 16:30-31). This false doctrine of the Judaizers was a serious threat to the gospel of the grace of God. It went far beyond the mere idea of equalizing cultural and social distinctions between the Jews and Gentiles. The social and cultural equalization process, true enough, would be one of the benefits of being one in Christ (Eph. 2:11-22). But the main and vital issue in this confrontation with the Judaizers clearly pertained to the saving of the souls of the Gentiles. Therefore there were spiritual and eternal consequences wrapped up in this doctrinal deviation from the gospel of Christ.

83

These Judaizers were teaching “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6) that would completely destroy the entire scheme of redemption. This would be the consequence if the Law of Moses were still in force and not “nailed to the cross,” thus taken away (Col. 2:14; Heb. 10:9). To understand this challenge to the gospel of Christ, we need to review some pertinent Scriptures that we believe will shed helpful light on this issue. First of all, it must be remembered that under the Law of Moses, only members of the tribe of Levi could serve in the priesthood. (Heb. 7:11-14; Exod. 28:1; Num. 18:23; 2 Chron. 26:16-21). Since Christ/Messiah is of the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14), he could never serve as high priest as long as the Law of Moses was still binding upon the people (Heb. 8:1-4; cf. Num. 3:10; 2 Chron. 26:18). Furthermore (and this is extremely critical), if Christ is not able to act as our high priest (not offering his blood before God) we are all lost in sin and forever separated from God (Heb. 9:11-15; cf. Isa. 59:1-2). The entire scheme of redemption comes crashing down if Christ’s blood is not offered on our behalf.

Furthermore, Christ had to take away the first covenant (Law of Moses) before He could establish the second (i.e. the new covenant of Christ, Heb. 10:9-12). The Messiah/Christ was prophesied to be of a different priestly order and not of Levi (Ps. 110:4). And therefore the Law of Moses obviously had to be taken away before this could be accomplished (Heb. 7:12-13; 10:9). This removal of the Law of Moses thus prepares the way for Christ to enter into the presence of God and offer His Blood for our sins (Heb. 9:24; 10:12, 19). It is only upon the basis of Christ’s blood that the grace of God is given (Rom. 3:24-25).

Some of the Jews who believed (cf. Acts 6:7; 21:20) wanted to circumcise the Gentiles and place them under the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-5; cf. Gal. 2:1-5). As we have seen, this would in effect remove Christ as High Priest since he was of the tribe of Judah and not of the tribe of Levi. The Judaizers therefore undermine the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24, 32) by making the blood of Christ null and void (Gal. 1:6-9; 2:5, 21).

To return to the Law of Moses (and therefore leave Christ and His sacrificial blood) would be to fall from the grace of God (Gal. 5:1-4). If no blood of Christ can be offered, then there would be no grace of God. And if there is no grace of God, there is no salvation for anyone ever at any time in human history (Heb. 9:15; Rom. 3:23-26)!

Any attempted perspective (no matter how cerebral or erudite) that overlooks this basic teaching of the New Testament is fundamentally flawed and lacking in true Biblical perspective. We repeat for emphasis: To return to the Law of Moses would require that we leave Christ as our high priest. His blood, therefore, could not be offered unto God for our sins. Consequently, the entire scheme of redemption would collapse and each and every last one of us would be lost in our sins and separated from God eternally!

The purpose of the Law of Moses was to act as a tutor to bring us to Christ. The law made us aware of our sinfulness, thus defeating self-righteousness. This would in turn

84 lead us to Christ for salvation (Gal. 3:19-25; Rom. 7:7; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). To turn back to the Law of Moses would be to leave Christ as our High Priest. With Paul our sin sick soul would desperately cry out, “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death” (Rom. 7:24)? “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift” (2 Cor. 9:15)!

Without the blood of Christ the only way to avoid condemnation because of our sins would be for one to always obey God perfectly in every way. That is, never sin, never transgress, or never commit iniquity of any kind whatsoever (Gal. 3:12)! We would always do “good” at all times (James 4:17). This is perfectionism and legalism gone to seed and would result in total bondage for us all, for all of us sin (Rom. 3:23; John 8:34; Gal. 2:4; 4:9) . The Word of God solemnly warns us that it requires only one single sin to convict and condemn us as a sinner before God (Jas. 2:10). Thus we all desperately need the grace of God made available through the soul saving blood of Christ that he offers to God as our High Priest (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:14-16; 6:19-20; 9:11-14; 10:11-14).

Galatians, therefore, is a powerful defense of the truth, purity, and sufficiency of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 2:5). Paul opposes the Judaizers’ misuse of the Law of Moses (cf. 1Tim. 1:3-11) and their perversion of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:6-9).

Galatians would in fact warn us against any and all errors that would seek to distort in any way the truth of the gospel and the grace of God. For this study, we will divide the Book of Galatians into three sections consisting of two chapters for each section. In chapters 1-2 Paul defends his apostleship. In chapters 3-4 we will consider the doctrine of justification by faith apart from the Law of Moses, which Law was pointing us to Christ. Finally, in chapters 5-6 we will note various admonitions contrasting the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit, as well as Paul’s concluding appeal to the brethren to accept him as a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1 Greeting 1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me, The apostle Paul immediately begins the defense of his apostleship and the gospel that he proclaimed. The matter is most urgent and he gets to the point in the very first verse. He makes it clear that he did not receive his apostleship from any human agency. Neither a church nor even an apostle of Christ appointed Paul. He was called and appointed to the work directly by God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 9:15; 26:19; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2:7).

85

To the churches of Galatia: Paul had preached and taught the gospel in these areas on several occasions (Gal. 4:13; cf. Acts 14:6-7; 16:1, 4-5). It is suggested (mindful that there are pros and cons) that Paul wrote Galatians while in Corinth (Acts 20:2-3) during the winter of 57 AD. The Jews continue with their plotting against Paul at this time (Acts 20:3; cf. 18:6, 12). 3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Grace and peace are fully available to all who will accept Jesus as Lord. Through His death upon the cross, according to God’s own will (Acts 2:23), Jesus can deliver us from the guilt and punishment of the ungodly world of sinners. The gospel, apart from the Law of Moses, is sufficient to lead us on to heaven (Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 1:16-17; Col. 2:9- 10; Eph. 1:3). Only One Gospel 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. There is only one true God, one true Lord Jesus, one true Holy Spirit, and one true gospel that has been revealed by the inspired apostles and prophets of God (1 Cor. 8:5-6; 2 Cor. 11:4; Eph. 4:4-6). Paul repeats the warning to include both men and angels and therefore emphasizes the point that anyone who preaches something different from what the “holy apostles and prophets” proclaimed (Eph. 3:1-7) stands “accursed” before God (2 John 9- 11; cf. Rev. 22:18-19). This warning should be a wake-up call to the Galatian Christians and also to the Judaizers (mentioned above) that were troubling (Gal. 5:12) the churches. Indeed, all who would seek to honor and serve the Lord in teaching His word need to keep this passage in mind at all times (cf. James 3:1; 1 Pet. 4:11; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 2:15; 4:1-5; Matt. 12:37). Denominational authors and teachers, many of them being brilliant thinkers and also possessing great learning and scholarship, often influence and lead many astray who read their books or sit at their feet in pursuit of their degrees. A great intellect is truly a wonderful gift and great learning is also a wonderful accomplishment. Give to all of these theologians and authors their due honor and acclaim in this regard. These splendid gifts of intellect and great learning, properly exercised, are wonderful assets in the study and proclamation of the gospel. But it must be kept in mind that brilliance of mind and prestigious academic accomplishments (sad to say, Phil. 3:18) are often far afield when it comes to sound

86 exegesis of Scripture. The many denominational seminaries and secular universities have teachers and authors who excel in such attributes and achievements. Bookstores all across the land have their bookshelves loaded end to end with their writings. But remember that such authors are under the curse (anathema) of God when they pervert the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:9). We need to always remember this as we sit at their feet or read their writings. So listen or read with a great deal of care and discernment (Mark 4:24)! A Biblical example of this misuse of human intellect and great learning would be the Sanhedrin Council of the 1st Century Jews. When Christ was upon the earth the Sanhedrin Council constituted the greatest collection of human intellect and learning within the Jewish nation. They were recognized as the leading experts in the languages associated with the Old Testament Scriptures. They also had a first-hand knowledge of the Jewish traditions, thoughts, and customs of their day. If they were alive today, they surely would be recognized as important thinkers, authors, and teachers in the leading institutions of theological learning. Their books, should they write them, would be read and quoted by religious teachers of every persuasion all across the land. Without doubt they would have a great deal of influence in the religious world, and their various perceptions on the Bible (and the authors of the Books of the Bible such as the apostle Paul) would be considered very, very important in understanding the thinking of the Jews during the time of the New Testament. Without a doubt, many preachers would seek to sit at their feet to obtain their advanced degrees in Bible. Others would devour their books with fervor and embrace their “new” assessments of the doctrines of the Bible that, in turn, they would share with their particular brotherhood or fellowship. We simply must keep in mind that in spite of the great intellect and great learning in the Scriptures that some of these Jewish authors and the leading members of the Sanhedrin possessed (cf. Gamaliel, Acts 5:34), they did not understand the nature of the Messiah and His kingdom, or even how to become citizens in it (John 3:10; 6:15; 7:48; 8:45; Acts 3:17; 7:52; 13:27; 1 Cor. 2:6-8). Should this not also justify some caution as well regarding their views concerning faith, grace, mercy, and other weighty matters of the Law of God (cf. Matt. 23:23)? And (thinking of our day) if a scholarly teacher, preacher, professor, or author does not even understand the plan of salvation, the organization, worship, and work of the church of God, would not it be prudent to exercise caution regarding his or her views on faith, grace, works, justification, etc.? If one does not understand enough to become a member of the New Testament church, then his or her thinking just is not what it ought to be. If one appears to understand the truth of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 2:5), but rejects it or refuses to obey it for whatever reason, their thinking is contrary and off the tract. Such are “blind guides” and condemned by the Lord (Matt. 23:24). Impressive credentials must not cloud the issue or obscure the truth that anyone (no matter how scholarly or astute they may otherwise be) that muddles, obscures, perverts, violates, or deviates from the gospel of Christ in any way has the anathema of God upon them (Gal. 1:9).

87

Please understand that we are not suggesting that the reading of books written by denominational, Jewish, or various other authors is to be avoided or is wrong. We are not anti-uninspired literature! Furthermore, we are not anti-computer programs that feature literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of volumes of literature of all kinds at one’s fingertips. These books and programs can be very useful, helpful study tools. But tools can be misused; and that is the point that we are attempting to make just here. We must also state that neither are we anti-education concerning the obtaining of advanced degrees in the Bible. But we also understand that while it certainly is possible, it requires constantly keeping one’s focus crystal clear in order to avoid being overly influenced by the error that one is constantly exposed to in these institutions. “Don’t learn too much that isn’t so” is advice that should be taken seriously. One certainly is free to obtain all of the education that one can handle. The overwhelming majority of the books (or computer programs) in anyone’s library today probably are books and sets of books that are written by sectarians and others that are not members of the Lord’s church. These computer programs, books, and sets of books can be very useful tools that the teacher may use with great benefit in the study of God’s Word. But just as with many tools, they must be used with great care or terrible harm will follow. A preacher once lost part of two fingers when he became interested in woodworking. In his eagerness and zeal to get started he misused a band saw. He did not fully understand, or perhaps he momentarily forgot, the critical safety instructions, that he had hurriedly read, and consequently seriously injured his hand. Zealous preachers have studied under (or read after) and became overly impressed with the knowledge and brilliance of various sectarian teachers and authors (Col. 2:8). They got into a theological weed patch, spiritually harming themselves, and confusing those that listened to them, as they taught and wrote articles influenced by these erroneous, false teachings (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16; James 3:1; Matt. 15:14). Certainly there is the need for being alert and keeping abreast of what is going on in the world of religion and philosophy, etc. (Eph. 4:15-16). We are not anti-intellectual. As a matter of fact, it would appear that the apostle Paul was well read as we note his citations of pagan poets and prophets in his preaching and writing (Acts 17:28; Tit. 1:12). But we must not forget that only the Word of God is the infallible standard for all things spiritual. One may therefore read and quote from uninspired writings, but wisdom would dictate that we do so with great care. Alexander Pope wrote “An Essay on Criticism” in the early 18th Century: A little learning is a dangerous thing Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. Fired at first sight with what the muse imparts, In fearless youth we tempt the heights of arts While from the bounded level of our mind

88

Short views we take nor see the lengths behind But more advanced behold with strange surprise, New distant scenes of endless science rise! So we quote an uninspired author to help make a point. We think that such is proper and useful at times. But we must think things through carefully in the light of God’s Word. We also need to remember the inspired prayer of the Psalmist David. Lord, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty Neither do I concern myself With great matters, Nor with things too profound for me. (Ps. 131:1) Another consideration concerning this paragraph (vv. 6-9) is that Paul and Peter (and the rest of the inspired apostles and prophets) all preached the very same gospel concerning justification by God’s grace through faith made possible through the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19). Paul certainly isn’t saying that if Peter or any of the other apostles and prophets would happen to visit the Galatian churches, preaching the gospel, that they would be under the curse or anathema of God because they did not preach the “Pauline Christianity” of justification. No, a thousand times no! This would utterly be the wrong conclusion to draw from this warning passage (Gal. 1:6-9). To begin with, Paul did not preach his own ideas or his own brand of justification that he himself hammered out as a baptized Pharisee. One must never accept the false notion that Paul was some kind of a master, genius theologian that diligently thought through all of his early training as a Pharisee (that was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel) and therefore developed his very own system of Pauline Christianity (Acts 22:3; 2 Cor. 11:22; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5). Indeed, Paul preached the same thing that Peter and the other inspired men preached because he and they received it directly from the Lord (Gal. 1:12, 23). Paul argued over and over that he and the apostles of Christ, along with the other inspired individuals, had the very same perspective concerning justification (Eph. 2:14-16; 3:3-6; 4:4-6; cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-13). They all spoke the same thing, and there was no division among them. They were perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10; Gal. 2:6-9). In Acts 15, for example, we clearly see that Paul’s preaching concerning justification was sorely tested (vv. 1-5) This entire episode attested to the fact that Paul’s preaching on justification was the same as the apostle Peter’s preaching. Please note that Peter’s report (Acts 15:7-11) concerning his preaching of the gospel to Cornelius, who was an uncircumcised Gentile (Acts 11:2-3), is immediately followed by Paul and Barnabas giving their amen to Peter by citing their gospel work among the uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 15:12). Paul and Barnabas testified that the Holy Spirit also gave divine confirmation of their gospel preaching among the uncircumcised Gentiles with “miracles and wonders” being performed. Finally, James sums up the discussion by citing the

89

Scriptures (Amos 9:11-12) confirming that the gospel preaching among the uncircumcised Gentiles had the Lord’s approval (Acts 15:13-21). The inspired apostles and prophets were all on the same page and preached the same gospel of justification by faith and the grace of God grounded firmly upon the blood of Jesus Christ. Of course, the reason for Paul, Peter, and James to be teaching the same message of the gospel was that their preaching on justification by faith was the Holy Spirit’s revelation on justification that came from the Lord (John 16:12-15). The same Holy Spirit inspired all of the apostles of Christ (including Paul) and the prophets of the Lord (1 Cor. 12:4, 11, 28). Please understand that we are simply trying to raise a “caution flag” that we need to always keep in mind who it is that wrote what it is that we are reading (cf. 2 Tim. 3:14). The Scriptures must constantly be our guide and measure in everything that we hear, read, study, or teach. And, yes, we all really do need to be cautioned and reminded of this. Yea, though we may protest and insist that we know and fully understand this admonition to listen or read, with great caution and critical discernment, the writings, etc. of the world, we do need reminding now and again (cf. 2 Pet. 1:12-15; 1 Cor. 10:12; Acts 17:11; Heb. 5:14). This writer has “been young and now am old” (Ps. 37:25) and sees more and more each day, sadly, the need for this reminder. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. While Paul would yield on matters of custom, scruples, etc. that did not violate God’s will (1 Cor. 9:19-23), he would not compromise the truth in any way. He would not violate God’s word or alter any doctrine of Christ in order to please an unbelieving crowd. This is a much needed warning to all of us today in this age of compromise, the plea to water down the truth, don’t be judgmental, or don’t rock the boat type of thinking. Hugh Fulford said it well in one of his email notes.93 “Why do we think we have to listen to the world around us when it comes to what we believe, teach, and practice religiously? Why must we always be only a few steps behind the denominational world in our pursuit of the novel? The churches of Christ have a distinct message and we ought not to be ashamed of it! We have precisely what the world needs to hear—a message calling people back to God, back to Christ, back to the Bible, back to the church of the Bible, back to a life modeled after the life of Christ. Why should we not boldly lead in the way that is right instead of following in the way that is popular?”

Call to Apostleship

93 Fulford, Hugh. Hugh’s News & Views. [email protected] 90

11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul continues to emphasize that the gospel he preached was a “revelation of Jesus Christ” and not something that he learned from any man. What Paul preached (1 Thess. 2:13) and what Paul wrote to the churches (1 Cor. 14:37) was given to him from the Lord. Furthermore, Paul taught the same gospel to the people in every place that he visited. He did not have one gospel for the Jews and another gospel for the Gentiles (1 Cor. 4:17). 13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. Paul had a reputation as a persecutor of the church of Christ (Acts 9:13, 26; 22:4-5, 19- 20). He also had a most promising future as a zealous, young Pharisee (Phil. 3:1-6; Acts 22:3; 23:6; Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22). However, Paul was willing to give all of this up and turn to Christ. This not only was the sacrifice of a brilliant future in Judaism; but it was also a move that would place him in serious jeopardy with the Jewish leadership (1 Cor. 15:30; 2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 5:11; 6:17). Therefore this action on the part of Paul would indicate his sincerity and earnestness concerning the message that he is proclaiming. He was giving up everything that a young Jewish man would cherish in order to preach Christ and Him crucified. Furthermore, Paul was not “peddling the word of God” because he could not “make it” in Judaism (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17), but he was sincere and genuine in his preaching efforts. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Paul again points out that his calling to the apostleship was of God. Not only was his calling pleasing to God, but also that the Lord’s plan was for him to preach the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. When Paul was given this responsibility from the Lord, he did not need to immediately go to the apostles in Jerusalem (or to any other man) in order to learn the message that he was to proclaim. In fact, he began his preaching right away in the city of Damascus (Acts 9:20). Like the apostle Peter (Matt. 16:17) the apostle Paul did not need to receive his message from “flesh and blood” but rather he received divine revelation directly from heaven itself (Eph. 3:3). Neither Luke (Acts 9) nor Paul enlightens us with any details concerning the purpose of his trip to Arabia. Whether he went there to preach or to meditate (or both) the Bible does not reveal. The point that Paul is emphasizing is that he did not need to be taught by the

91 apostles in Jerusalem before he could proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ. Contacts at Jerusalem 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) After a considerable length of time, Paul did travel to Jerusalem and visited with the apostle Peter as well as with James, the Lord’s brother (Matt. 13:55). But this was not to learn the doctrine of Christ (vv. 11-12). Paul also knows and understands fully the seriousness of telling the truth and not lying to his brethren before God (Eph. 4:25; Matt. 12:36-37; Acts 5:4b). John warns us that all who are guilty of the sin of lying “shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). 21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God in me. Paul had to leave Jerusalem because of Jewish persecution and travel to Tarsus, the capitol of the Roman province of Cilicia (cf. Acts 9:29-30) where he evidently remained until Barnabas came for him and persuaded him to return with him to Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:25-26). Paul did not have the opportunity to be with the “churches in Judea” and become well known by face to them. But they certainly knew about Paul and would remember his work as a persecutor (cf. Acts 8:1-3; 9:1; 22:4-5, 19-20; 26:9-11; Phil. 3:6). Now they are hearing of his zealous and forceful (1 Cor. 15:10) preaching of the very same gospel that he once tried to eradicate from the earth. What Paul tried to destroy was the identical gospel that Peter, John, and others proclaimed all around Jerusalem and Judea. Paul preached the one message of salvation, which is the “one faith” that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Eph. 4:5; Jude 3). It is the authentic, true gospel that neither man nor angel can change without damnation (vv. 6-9). This means that if the gospel (that Paul preached to the Gentiles) is attacked by the Judaizers as being false, then the gospel that Peter and the other apostles preached is false also. Peter, John, and Paul are all preaching the very same faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:11)! This is a telling argument and completely exposes the sophistry and emptiness of the Judaizers’ malicious accusations against Paul and the gospel that he preached. 1. Is there a gospel for the Jews and another gospel for the Gentiles? Why or why not? 2. Was Paul dependent upon the apostles in Jerusalem for his message? Why or why not? 3. Considering Paul’s argument in verses 11-12, 15-17, that he did not depend upon any man for his teaching and preaching, does this suggest anything concerning modern day

92 preaching and teaching of the Word of God? 4. Was Paul a failure in Judaism and therefore turned to the gospel for fame and fortune? 5. What were people hearing that proved Paul was preaching what Peter preached?

Galatians 2

Defending the Gospel 1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. We have learned over the years that the chronology and dating of events in the New Testament (Old Testament as well) are not always easy to determine with certainty. The Holy Spirit often did not deem precise dates of events as essential for our edification. We suggest that Acts 9 and the conversion of Paul took place within the time frame of 34/35 AD. Three years later (Gal. 1:18) Paul went to see Peter in Jerusalem. Fourteen years after this visit (Gal. 2:1), in about 50 AD, the events of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 took place. But again, we realize that there are ongoing debates among Bible students concerning this suggested dating of these events. Frankly, however, we are persuaded that the exact dates of the events mentioned in Galatians one and two do not affect the truth being taught by the apostle! The point that Paul is making is that the other apostles of Christ (and other inspired men such as James, Gal. 1:19; 2:9; Acts 15:13-21) concurred with the teaching and actions of Paul in defending the sufficiency of the gospel of Christ to save the souls of the believing Gentiles. In other words, circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses were not to be bound on Gentiles (or Jews for that matter) in order for them to be children of God (Acts 15 and the Book of Galatians). Paul was divinely guided in his actions and “went up by revelation” to Jerusalem to make certain that there was no misunderstanding, or destructive conflict potentially, between him and the leaders of the church there. The same Holy Spirit guided the leaders in Jerusalem, as well as the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 12:4-6, 11). Therefore none of the apostles and elders (Acts 15:6) demanded the circumcision of Titus (who was Greek, i.e. a Gentile).

93

The Judaizers were demanding the circumcision of all Gentiles in order for them to be saved (Acts 15:1, 5). Paul was determined and resolute not to give in to the Judaizers (false brethren) and allow the circumcision of Titus or any of the other Gentiles in order for them to be acceptable to God. To yield to the Judaizers would pervert the truth and deny the sufficiency of the gospel of Christ and, in effect, bring all under the bondage of the Law of Moses (Gal. 5:3). We must not become confused over the matter of Timothy (whose father was a Greek) being circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). Paul did not circumcise Timothy in order to save him or bind the Law of Moses upon him (Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 5:3). If this were the case, then truly Paul would have been just as inconsistent and hypocritical as the apostle Peter on one occasion (Gal. 2:11-14). Timothy’s circumcision was a matter of honoring Jewish culture and customs. It had nothing to do with his salvation. It was not to place him under obligation to keep the Law of Moses (1 Cor. 7:17-20; 9:19-23). Paul simply did not want to take the uncircumcised Timothy (whose mother was Jewish, Acts 16:1) in among the Jews, as he knew that this would complicate and undermine his effort to preach the gospel to them. These “secretly brought in” Judaizing brethren were counterfeits as far as Paul was concerned. These were “ravenous, savage wolves” in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29) that would not “spare the flock” of God but would bring them under the bondage of the Law of Moses thus taking away the liberty that the Christian has in Christ Jesus (John 8:31-32, 36; Gal. 4:9; 5:1). Paul would not yield to this false doctrine that perverted the gospel of the grace of God. 6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. We do not believe that Paul is trying to be disrespectable to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Rather he is defending his teaching as a fully inspired (and fully equipped to teach the whole counsel of God) apostle of Christ (cf. Acts 20:20, 27; 1 Cor. 15:10-11; 2 Cor. 11:5-6). Paul understood that if he were to be discredited as an apostle of Christ, then the truth that he taught could also be brought into serious question and rejected. Therefore in defending himself, he was defending the gospel that he taught (cf. 2 Cor. 12:11-12). Paul did not preach Paul; he preached Christ (2 Cor. 4:5; 1 Cor. 1:13). Furthermore, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem did not receive any revelation from the Lord that was not also given by the Holy Spirit to the apostle Paul. God did not favor the apostles and elders in Jerusalem above Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 11:5). 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me

94 and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem realized that Paul had the gospel of Christ committed to him by the Lord just as the Lord had commissioned Peter with the same gospel. They were preaching the same faith -- the same gospel (Gal. 1:23). The only difference was that Peter mainly preached to the Jews and Paul, for the most part, preached to the Gentiles. The Lord was working effectively and equally through both apostles. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem realized this and gave their approval to Barnabas and Paul for them to continue their gospel work “among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12). Peter, James, and the brethren would continue their gospel efforts among the Jews (cf. James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1). 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. The only request that the apostles and elders from Jerusalem made was for Paul and Barnabas to remember the needy. Paul was not only eager to do this, but had already engaged in the work of benevolence to the needy saints (Acts 11:27-30). This remembrance of the poor was something that Paul continued to do when the need arose (1 Cor. 16:1-4). No Return to the Law 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. The apostle Peter gave in to his fear of being criticized by the brethren from Jerusalem. He had been eating and associating with the Gentiles. But when these Jewish Christians arrived, he withdrew from the Gentiles and acted as though the scruples of the Law still stood as a barrier between the Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles. Peter had felt the sting of criticism before when he had gone to the household of Cornelius and associated with them (Acts 11:1-3). Peter seems to have been an impetuous sort of person who sometimes spoke or acted very hastily and later would realize that he had not properly thought it through (Matt. 14:28-31; 16:22-23; 17: Mark 9:5-6; 14:29-31; John 18:10-11; Luke 22:54-62). His foolish impetuous conduct was not only wrong, but it also influenced others to follow his sinful and dangerous example. He was playing the hypocrite in this action, as he certainly knew better (cf. Acts 10:15, 28; 11:1-4, 17-18; 15:7-11). But unchecked fear will cause one to do foolish things and go against their convictions. Peter’s hypocritical actions would play right into the Judaizers’ doctrine that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved and enjoy the full fellowship of the Jewish believers. Something had to be done publicly to correct this incident as it

95 distorted the truth of the gospel (cf. 1 Tim. 5:20). 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Paul rose to the occasion and met the issue head on by rebuking Peter over his hypocritical action. This rebuke of Peter by Paul not only was a defense of the truth of the gospel (that Jew and Gentile were on an equal spiritual footing before God), but it further indicated that Paul did not receive his apostleship from anyone in Jerusalem. Paul was an independent and fully inspired apostle of Christ (Gal. 1:1). Paul reminded Peter of what Peter himself had already learned from the Lord (Acts 10:28; 15:7-11). Peter would realize that Paul was right and that he had (through fear of those of the circumcision) acted the hypocrite and separated himself from the uncircumcised Gentile Christians. To the apostle Peter’s credit he did not appear to harbor resentment against Paul over this public censure, as he later acknowledged Paul as a “beloved brother” and an inspired man who also wrote inspired Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:15-16). This incident (and Peter’s apparent acceptance of the rebuke) calls to mind a pertinent passage in Proverbs: 7 He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, and he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. 8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. 9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. (Prov. 9:7-9)

Contrast the attitudes of individuals in these passages (Matt. 13:53-58; John 9:34; Acts 7:54) with those in these passages (Acts 2:37, 41; 8:30-31; 18:24-26). Where do you and I stand?

Paul reminds Peter that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation and that no one (Jew or Gentile) had to obey the Law of Moses in order to be justified before God. Perhaps Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, could have had this “reminder” by Paul in mind when he wrote (2 Peter 1:12-15) concerning the need for brethren to be continually reminded of what they had already been taught and knew.

17 ”But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

To seek justification in Christ requires that one must first realize he is a sinner and therefore needs justification through the blood of Christ (Mark 2:17; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:9). If one does not realize the guilt of sin in his life, they are not going to understand the need for the gospel of Christ. To preach the gospel of Christ thus involves preaching the

96 sinfulness of us all. For example, only when one realizes that he is sick will he realize the need for the physician. Only when one realizes that he is lost in sin will he realize the need for the Savior Jesus Christ.

It is, therefore, a dishonest twisting of this truth to call Jesus a “minister of sin”! Neither the teaching of Christ nor that of Paul made man a sinner. Man’s very own sins are what made him a sinner (Rom. 3:23). Jesus died to provide forgiveness from sin (John 1:29). Paul preached the gospel in order to deliver men from their sins (1 Cor. 15:1-2). The gospel that Paul preached was fully sufficient to lead both Jew and Gentile to God apart from the Law of Moses.

18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Paul maintains that to return to the Law of Moses is to leave Christ (our High Priest) and the saving grace of God (Gal. 5:4). For anyone to build again the “middle wall” of the Law of Moses (that requires that the High Priest be of the tribe of Levi) is to transgress the will of God and therefore become a transgressor (Eph. 2:14-16).

19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

“By the Law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). Paul learned from the Law of Moses that he fell short of God’s glory and was a sinner. He found forgiveness and life in Christ (Rom. 7: 24-25; Acts 22:16). The old man of sin and worldly living must die or be put to death through repentance, and the new spiritually minded man must live for the Lord (Col. 3:1-11; Rom. 6:1-14; cf. John 5:24-26; 10:10; 11:25-26).

20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

With Paul the “old man” has been put to death (crucified) and the “new man” now lives by faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God who loved and died for him (Col. 3:1-11). The passage in Colossians makes a contrast between the “old man” with his ways of the world and the “new man” in Christ who seeks to serve and please God.

To allow Christ to be our daily guide and motivation in all that is done is to allow Christ to live in us. This requires a life of faith in Christ, keeping our eyes upon the Lord and not being distracted by the things of the world (Heb. 2:9; 12:1-3). The love that Christ has and His great sacrifice for our sins should encourage us to live for Him every day of our lives.

21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

Paul argues that if one could find redemption and forgiveness of sins through the Law of Moses then there would have been no need for Christ to have come and died upon the

97 cross. The truth is, however, that the Law of Moses looked to the coming of Jesus to fulfill all things that were written in the “Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” concerning the Messiah (Luke 24:44). The Old Testament has to have the New Testament fulfillment in order to make any sense whatsoever. To stop short with only the Law of Moses is to completely destroy the entire scheme of redemption. The message of redemption is totally incomplete without the coming of Christ.

The Old Testament is not intended to be simply a study of the origin and history of the Jews along with their dealings and interactions with some of the nations of the world. Instead, the big picture is that God knew from the beginning that mankind (whom God created for His glory, Rom. 11:36; Eph. 1:14) was going to fail (sin) and live in rebellion against Him (Rom. 3:23). God, foreseeing this, intended all along to provide a way (in His own good time (Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4) for dealing with the sin problem (Matt. 25:34; Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; Rev. 13:8).

These passages (referenced above) clearly indicate that the coming of Christ, therefore, was not an afterthought on the part of God but was carefully planned by the Lord. The Jewish nation was to play a major part in the sacrificial coming of Jesus Christ into the world (Rom. 9:4-5; John 4:22). Through this “seed” of Abraham (Gen. 12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18) all nationalities would be blessed in the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 3:25-26). From this “seed” of Abraham comes the special “Seed” whom Paul claims is Christ, the Son of God (Gal. 3:16). Before the coming of Christ into the world, God gave to Israel the Law of Moses to function as a “tutor” until Jesus came (Gal.3:24-25).

Those that would be among the number of the redeemed, however, would constitute only a small remnant of all the multitudes of the earth (Matt. 7:13-14; 20:16; Luke 13:23-24). Only a remnant among the Jews will accept Christ as Savior and Lord (Rom. 11:5) and only a remnant among the Gentiles will be saved (Joel 2:32; Rom. 10:12-13; Acts 2:21, 39; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Rom. 15:7-13).

It must be noted that the removal of the Law of Moses does not mean that God changed His mind or made a mistake in giving the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was perfect for what God wanted to accomplish with it (cf. Ps. 19:7-11; Rom. 3:20; 7:7, 12, 14, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8). The Law of Moses made man conscious of his sins and also acted as a restraint for sin (Ps. 119:11, 59, 101, 176).

Any imperfections or faults in the scheme of things are not the fault of the Law of Moses, but are the result of mankind’s sinfulness (Eccl. 7:29). The Hebrew writer states, “Because finding fault with them,” i.e. Israel, God promises a “new covenant” (Heb. 8:8).

In the gospel that Paul preached “the righteousness of God” is revealed in its fullness and completeness, and this righteousness is made available to mankind without (and apart from) the Law of Moses (Rom. 1:16-17; Phil. 3:9; Col. 1:19; 2:9-10).

1. Why did Paul refuse to circumcise Titus, but did circumcise Timothy?

98

2. What was the apostles’ and Jerusalem elders’ reaction to Paul’s preaching?

3. When Paul rebuked Peter, what did this indicate about Paul?

4. God gave the Law of Moses to Israel, so why did Jesus still have to die?

Galatians 3

Justification by Faith 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Paul indicates his incredulity that these Judaizers could so completely mislead the Galatian brethren concerning the truth of the gospel of Christ. Paul had already indicated his amazement (1:6) at their gullibility in so quickly turning to another gospel. Paul had preached Christ among them and the preaching was very clear and understandable. When Christ shed His blood for the forgiveness of sin, there was no need for any other sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:11-14). When Jesus died on the cross the plan of God was completed (John 19:30). The “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) provided full and complete atonement. Jesus lifted up upon the cross portrays the complete picture of God’s scheme of redemption for all man both Jew and Gentile (John 12:32-33). The prophets of God foretold the coming of the Holy Spirit in a special way upon all mankind (Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Ezek. 36:27; 39:29; Joel 2:28). In other words, the Spirit would be poured out upon the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Peter quotes the Joel passage and makes the application to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles initially (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4, 16, 33, 38; 10:47; 11:15-18). The Holy Spirit was to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:12-13). The Spirit was also, through miracles, signs, and wonders, to confirm the divine origin of the truth that the apostles preached (Mark 16:19-20; Heb. 2:3-4; cf. 2 Cor. 12:12). Various gifts of the Spirit were given through the laying on of apostolic hands (Acts 8:14-17; 19:5-6; Rom. 1:11; 1 Cor. 12:4-11). These gifts of the Holy Spirit were to establish (cf. Rom. 1:11; 1 Cor. 14:12, 26) or strengthen the brethren. Paul challenges the brethren to remember how the Holy Spirit came among them and blessed them. Was the Holy Spirit working through the Judaizers and their misuse of the Law of Moses? Was it not through the apostle Paul that they learned of the Holy Spirit and also experienced the blessings of the Spirit (cf. Acts 19:2)?

99

6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. Abraham lived hundreds of years before the Law of Moses was given (Gal. 3:17) and he was counted righteous before God. Upon what basis was Abraham justified and reckoned as righteous? It was upon the basis of his faith (Gen. 15:6) and clearly was not dependent upon keeping the Law of Moses. The Jews continually made the boast that they “are Abraham’s descendants” (John 8:33, 39; Matt. 3:9) and therefore the Gentiles must give them credibility and submit to their teaching concerning the Law of Moses (Rom. 2:17- 20; Acts 15:1, 5). But their argument is fundamentally flawed because Abraham never was under the Law of Moses! In the Scriptures (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18) God promises Abraham that in his seed all the nations (Gentiles as well as Jews) would be blessed. Furthermore, Abraham pleased God through his faith (cf. Heb. 11:6, 8) and therefore the Gentiles can be blessed along with Abraham upon the same condition of faith, apart from the Law of Moses. The Law Brings a Curse 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” We have studied various passages in the introduction that taught that without the blood of Christ being presented by Christ, acting as High Priest, there would be no remission of our sins (Heb. 9:11-15). Therefore, there would be no salvation for anyone -- past, present, or future. To go back to the Law of Moses removes Christ as High Priest (Heb. 7:12-14). This means that the only basis of being accepted by God is to live a perfect, sinless life -- never needing the blood of Christ and God’s forgiveness by grace through faith (Rom. 4:2, 4; Eph. 2:8-9). To sin would place us under the curse of separation from God, as there can be no grace given and no forgiveness granted apart from the blood of Christ (Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:22- 23). As Paul states: “Cursed is everyone” who does not continue in all of the law and keep it perfectly (cf. Rom. 3:23; 5:12). On the other hand, if one does all things in the law perfectly, he has earned life. But Christ is the only one who has ever walked upon the earth and lived among men without sinning (Heb. 4:15; 7:26; John 8:46). Therefore God gives us life upon the basis of our faith -- and always has. Paul quotes an Old Testament prophet who lived under the Law of Moses (Habakkuk 2:4) to prove that this has always been the basis of man’s justification before God. We are, therefore, justified by faith and not upon the basis of perfect law keeping (Acts 15:7-11). The Hebrews author made the same point in Hebrews 11. Over and over the phrase “by

100 faith” is used to point out people who lived long before the Law of Moses was given. Even those listed who lived during the time of the Law of Moses were said to be pleasing to God because they believed the Lord obeying His voice by faith. 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Christ has freed us from the curse of sin and its consequences that occur when we transgress God’s law (Deut. 27:26). Jesus accomplished this redemption with His shameful death upon the cross. The law states that certain criminals were to be executed by hanging on a tree (Deut.21: 22). This form of execution of the guilty, condemned criminal publicly declares that he is under the curse of God (Deut. 21:23). Our Lord “endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. 12:2) that the Gentiles as well as the Jews might enjoy the blessing that God promised through Abraham. Because of Jesus giving Himself upon the cross, Gentiles through faith in God may enjoy the spiritual blessings provided through the work of the Holy Spirit (discussed above in verses 2, 5). The Changeless Promise 15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. Paul states that he is going to take an illustration from everyday life. When people make a covenant or will, no one has the legal right to change or add anything to it. Once it is ratified or confirmed it is to be enforced and its terms and conditions satisfied. So when the Almighty God makes a covenant or an agreement, it most certainly will be binding and cannot be changed in any way (cf. Heb. 6:13-20). 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. God made a promise or covenant with Abraham concerning the blessing of all nations through his “seed” and no one (not even Moses) has the right to add anything to it. The biblical text (OT and NT) uses a collective singular (“seed” or “offspring”) that could refer either to a single descendent (Gen. 21:13) or to multiple descendants (Gen. 12:7) depending upon the context. The “seed” could have reference to the descendants of Abraham (the Israelites) “from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came” (Rom. 9:4-5). However, Paul argues that the ultimate fulfillment of the blessing through the “seed” (offspring) of Abraham points to Christ who is the “Son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Moses received the Law from God some 430 years after the promise to Abraham. The Law of Moses cannot make the promise or covenant that God made with Abraham null or

101 void. Neither does the Law of Moses fulfill God’s promise to or covenant with Abraham. The promise or covenant that God made with Abraham involved only God, Abraham, and Christ as far as promise and fulfillment are concerned. The Law of Moses had no say in either the promise or the fulfillment of the promise in Christ. The Law of Moses was significant, however, and had a significant role in preparing the way for the coming of Christ. Paul will shortly deal with that issue. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. The “inheritance” or the right (title) to the Abrahamic promise was not a matter that involved the Law of Moses. God made a promise directly to Abraham and that promise looked to a special “seed” for its fulfillment and not to the Law of Moses.

Purpose of the Law 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Did God make a mistake in giving the Law of Moses? No, not at all! The Law of Moses pointed out sin and defeated self-righteousness. The Law of Moses enlightened believers to know (Psa. 19:11; 119:18, 104, 176) that all of us fall short of the glory of God and are guilty of sin (Rom. 3:9-23; 5:20; 7:7; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). This knowledge of our sinfulness and guilt before God should turn us to Christ (Rom. 7:24-25; Rom. 6:23). Moses acted as mediator in receiving the Law from God for the people (Exod. 20:18-21; Lev. 26:46; 27:34) and “received the law by the direction of angels” (Acts 7:53; Heb. 2:2). In contrast to this, God made the promise concerning the seed directly to Abraham, and there was no mediator between them as with the Law of Moses (Gen. 12:1-3; Acts 7:2-3; cf. Gen. 17:1, 22). 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. The Law of Moses does not annul the promise, add to the promise, or fight against the promise that God made to Abraham. The Law of Moses fulfilled its purpose in making man aware of his transgressions before God. If a man could have eternal life on the basis of perfect obedience to law, or without the blood of Christ when he did sin, then his perfect obedience to the Law of Moses could make him righteous before God. The Law of Moses was not some evil monster or divine miscalculation on the part of God. No, indeed, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Rom. 7:12, 14, 16). “But finding fault with them” (Heb. 8:8), i.e. the people (and not the Law of Moses), was where the problem of sin finds its basis. Righteousness could have come by the Law of Moses if the Israelites had not rebelled

102 against God and sinned. Sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15). If one does not transgress any law of God, then he is not guilty of sin and is therefore righteous before God. But no one (except Christ) has ever accomplished this (Rom. 3:10). 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Again Paul sums it up in Rom. 3:23. All have sinned is the verdict of violated law. And this verdict of guilt should cause us to turn to Jesus Christ, who through our faith will grant the promise of life for us—and for us to “have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. The law was a guard or restraint against sin to keep believers focused upon God as they continued to wait for the promised Savior, Jesus Christ (Acts 13:23). Just as a tutor or guardian would conduct children to the place of learning, so the Law of Moses revealed God’s will unto man and restrained sin as it guided the believers to the Messiah. “Christ is the end (the final issue or result) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). When Christ, who is the “author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2), came into the world, the Law of Moses had fulfilled its purpose (Matt. 5:17). Sons and Heirs 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. All of mankind (Jews and Gentiles alike) may become “sons of God” through Christ Jesus. All who are willing, by faith, to be baptized into Christ may be clothed with the garments of salvation (Isa. 61:10) provided by the Lord Himself. We are to be “conformed to the image of (God’s) Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11-13). We put on Christ to live for Him. Our thinking, our speaking, and our actions are to be patterned after the Lord when we put him on in baptism and receive His spiritual blessings. Jesus becomes the Lord of our lives. This blessed privilege is for all races, all genders, and all stations in life. When we put on Christ, we belong to Him and “walk in the steps” of faith after the example of Abraham’s faith (Rom. 4:12, 16). “If children, then heirs - heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” receiving the fulfillment of the promise that God made to Abraham to bless all through Christ (Rom. 8:17). 1. What was the Spirit’s role in the new covenant? Did the prophets foretell this? 2. If we are under the Law of Moses, and thus Christ (tribe of Judah) cannot qualify as

103

High Priest, what would be required for us to be accepted into heaven? 3. Explain the “seed” promise that God made to Abraham. (How does this relate to Israel and to Christ?) 4. Why did God give the Law of Moses to Israel? 5. What does Paul say to indicate the universal nature of the gospel, i.e. that the gospel is for all?

Galatians 4

1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. When the child comes of age, as specified by the head of the family, then they assume the role of master of the estate. Until that time, they have no more authority than the servants who serve the estate. The point is that to go back under the Law of Moses is to leave the priesthood and blood of Christ and place one under the bondage and servitude of sin, as no one can keep the Law of Moses without violation. The “elements of the world” refer to basic teachings and notions associated with the world and its outlook that fall far short of spiritual maturity and freedom in Christ (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 John 5:19). To leave Christ and live in these elements of the world is to return to bondage in sin and forfeiture of our spiritual inheritance in the Lord (John 8:34; Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19). To live under the influences and teachings of the pagan world or, from the perspective of the Jews, to return to the demands of the Law sets us apart from the blood of Christ and God’s grace. Not having access by faith to the blood of Christ and the grace of God, we have “no hope and (are) without God” dwelling “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Eph. 2:12; Phil. 2:15). The cry of Paul reflects this hopeless bondage to sin: “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death” (Rom. 7:24)? The answer is given: “I thank God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25)! 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. At just the right time (Eph. 1:10), God sent His Son to earth in order to set us free from sin. Jesus was born of a woman in fulfillment of God’s promise (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14). Christ set us free from sin so that we can be adopted into the family of God as His sons

104 and daughters (2 Cor. 6:17-18). 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. To be a child of God brings the full spiritual blessings of the Lord upon us. We have seen earlier (3:2-5) that the Holy Spirit would be actively involved in the giving of the new covenant of Christ. The Holy Spirit is referred to as “the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1), “the Spirit of life” (8:2), “the Spirit of God” (8:9), “the Spirit of Christ” (8:9), “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus” (8:11), and “the Spirit of adoption” (8:15). This last reference (Rom. 8:15) is a companion to Gal. 4:6. The double cry of “Abba, Father” (in both passages) indicates a great and grand intensification of the tender and caring relationship with our Heavenly Father, brought about through the redeeming blood of Christ and the glorious working of the Holy Spirit in the scheme of redemption. “Abba” is an Aramaic family word for father. Instead of being imprisoned under the Law of Moses (or enslaved by the elements of the world), and instead of being under the control of guardians or stewards, believers are now of full age and thus sons and daughters of God. By God’s grace and through faith they have been given their freedom in Christ (John 8:31-36). Fears for the Church 8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. Paul reminds them of their previous life as pagans who worshipped lifeless idols and “know not God” (1 Thess. 4:5; Acts 17:23; Eph. 2:12). They had, through the gospel of Christ, come into a relationship with the one true God. Paul calls them to account for their actions of turning back to the bondage of the world and its bankrupt, pagan concepts (Col. 2:8). To know the Lord is to be in a spiritual relationship with Him as His children (Hos. 6:3). Paul had preached the gospel to them in order to bring them to God and “to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in (Christ)” (Acts 26:18). For God to, in turn, know them is for God to recognize, accept, and bless them as His children, granting them the forgiveness of sins and also promising them everlasting life with Him if they are faithful to Him (cf. Rev. 2:10). The observation of days, etc. are baby steps right back into the bondage of the Law of Moses that the Judaizers are promoting among them. Any law, any so-called gospel, any philosophy, any world view, any religion, any mastering sentiment whatsoever that

105 anyone may choose to follow, if it is without Christ, it is only spiritual bondage and will damn one to eternal separation from God. This is why Paul is alarmed and frightened over the situation with the churches in Galatia. Will Paul have labored among them for naught? Will precious souls be lost because of false teaching? 12 Brethren, I urge you to become like me, for I became like you. You have not injured me at all. Paul wants the brethren to know that he may be issuing strong and stern warning in this epistle, but that does not indicate that he has taken offense at them. He is urgent and forceful in his admonitions because of his deep love and concern for them. He is especially concerned that they maintain the same deep feelings of love and friendship towards him as he cherishes for them. 13 You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. 14 And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. He reminds them of their initial experiences together in the gospel. Though Paul was dealing with an ailment of some kind, he still managed to preach Christ among them. The Galatians did not reject Paul because of his troubles, but opened their hearts and minds to him and to the message of the gospel. We do not know what this ailment or infirmity was. Many are the suggestions, but they are only the opinion of the expositor, as the Bible does not give the details. Neither are we told the details as to why it may have been such an infirmity as would possibly turn people away. In spite of the physical infirmity, they accepted Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ who would give them the true message of Christ. They, at that time, received the message from Paul as no different than if Jesus Himself were present and delivering it to them. 15 What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. Where was that original sense of blessedness now? Has it entirely evaporated because of these Judaizers? At one time, they would have done all that they could for Paul to help him. Paul reminds them that they would have given up their most precious possessions; they would have given Paul the very eyes out of their heads. Paul is emphasizing just how close they were to him emotionally at the beginning. It may be unwise to dogmatically take the mention of “eyes” too literally. It may be a stretch to (again dogmatically) suppose that the language reveals that Paul had some kind of eye trouble. He may have had eye trouble. But then, again, Paul may be using hyperbole to emphasize the closeness of his relationship with the Galatians. 16 Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? This is the strong appeal to their sense of fairness. He is teaching them the truth of the

106 gospel. He is not trying to insult them or demean them. He is not trying to alienate them in any way. He is not interested in picking a fight with them. Paul is pressing the truth hard to help them reach heaven and be with God forever. Paul is stressing the truth that they cannot enjoy this blessing of heaven by listening to false teachers. They must resist error and listen to the truth remaining faithful to Lord. This is what Paul is trying so very hard to get them to see. 17 They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them. The Judaizers are very zealous and urgent (cf. Matt. 23:15) in their efforts to convince the Galatian churches that, as Gentiles, they are excluded from God’s blessings unless they are circumcised and keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5). The Judaizers are making warm appeals to the brethren seeking to convince them that their insistence (on circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses) is a most urgent matter and needs quick, enthusiastic acceptance and action on their part. 18 But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you. Zeal is good and can accomplish much for the Lord. The church at Laodicea was in need of more zeal (Rev. 3:16). However, misdirected and misguided zeal can cause a great deal of harm. If zeal is not according to the knowledge of the truth, but in pursuit of one’s own ignorance and false ideas, then it will lead one astray and cause trouble (cf. Rom. 10:1-3; Phil. 3:6). Paul wants them to be zealous towards God and the truth at all times, when he is there with them and when he is away (cf. Phil. 2:12). The apostle urges them to serve “not with eye service, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. And whatever (they) do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord (they) will receive the reward of inheritance; for (they) serve the Lord Christ” (Col. 3:22-24). 19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you, 20 I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you. While Paul is hopeful and confident that his letter will have the desired effect of keeping this false teaching from leading the churches into apostasy (Gal. 5:10), he has grave concerns that the Judaizers may have succeeded in confusing and wining over to their side some of the brethren. His concern over them is likened to one who is in labor with a child about to be born. There is pain and concern that the child will be healthy and safe all through the birthing process. Great relief is experienced when the birth is complete and successful. Therefore Paul will have great relief of heart and mind when he knows that the churches in Galatia are free of this false doctrine and are solid in their relationship with Christ and the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:5). Two Covenants

107

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. The apostle uses a historical event in the Old Testament to illustrate an important lesson concerning the two covenants. First he asks the Galatians, who are listening to the Judaizers and wish to return to the Law of Moses, do they really understand what they are doing and the consequences of what they are doing? Paul will now use the account of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and the two sons (Gen. 16:15; 17:15-19; 21:1) to illustrate the giving of the two covenants and the present clash between the two that has been brought about because of the Jewish misuse of the Law (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6-8). Hagar and Ishmael illustrate Mount Sinai and the Law of Moses, while Sarah and Isaac illustrate the new covenant of Christ. Also, the Jews’ unlawful demand concerning the Law of Moses is exemplified by the physical city of Jerusalem, which is heading for judgment (Luke 19:41-44). The new covenant is referred to as the “Jerusalem above” or heavenly (spiritual) Jerusalem (cf. Heb. 12:18-24). The Law of Moses (now at this time) is a system of bondage as it places sinners at the mercy of violated law without the blood of Christ and the grace of God. The gospel of Christ, illustrated by the “Jerusalem above” is the new covenant ratified by the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:28) and provides access by faith into the grace of God (Rom. 5:2; Heb. 10:19). 27 For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband.” Isaiah 54:1 was a promise that God would bring the exiles back from Babylonian captivity and send the Messiah to them. The resulting spiritual family will far exceed the physical nation of pre-exile Israel as many of the Gentiles will turn to the Lord through the preaching of the gospel (Isa. 54:2-3).

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Paul has already discussed the promise of blessings through Abraham’s seed (Christ), which is received through obedience to the gospel of Christ (Gal. 3:29; Acts 2:39; 13:23, 32-33; 26:6; Rom. 4:13-16; Eph. 3:6). Christians are children of God through Christ, who is the fulfillment of the promise that God made to Abraham that in his seed (ultimately Christ, Gal. 3:16) all the nations will be blessed in the forgiveness of sins (Acts 3:25-26). 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born

108 according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Just as Ishmael mocked and upset Sarah after Isaac was born (Gen. 21:8-10), so the Jews are mocking and persecuting the Christians (Acts 8:1; 1 Thess. 2:14-16; Rev. 2:9). The Jews crucified Christ because of envy and hatred (Matt. 27:18; John 15:23-25). The Jews also were filled with envy and hatred for the Christians (Acts 13:45; John 15:18, 19; 17:14). This hatred and envy on the part of the Jews towards the Christians led to bitter, violent persecution (Acts 14:2, 5, 19; 17:5, 13; 2 Thess. 2:14-16). 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. In Genesis 21:10, Sarah tells Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away (cast them out) as they are not to inherit any of the blessing of Abraham’s estate. Paul writes that this illustrates the fact that Christians (Gentile believers as well as Jewish believers) are not to be subjected to the Judaizers’ law-keeping bondage doctrine, but are children of God and therefore freemen in Christ (Gal. 2:4; 5:1). Paul will have more to say concerning freedom and liberty in Christ in the next chapter. 1. Are there any similarities of thought between Gal. 4:1-11 and Heb. 5:10-6:8? 2. In Gal. 4:12-20, how does Paul remind the Galatians of the closeness of their relationship? 3. Does Gal. 4:21-31 relate in some way with Heb. 12:18-29? If so, explain how?

Galatians 5 Christian Liberty 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Paul sums up his argument that he has been making in chapter four. To go back to the Law of Moses is to become entangled with a yoke of bondage (perfect law keeping) that will weigh us down in sin. Christ offers us liberty or freedom from such. Indeed Christ has promised that “His yoke is easy and His burden is light” (Matt. 11:30). Also the Lord taught that as His disciples continue in His word they “shall know the truth and the truth shall make them free” (John 8:31-32). In the introduction (pages 2-3), we discussed how returning to the Law of Moses would make the Galatian Christian a “slave of sin” (John 8:34), as no one kept the Law perfectly. If the Galatians would remain faithful to Christ, and not listen to the Judaizers, the blood of Christ would make them “free indeed” (John 8:36). This certainly includes the idea of freedom from the guilt and condemnation of sin (Rom. 6:18). We are also free from any doctrine that demands that we have to be perfect in every way in order to be

109 saved eternally (Rom. 6:14; 1 Pet. 1:13). It is important to remember that in Galatians we are dealing within the context of Paul’s refutation of the false doctrine of the Judaizers, who demanded circumcision of the Gentiles and obedience to the Law of Moses in order for them to be saved from sin (Acts 15:1, 5). Also please study Romans 6 for the refutation of the idea that freedom from the Law of Moses and being under the grace of God therefore grants us license to deliberately ignore the Word of God and continue on in sin. This idea to “continue in sin that grace may abound” (Rom. 6:1) is ugly rebellion against the Lord’s authority and God simply will not tolerate this (cf. Isa. 66:1-2; Luke 19:14, 27; Rom. 6:15-18). 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. To submit to the demands of the Judaizers to be circumcised (Acts 15:1, 5) will nullify the spiritual freedom and blessings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Circumcision is not the door of access to the spiritual blessings in Christ. Submission and obedience to the truth of the gospel is the only way to profit or benefit from the blessings that are in Christ (Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:22). 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. See the discussion of this on page three and paragraph three. Without the blood of Christ we do not have access into God’s grace. Without God’s grace, we must keep the whole law perfectly and never sin. None of us has ever done this (Rom. 3:9-10, 23; James 2:10).

4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. To return to the Law of Moses removes Christ as our High Priest. If we have no High Priest, then no blood is offered in our behalf. If no blood is offered, then we have no grace. If there is no grace, then no salvation is possible (Tit. 2:11). To return to the Law of Moses, therefore, means that one has fallen from the grace of God and stands condemned unless he lives a sinless, perfect life. To fall from the grace of God is to be rejected by the Lord and hopelessly lost forever and ever. There will be no grace present at the time of eternal judgment (1 Pet. 1:13) and so the only verdict will be “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). With that pronouncement of the Lord, they “will go away into everlasting punishment “ (v. 46) and be lost forever.

5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. The Holy Spirit and His part in the new covenant has been discussed in chapter 3:1-5. All who have hope by being made righteous before God are the just who live by faith as they are led by the Spirit through the word of God (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 8:14; Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12; cf. 10:15-16).

110

6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. Whether one is circumcised as a Jew or remains uncircumcised as a Gentile has nothing to do with one becoming a child of God. Being a child of God is based upon our faith in Christ and God’s grace made available through the blood of Christ (Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 1:7; 2:8; 5:25-26). Love Fulfills the Law 7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Paul further challenges the legitimacy of the false teachers who are troubling the churches of the Lord in Galatia by insisting that their effort to Judaize is not of God. The God who called the Galatian brethren through the gospel that Paul preached (cf. 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Thess. 2:13) does not approve of (did not authorize) those seeking to persuade them to submit to circumcision and the Law of Moses. The Holy Spirit of God “gave no such commandment” to these Judaizers to demand that the Gentiles “be circumcised and keep the law” (Acts 15:24, 28). The Judaizers were not preaching the “certified” (KJV, Gal. 1:11) gospel which was “made known” through the apostles and prophets of Christ (Gal. 1:12; Eph. 3:1-7). It was a perverted gospel (Gal. 1:6-7) that brings the curse of God upon those who preach it (Gal. 1:9). Paul warns the brethren not to allow these Judaizers to teach their doctrines, as this false teaching will spread and eventually corrupt the entire local church (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:4; cf. Matt. 16:6, 11-12; 2 Tim. 2:17). 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. Paul believes that the brethren will heed his urgent wake up call concerning these Judaizers and will not allow their minds to be “corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Whoever these Judaizers are, they will face the judgment and the anathema of God (Gal. 1:9). 11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3). This was not to save him but to avoid offence and hindrance to the preaching of the gospel to the Jews (1 Cor. 9:20). Even though Paul did this with Timothy, he would not allow Titus to be circumcised as this would have been, at the time, capitulation to the Judaizers’ demand that Titus submit to this in order to be saved (Gal. 2:3-5; Acts 15:1, 5). Paul is defending himself against the false charge that he is inconsistent and preaches circumcision. He further reasons that if he did indeed preach circumcision, why is he being hounded

111 and persecuted by the Jews? If he taught the Gentiles to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved, then the offence of the message of the cross would end. But the message of the cross is that the blood of Jesus and the gospel are sufficient for the Gentiles to come to God for forgiveness and son-ship with the Father. A crucified Messiah and the insistence that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled and nailed to the cross are highly offensive messages and are therefore unacceptable for the unbelieving Jews (1 Cor. 1:23; Acts 6:11, 13-14; 21:28). It was continuously galling to the Jews and a difficult doctrine for them to accept that the Gentiles did not have to submit to circumcision in order to be saved.

12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! Just as a cancer has to be cut out of the body in order to prevent the death of the person, so false teaching is like a cancer in the body of Christ (2 Tim. 2:17). Such ought to be “cut off” before it spreads and brings spiritual death to the church. The Judaizers preach about cutting off with reference to the Gentiles, but what is required for the welfare of the body of Christ is that the Judaizers need to be noted, avoided, withdrawn from, and rejected (Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Tim. 6:5; Tit. 3:9-11). Figuratively, they need to be cut off or put away from the body of Christ. 13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the discussion of liberty or freedom in Christ, see notes at verse one. Paul further emphasizes that the freedom enjoyed in Christ is not license (opportunity) to give in to the desires and weaknesses of the flesh and thus provide an occasion for sin to take over one’s life. The exhortation to love and care for one another as brethren in Christ is leading to the further warning (v. 14) against quarrels and hostile disputes in the church. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! Jesus made a similar statement in Matt. 22:39-40 concerning the commandment to love one another. If people would truly and sincerely love one another they would not lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. against others. This love for others would satisfy the law and commands of God concerning human relations. But on the other hand, in contrast to this, when this law of love is violated, overlooked, forgotten, or ignored, the local church will eventually find something that brings disagreement of differences of opinion among them. They will then fuss, fall out with each other, choose sides (develop factions) and divide until that local church is no more. They have “consumed” one another because of the lack of love. The teaching and influence of the Judaizers among the churches of Galatia threaten to become a source of sharp contention and endless battles within the congregations. Such animosity and constant bickering eventually will tear them apart (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 3:9).

112

Walking in the Spirit

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. Be spiritually minded by growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:18). We must fill our minds (Ps. 119:11) with the Spirit’s teaching that is revealed in the Word of God (cf. Col. 3:16 with Eph. 5:18-19; Rom. 8:1-17). This will help us in dealing with the desire to give in to sin. We will consider more about the lust and works of the flesh at vss. 19-21. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. We must “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). This inner conflict with the “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16), that we all daily face (Rom. 3:23), will often lead to wars and conflicts among Christians (James 4:1). It is therefore urgent that we daily “draw near to God” and “resist the devil” (James 4:8). When temptation arises and seeks to draw us into sin, we often know better, and would wish to do better. But while “the spirit indeed [may be] willing, [however] the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41). This is a daily battle for all of us, that without the grace of God that is available through the blood of Christ, we would all lose. Thanks be to our Heavenly Father that “He gives more grace” (James 4:6)!

18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Our part in this war against the soul is to humbly submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God (v. 16). To walk in harmony with the Holy Spirit’s revelation includes the recognition that we are not under the Law of Moses (old covenant, Heb. 8:13) but are under the new covenant of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:15). This means that Christ can function as our High Priest and present His precious blood to the Father on our behalf (Heb. 9:11-14, 23-26). Because of the blood of Christ, we are blessed by God’s grace (Rom. 6:14) and “sin shall not have dominion over” us. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Without the blood of Christ and the grace of God, mankind (who is plagued by the “works of the flesh”) is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). Adultery is sexual infidelity against one’s wife or husband. Fornication is sexual immorality. Uncleanness is moral filth. Lewdness is the absence of moral restraint or indecency and wantonness. Idolatry looks to paganism and its excesses. Sorcery involves the use of drugs and spells

113 in relation to dealing with demons. Hatred is malicious and unjustifiable feelings of ill will towards others. Contentions refer to strife, quarrelling, wrangling among people. Jealousies would be to have burning envy toward others. Outbursts of wrath describe hot anger or passion that explodes upon others. Selfish ambitions lead to rivalry and a self- seeking attempt in party making. Dissensions refer to tearing the church asunder or apart, causing division. Heresies are self-willed opinions that lead to division. Envy is displeasure at seeing someone else have good success or good fortune. Murders are those who take the life of an innocent person. Drunkenness is habitual intoxication. Revelries are wild parties as a result of drunkenness. And the like refers to all actions or thinking that resemble the above. Paul had previously taught the brethren concerning the evil consequences of these works of the flesh. Now he is warning again (cf. 2 Pet. 1:12-15) concerning the eternal consequences of these sins; namely, it would result in the loss of entering the everlasting kingdom of God (2 Pet. 1:11). In a sin sick world, where all manner of ungodly thinking and unrighteous conduct on the part of unregenerate men continues to manifest itself, we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit’s revelation. Also the blood of Christ and God’s grace are absolutely essential should one desire to enter through the gates of pearl and walk the streets of gold with the redeemed (cf. Rev. 21:21). The Judaizers and their insidious doctrine would wreck all of this and place the Galatians at the mercy of the elements of the world and its works of the flesh (Gal. 4:9). 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. But we must allow the flow of the scheme of redemption, revealed by the Holy Spirit, to continue unhindered by misguided teachers of the law (1 Tim. 1:7). This will produce the spiritual fruit that God desires (cf. Mark 12:1-12). Love desires to honor and please God as well as seek the welfare of all men. Joy is delight and gladness in relation to the Lord. Peace is the harmonious relationship between God and man, man and man, and man with himself that is accomplished through the gospel. Longsuffering is patience and the willingness to not react hastily in the face of provocation. Kindness is to be gracious, easy, kind, gentle, and good towards others. Goodness is gracious, tender, and compassionate in actions and deeds. Faithfulness is fidelity and steadfastness that is rooted in the Word of God. Gentleness is not weakness but rather it is strength that is brought under the control of the Lord through the Holy Spirit’s teaching. Self-control is allowing the Holy Spirit’s revelation, the Word of God, to control, guide, or restrain one’s thinking and actions. When one allows the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures to develop this spiritual fruit in their life, there are no Scriptures that will condemn this outcome.

24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

114

Spiritually minded Christians have “put to death” (Col. 3:5) these works of the flesh and are seeking “those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1). With Paul they have been “crucified with Christ (and) it is no longer (they) who live, but Christ lives in (them)” (Gal. 2:20). 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. “The Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6) as we yield to the piercing of the heart by the “sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17; Acts 2:37) and obey the gospel. Being thus “set free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2), we must continue on in the Spirit’s teaching (Rom. 8:14). We must reject sinful pride and “walk humbly with (our) God” (Mic. 6:8), for the Father “gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5; cf. Luke 18:9-14). Prideful people irritate and alienate the people around them. This leads to trouble among the people of God and displeases God. Furthermore, a prideful person very often has a serious problem with envy toward others who are gifted or successful in some way. “Love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up (or arrogant)” (1 Cor. 13:4). Such is the way of love and such is the way of the Spirit of God. 1. How does going back under the Law of Moses impact our freedom in Christ? 2. What 2nd greatest commandment of the Law (vv. 13-15) do troublemakers (v. 12; 2:4; 3:1) violate? 3. Sum up the contrast of life styles and world-views indicated in vv. 16-26. 4. How or in what way does this relate to the troublers (vv. 12, 18) of the Galatian churches?

Galatians 6

Bear and Share the Burdens

1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. After discussing the works of the flesh and contrasting them with the fruit of the Spirit, Paul makes an application to show how this should work out among the brethren. Those who may be caught up in some work of the flesh need help from those exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. However, the spirit of gentleness (kindness, goodness of heart) must characterize the admonition, exhortation, or rebuke (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 4:2). This is the opposite of the unrighteous, censorious judgment that is hypercritical (overly harsh) and hypocritical (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:21).

115

James (5:19-20) reminds us that when a wayward brother is restored to fellowship with the Lord, his soul is saved from spiritual death and being separated from God throughout eternity (cf. Rev. 21:8). So this is a most serious matter and must not be neglected among the saints of God. Indeed we need to be ready to “exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today” (Ps. 95:7-8), lest any of (us) be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13). Also, the Scriptures teach us that when we are trying to help others along the spiritual pathway that leads to heaven, we need to make certain we take heed and apply the Lord’s teaching to ourselves, not becoming self-righteous and over-confident (Rom. 2:21; 1 Cor. 9:27; 10:12; 2 Cor. 13:5; cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 4:16; James 1:23-25).

2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. The word for “burden” here (baros, Vine, contrast v. 5) would indicate a heavy, oppressive load that would weigh one down. It would be a load that is too heavy for one person to carry for any distance. In this context it would suggest a spiritual load of some sort that is crushing one spiritually. Such a one needs a helping hand from a loving, caring brother in Christ. Helping others (with their heavy, oppressive burdens) is one of the expressions of love that characterizes the law of Christ (John 13:34-35; James 2:8). Contrast this with the legalistic, burdensome weight and bondage of the Law of Moses and traditions of men that the Judaizers would heap upon the Galatian brethren (Gal. 5:1; cf. Matt. 23:4). 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Love, gentleness, consideration for others, and a realization that we are all spiritual zeros without Christ should help to keep one humble and free of a condescending attitude toward others. Paul also gives the same warning in Romans 12:3, “For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.” To think too highly of ourselves is to engage in self-deception, as we are nothing spiritually without the grace and mercy of God. If someone thinks that he has or knows all of the answers, and that no one can teach him anything, then Paul would remind him “that he knows nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Cor. 8:2). Such a person is terribly self-deceived. Job could sarcastically say to such a person, “No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you” (Job 12:2)! This would especially be true of the Judaizers, as Paul had written to Titus “that there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not” (Titus 1:10). Furthermore, “desiring to be teachers of the law, (they) understand neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7). 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

116

Paul wrote to the Roman brethren that in considering the success of his labors and preaching work he “should not build on another man’s foundation” (Rom. 15:21). That is, he should not take credit for what others have accomplished in the gospel. Instead, he would blaze his own evangelistic trail and go where Christ has not been named. Paul would not wish to “boast in another man’s sphere of accomplishment” (2 Cor. 10:16). The Judaizers were obviously trying to entrench themselves within the churches that Paul started and circumcise the Gentiles teaching them that they must keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:4; 2 Pet. 2:1-2).

5 For each one shall bear his own load. Each Christian has the individual responsibility before God to remain faithful to the Lord. Paul cannot do this for them. He can teach and encourage them, but they must individually take their stand for the truth and not waver. “So then each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 2:6). No one else can do this for us, and no one shall! This is one burden or load that cannot be shared or taken over by anyone else among humanity. “The word translated ‘burdens’ in v. 2 (baros, Vine) refers, as we have seen, to a heavy load, an oppressive weight, which one is expected to carry for a long distance. But the word for ‘load’ in v. 5 is phortion, which is used elsewhere to refer to a ship’s cargo (cf. Acts 27:10), a soldier’s knapsack, or a pilgrim’s backpack. J. Stott correctly delineates the difference between the two ‘loads’ in Gal 6: ‘So we are to bear one another’s burdens which are too heavy for a man to bear alone, but there is one burden which we cannot share—indeed do not need to because it is a pack light enough for every man to carry himself—and that is our responsibility to God on the day of judgment. On that day you cannot carry my pack and I cannot carry yours.’”94 There are personal responsibilities that cannot be borne by others, but must be accepted and undertaken by each of us. Faithfulness in trials, steadfast resolve in resisting temptation, sincere worship of God in spite of distractions, etc., are things that others cannot do for us. Brethren may encourage us as we seek to bear these burdens, but we must exercise our own abiding and simple trusting faith concerning these personal responsibilities, obligations, and challenges. Be Generous and Do Good 6 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. There are at least two scriptural observations we will suggest concerning this verse. The probable application of this verse is that the one who is taught ought “to give a share to, go share with” (Vine) the one who taught him, just as the brethren in Philippi did with Paul (Phil. 4:15). Paul told the church at Corinth that “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14; Matt. 10:10; Rom. 10:15; 2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 5:17-18).

94 George. 117

But it is also true that the student has the responsibility to accept and obey the truth that he is taught, i.e. fellowship (share) spiritually with the one who trained him in the good Word of God. Jesus put it this way: “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. The Scriptures teach us that God holds us to account for our thinking and actions. God is not trifled with or sneered at without fearful, disastrous consequences. Men may scoff and mock God in this life and seem to escape; but in the end, when time is no more there comes the eternal, fearful judgment that all will face as we stand before the Almighty God (Heb. 10:30-31; 12:29). Hear Jude: “Behold the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him” (Jude 14-15). This would certainly include those who attempt to mock God in any way, by their words, thinking, or conduct. God is longsuffering and does not desire for anyone to be lost but rather for all to repent and turn to Him (2 Pet. 3:9). However, the day of the Lord will come in eternal judgment and each and every human being will be held to account for their thinking and actions (Eccl. 12:14; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:5-6; 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 6:8). Whatever we have sown, that is what we shall reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. Here are the two different life styles or world-views presented in contrast with each other (Gal. 5:16-26). Give in to the lust of the flesh and live one’s life according to the ways of the world by being “conformed to the world” (Rom. 12:2), and spiritual corruption with eternal ruin will be the consequence. On the other hand, to “live according to the Spirit (minding) the things of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:5) will lead to adoption as sons of God and result in enjoying eternal glory with the Father when Christ returns for His own (Rom. 8:15-17). The one who sows to the Spirit is the one who “walks according to the Spirit” yielding to the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1-2). 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. Sometimes challenges, setbacks, or various spiritual struggles will seek to wear Christians down and discourage them from diligently serving the Lord (Heb. 12:3). Paul exhorts the brethren to continue living their lives in faithfulness to the Lord because they will gain the ultimate victory if they do not give up the battle. The Bible has many victory passages that are intended to encourage and motivate the people of God to keep on “striving against sin” and not to grow weary (Heb. 12:4; Rom. 8:31-39; 1 Cor. 15:58; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Rev. 2:10).

118

10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. Maintaining spiritual alertness is important to nurture day by day as we may otherwise miss opportunities to do what is good for others. The good Word of God is to be the guide concerning the good works that we engage in towards others (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Eph. 2:10; Tit. 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14). We are to be especially mindful of our brethren who may need our help in some way (cf. Matt. 25:31-46). But we must also reach out and do good to others who are not our brethren (Luke 6:33). Not only does the doing of good help our fellow man, but it gives glory and honor to our Heavenly Father (Matt. 5:16; 2 Cor. 9:11-12). God is well pleased when His people open their hearts and their resources, sharing with others who may have need (Phil. 4:18; Heb. 6:10; 13:16). This is laying up “treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matt. 6:20). God will not “forget (such) work and labor of love” but will record such good deeds in His “book of remembrances” (Heb. 6:10; Mal. 3:16). Glory Only in the Cross 11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! Just what the intent of Paul was in writing these large letters, he does not specify. The large letters would certainly indicate at the very least that Paul was most earnest in writing what he did to the Galatian brethren. Surely he also wanted to emphasize the importance of what he had written. But we really are not told just why he did this.

12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. Paul is emphasizing the fact that the Judaizers have a fleshly (carnal) motive for attempting to have the Galatian brethren (Gentiles) circumcised (cf. Matt. 23:5). They want to impress their fellow Jews, concerning their zeal for the Law of Moses, by having a good number of the Gentiles circumcised and committed to the Law of Moses (cf. Matt. 23:15; Rom. 10:1-3). Also, by having success in proselytizing the Gentiles to the Law of Moses, they would avoid criticism from and trouble with their fellow believing Jews who still held fast to the Law of Moses (cf. Acts 11:2-3; 15:1, 5). Paul is telling the Galatian brethren not to allow the Judaizers to use them for their own selfish motives.

13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. None of the Jews obey all of the “613” commandments (365 negative commandments and 248 positive commandments). These are the traditional numbers that are usually given. James reminds us “whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). Jesus also pointed out that the many, many traditions that the Jews accumulated through the years also become obstacles standing in

119 the way of their obedience to the Law of Moses (Matt. 15:3, 8-9; 23:4; Mark 7:8-9). Even the Scriptures of the Old Testament testify against the Jews concerning their failure to always obey fully the Law of Moses (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 130:3; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20). But in addition to the above considerations, the Judaizers (v. 12) also have a huge problem with hypocrisy, as they are not sincere (cf. Matt. 23:15). 14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Paul also dealt with the vain and empty boasting of his detractors in his letter to the church in Corinth. 12 For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. 13 We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but 14 For we are not overextending ourselves (as though our authority did not extend to you), for it was to you that we came with the gospel of Christ; 15 not boasting of things beyond measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but having hope, that as your faith is increased, we shall be greatly enlarged by you in our sphere, 16 to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s sphere of accomplishment.17 But “he who glories, let him glory in the Lord. 18 For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends. (2 Cor. 10:12-18) If men wish to boast in their connections with the Jewish establishment and the Judaizing elements of the gospel, Paul could easily match their “credentials” with his own background in Judaism and his zeal toward God (2 Cor. 11:22-33; Phil. 3:1-11). Instead of this, the apostle maintains that his glory, boasting, and preaching are centered in the crucifixion (cross) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1-2). Jesus Christ dying for our sins on a despised Roman cross is the glorious message of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5). All authentic gospel preaching exalts the cross of Christ. Ordinarily, in day-to-day human affairs, when people were executed upon a cross it was not considered glorious in any way. The Law declares, “he who is hanged (on a tree) is accursed of God” (Deut. 21:22-23). One of the ways that the Romans executed criminals, or enemies of the Roman Empire, was to crucify them (cf. Luke 23:32-33). Crucifixion of their Messiah was a totally objectionable idea to the Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). So the cross, with all of its horror, humiliation, and disgrace, was nothing to boast about or consider as glorious in the eyes of the Jews and Gentiles of that day. Yet the crucifixion of Christ announced to the world the most powerful truth of all reality. The cross of Christ was a profound announcement to the world not only of God’s abiding hatred and deep abhorrence of sin and rebellion against Him, but the cross of Christ also proclaimed God’s great and eternal love for sinful humanity. This is the glorious beauty of the cross, that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son upon the cross in order that anyone who believes on Him should not perish in and for his sins, but that he would have eternal life (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-11; 8:32).

120

With Paul, every Christian should glory and boast in the cross of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ, falling down upon our knees in humble thanksgiving and praise to our Heavenly Father (Eph. 3:14; 2 Cor. 9:15). Furthermore, building upon the idea of crucifixion, or putting to death, we are to become dead to the world and its sinful thinking and ways when we turn to Christ (Col. 3:1-5). The spiritually minded daily will earnestly strive to be alive to the Lord, but dead to the world (1 Pet. 4:1-6; Rom. 6:6-8). 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. This is what Paul (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Eph. 3:5; 1 Cor. 14:37) has been arguing all through this epistle to the Galatians. Circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with our salvation from sin. We are saved by the grace of God based upon the blood of Christ and our trusting faith in Him (Eph. 1:7; 2:8-9). We are a new spiritual creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) and the Law of Moses, with its rites and ceremonies (such as circumcision), avail absolutely nothing in this regard (Gal. 5:2). 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. The walk or manner of life for the Christian (both Jew and Gentile) is to be guided by the new covenant (as revealed by the Holy Spirit, Gal. 3:1-5) and not the perverted gospel of the Judaizers (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:4). The gospel of the grace of God, provided through the blood of Christ and our faith, is to be the guiding line (rule) for our eternal salvation. In this walk with the Lord, we have peace with ourselves, peace with others, and (above all) peace with the Lord (Phil. 4:6-7; Eph. 2:14-18; Rom. 5:1). This peace (depending upon the context) would suggest harmonious relationships that would cause one to enjoy rest and contentment with a sense of spiritual wholeness (see Vine). Furthermore, God “in His love and in His pity (mercy) has redeemed” the Christian (cf. Isa. 63:9; James 5:11; Tit. 3:5) to be the true spiritual Israel of God (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6-8). Here are the true “Israel of God” as set forth by Paul.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:26-29). 17 From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Paul has suffered enough because of the Judaizers and their unbelieving Jewish brethren

121

(Acts 9:23-25, 29; 13:50; 14:2, 5, 19; 15:1-5; 17:5, 13; 18:6, 12; 20:3; 21:27, 32; 23:10; 2 Cor. 11:24-26). His body, no doubt, had many scars, marks, and bruises to testify concerning the brutality of the treatment that he had suffered at the hands of the Jews. Paul had his share of mistreatment at the hands of the Gentile pagans (Acts 16:22-24), but the Jewish brutality was the main source of his physical scarring at the hands of men. These physical marks (branding as it were) on his body were because of his preaching of the gospel of Christ (cf. Matt. 10:16-17; John 16:1-2). Paul was fully devoted to the Lord Jesus Christ, and he had the various scars to show it! 18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Paul begins the letter with grace (1:3) and ends with grace. The grace of the Lord must accompany us all along the way in our walk with God. God’s marvelous grace must continue on with us to the very final judgment at the last day. God’s people must rest their hope fully “upon the grace that is to be brought (to them) at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:13). “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20). 1. Contrast the “loads” or “burdens” in Gal. 6:2 and 5. 2. Discuss the admonitions and lessons of Gal. 6:6-10. 3. Contrast the “glory” of the Judaizers with the “glory” that Paul speaks of. 4. Discuss the true “Israel of God.” Can you find other Scriptures that relate to this point? 5. Did the Judaizers in their attempt to bind circumcision and the Law of Moses on the Gentiles provide important context to what Paul (the Holy Spirit) wrote concerning Law, faith, and God’s grace? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please explain why. Please give Scripture with your response.

Bibliography Bruce, F. F. The New International Greek Testament commentary: The Epistle to the Galatians. Bellingham, Washington: Logos Bible Software, 1982. George, Timothy. The New American Commentary: Galatians. Bellingham, Washington: Logos Bible Software, 1994. Anders, Max. Holman New Testament Commentary: Galatians. Bellingham, Washington: Logos Bible Software, 1999.

Internet Articles Pope, Alexander.BrainyQuotes.com http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexanderp387352.html

122

123

How the Book of Hebrews Fits into the Picture

By David Norfleet

J. W. McGarvey, in commenting on Acts 21 and Paul’s participation in the vow recorded there, made the following statement that pertains to the topic at hand :

Some years later, the who question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his [Paul’s] mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In the last-named epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ once for all, as the only sufficient sin-offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man.95

While we may dispute or discuss further the date of Hebrews and its authorship, McGarvey points out something that seems almost intrinsic about this letter; it discusses and deals with the Jew-Gentile question directly and completely. The epistle emphatically rules out a return to Judaism or even some mongrel adoption of Judaic practice for those who would seek to please God or remain in fellowship with Him.

In the following presentation, I would like to examine three ideas from the book of Hebrews: the letter’s recipients, the readership’s persecution and persecutors, and the key-words used in the text to describe the New Covenant, and how they reflect on the Jew-Gentile question.

The Recipients of Hebrews

Unlike the book’s authorship, the question of its initial readership is less debated. While there are some later scholars, most notably James Moffat, E. Käsemann and G. Vos,96 who argue the recipients of this epistle were predominantly Greek, the preponderance of the evidence and scholarly support suggests a Hebrew audience for this epistle. That evidence includes the appended title “To the Hebrews” (Pros Hebraious) which is found in all of the earliest extant manuscripts (the Chester Beatty papyrus, the Vatican, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian).97 As Neil Lightfoot notes:

95 J. W. McGarvey, Original Commentary on Acts, (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Edition, Ninth Edition), 260. 96 Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 10. 97 Neil R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, (Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1976), 31. 124

Although later added as a heading to the original writing, the title undoubtedly reflects an early tradition. And this tradition is indeed borne out by the contents of this Epistle. Its first readers appear to have been people of Jewish background.98

As Lightfoot alludes to in the above quotation, the numerous Old Testament citations and allusions all point to an initial readership that was distinctly Jewish. Donald A. Hagner notes these peculiarities of the text which add support to this conclusion:

Thus practically the entire argument of Hebrews rests on OT passages. Indeed, the author seems to have structured his argument around key quotations. His favorite practice is to quote an appropriate passage and then to comment on the passage in the manner of Jewish midrash, applying its truth to the readers in a most practical way.99

In addition to the initial audience being Jewish, internal evidence may provide further details of their ethnicity. That is, the manner in which this epistle was composed potentially suggests that this letter’s target audience was not primarily Palestinian Jews, but rather Hellenistic Jews.100 The evidence for this suggestion includes the fact that the writer primarily quotes the Greek Old Testament (LXX) and assumes that his readers will recognize its authority. This assumption would be especially true of Hellenistic Jews who had become Christians.101 Furthermore, the author uses “the language-world…of the Greek philosophical writings,”102 or as James Hope Moulton notes, the writer had the “literary consciousness of an educated man” that would appeal to an audience with a Hellenistic background.103

The author’s intended audience and their background is not merely a scholarly exercise in deduction, but rather it implies that the readership had to make a deliberate weighing of the evidence before they went “to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13).104 They knew both the Old Testament writings as well as the paganism of the Roman Empire, and chose Christ and the distinctiveness of the New Covenant. In fact, the writer of Hebrews notes that they were “once enlightened” (Heb. 6:4) and had received “a knowledge of the truth” (Heb. 10:26), thus indicating they had “counted the cost,” measured one against another, and chose Christ, spurning what they once knew under the Law of Moses.

At least, at the time of their conversion they understood the Jew-Gentile question had been settled, and the only answer was Christ Jesus.

98 Lightfoot, 31. 99 Donald A. Hagner, New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. , 1995), 15. 100 Please refer to Lightfoot’s comments on pages 45-50 on the style of Hebrews that would indicate a Hellenistic influenced writer and audience. 101 O’ Brien, 11. 102 Lightfoot, 45. 103 Cited by Lightfoot, 45. 104 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the 1995 New American Standard Bible. 125

The Hebrew Persecutors

That the Hebrew Christians were in spiritual danger is of little doubt, but the dangers they faced have been characterized in different ways. For the purposes of this study, I am going to summarize the threats to their spiritual lives in two categories: passive and active dangers.

The faith of the Hebrew saints was being challenged by what is herein termed as “passive dangers.” These dangers are typified by an increasing weariness in pursuing the goals of their faith, a deceleration in their spiritual maturation, and a regression in their knowledge. The readers are urged not to “drift away” from what they have heard (Heb. 2:1); not to “neglect” the message of salvation (Heb. 2:3); not to “fall short” of the rest (Heb. 4:1); not to lose hold of their confession (Heb. 4:14); not to lose their confidence and boldness (Heb. 10:19-23); not to become “dull of understanding” (Heb. 5:11); or “sluggish” (Heb. 6:12); to develop from spiritual childhood to maturity (Heb. 5:12-14); continue in “faith and patience” (Heb. 6:9-12); not to “grow weary” or “lose heart” (Heb. 12:3); and to “strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed” (Heb. 12:12-13).

The admonition of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 6:9 is apropos to the dangers these saints faced: “Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.”

But, those were not the only dangers alluded to or spoken of directly in this epistle. These saints also faced dangers that challenged their faith that were both active and external. These threats included public censure and abuse, seizure of their property, and imprisonment, as well as potential association with those so treated and the collateral persecution resulting from that association. These pressures were both a past reality and, seemingly, a present threat.

32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one (Heb. 10:32-34).

Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are ill- treated, since you yourselves also are in the body (Heb. 13:3).

It is in these active, external dangers and their source wherein a potential insight may be made in regard to the Jew-Gentile question. Peter O’Brien, in his exegesis of the text, makes this interesting comment on these persecutions, “While the dangers threatening the community are expressed…, the reasons for their returning to some form of Judaism are

126 not spelled out by the author. Instead, they are only hinted at.”105 It is in this “hint” that an inference can be drawn.

The source of these dangers is open to speculation by various commentators. The position one advocates is most likely influenced by the dating of the epistle, the location of the readers, and other factors such as the amount of “leeway” concerning judicial enforcement the Jews had actually under Roman rule. But, for our purposes, a definitive answer is not required. Whether it was Jewish sources, namely in the person of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2, 13, 21; 22:4-5, 19; 26:10-11; Gal. 1:13), or the Roman authorities who may no longer have viewed Christianity as a religio licita; both parties understood there was something distinctly different about Christianity and its claims. What once was viewed as a Jewish sect (Acts 28:22) was now seen as distinctly separate in practice, focus, and composition. Regardless of whether you were from a Hebrew background or a Gentile one, you were either a Christian or Jew based upon doctrine and practice.

The “Words” of Hebrews

There are certain “key-words” found throughout Hebrews that emphasize both the differences between the two covenants and the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. These “key-words” not only highlight the differences and merits of one covenant over the other, they also provide telling commentary regarding the Jew-Gentile question. They tell us once for all it is about being in Christ, not one’s earthly ancestor, that determines one’s fellowship with God (Heb. 8:7-13).

“Contrasting-Words”

A mere cursory reading of the text reveals a number of different words that are used to contrast the Old and New Covenants. Words that reflect timing, origin, substance, and quality are all used to force the readers’ minds to the inescapable conclusion intended— Christ is superior in all ways.

OLD COVENANT NEW COVENANT “daily” “once” (7:27; 10:11) (6:4; 9:7, 26, 27, 28; 10:2; 12,26, 27) “often” “once for all” (9:25, 26; 10:11) (7:27; 9:12; 10:10) “pattern” “true” (8:5; 9:23) (8:2; 9:24; 10:22) “first” “heart” (8:7, 13; 9:1, 2, 6, 8, 15, 18; 10:9) (3:8, 10, 12, 15; 4:7, 12; 8:10; 10:16) “worldly” “eternal, forever” (9:1)

105 O’Brien, 13. 127

(1:8; 5:6, 9; 6:2, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:12, 14, 15; 13:8, 20) “heavens, heavenly” “made with hands” (1:10; 3:1; 4:14; 6:4; 7:26; 8:1, 5; 9:23, (9:11, 24) 24; 11:16; 12:22, 25, 26) “perfect” (2:10; 5:9, 14; 6:1; 7:11, 19, 28; 9:9, 11; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:2, 23) “better” (1:4; 6:9; 7:7, 19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24)

Many of these words are used as components in one of the Hebrew writer’s favorite rhetorical devices—the argument of “the lesser to the greater.” This type of argument is also known as the “how-much-more” principle, a minori ad maius, or qal wahomer (“light and heavy”), and was a common type of reasoning among rabbis.106 Lightfoot expresses well the critical role this type of reasoning played in the author’s overall argument in Hebrews:

Because Hebrews deals so much with contrasts of the old and new covenants, the author is able to take special advantage of the “how-much-more” principle in his argumentation. “For if,” he says, “the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ…purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (9:13-14). The argument here expresses very well much of the message of the Epistle.107

Both the words of “contrast” and the way they were employed emphasized the author’s point, and led the readers to the unavoidable conclusion—by every means of measurement Christ is superior.

“Better-Words”

One of these words that we would benefit from examining more closely is the term “better.” We first encounter this concept in Hebrews 1.4, and after a perfunctory reading of the epistle, we might conclude this word, out of all others, was critical to the Hebrew writer’s argument, since thirteen of the nineteen usages in the New Testament are found in this letter.108

The word “better” reflects Christ’s superiority to the prophets (1:1-4), to angels (1:5- 2:18), to Moses (3:1-4:14), and to Aaron (4:14-7:28). It is this last area of superiority, the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood, wherein we also see the superiority of the covenant (8:1-

106 Lightfoot, 81. 107 Ibid, 81-82. 108 Gareth L. Reese, New Testament Epistles: Hebrews, (Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Books, 1992), 7. 128

13), sanctuary (9:1-28), and sacrifice (10:1-18), as well as better promises (8:6), hope (7:19), and country (11:16). As Lightfoot notes:

With such precisely chosen terms the author argues that Christianity is better than anything that had previously been made known to man. And, as Bruce remarks, it is difficult “to not read between the lines, and to see behind the apologetic better the dogmatic best.”109

“Censorious-Words”

It is not only the “contrasting-words” or the positive words and phrases that extol the virtues of the Son of God and the New Covenant, but it is also the negative or condemnatory words the writer uses to describe their temptation to revert back to Judaism. These words define the parameters of the Jew-Gentile question, and once-for-all answer the question of Judaism’s place in God’s kingdom since Christ’s crucifixion, death, and resurrection.

Throughout this epistle there are a number of hortatory asides or strong exhortations for this community of believers to remain faithful. In the midst of these arguments the Hebrew writer’s choice of words censure their behavior or potential behavior, and pronounce a scathing denunciation of a potential return to Judaism. In the following paragraphs we will notice several examples of the impact of these types of words. The first occasion I would reference is found in Hebrews 2:1-4. The writer, after arguing that Christ is superior to the angels (1:3-14), warns of the surer punishment that awaits those who “neglect so great a salvation.” In the context of this passage the writer makes another “lesser to greater argument” where, if revelation delivered by angels (as referenced to in Acts 7:53) “received a just penalty,” how much more if they neglect the revelation spoken by the very Son of God?110 As F. F. Bruce rightly notes:

Whatever be the precise metaphorical force of the verb here, our author is warning Christian readers, who have heard and accepted the gospel, that if they yield to the temptation to abandon their profession their plight is hopeless [emphasis mine].111

The next text I think is informative and germane to this line of reasoning is in Hebrews 3:12. In this text the writer is urging his readers to individually examine their hearts. For those who are being tempted to return to Judaism, he then describes their attitude/mindset as having an “evil, unbelieving heart.” By describing their temptation in this manner, he presents it not so much as a choice between two alternative-but-equal beliefs, but as apostasy.

To abandon Jesus and Christianity in favor of returning to the religion of the Old Testament is tantamount to apostasy from God…It is impossible for a man to turn

109 Lightfoot, 37. 110 Lightfoot, 70. 111 Cited by Martel Pace, Truth of Today Commentary: Hebrews, (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 2007), 69. 129

his back upon the highest revelation God has given (i.e., the Son, 1:2ff) and yet possess a true faith in God. When a man repudiates Jesus, he also repudiates God.112

As Lightfoot well states, “…to lapse back into Judaism is to fall away from the livingGod.”113

Finally, perhaps the strongest denunciation of the Hebrew Christians’ potential behavior is found in Hebrews 10:26-31. This text in Greek begins with the word “willfully” or “deliberately” placing a vivid emphasis on the actions of some and the potential actions of others.114 This verse says it is “sin,” and a deliberate sin at that, to absent oneself from the assembly. The “sin” is found in the reason for the absence, namely, a deliberate choice to cease confessing Christ, and a measured rejection of the truth they had once received. One who acts in this manner is not merely returning to the God of his fathers but has become God’s adversary.

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES (Heb. 10.26-27).

The writer then proceeds to elaborate on this potential behavior by describing in graphic detail what their choice actually entails. He says their return to Judaism was tantamount to “trampling underfoot the Son of God.” This is a picture of utter disdain. James Moffatt says it “denotes contempt of the most flagrant kind.”115 Furthermore it is as if they regard the sacrifice and the blood that was shed to ratify, seal, and establish the New Covenant as common, as if Jesus’ death was no different than any other man. And finally, they insult the Spirit of grace. They act in an arrogant manner to the very One who led them to God’s grace (Jn. 14-16; Mk. 3:29).

All those individuals, who succumbed to temptation and returned to Judaism, had to look forward to was to “fall into the hands of the living God” (10.31). The expression to “fall into one’s hands” speaks of being at the mercy of or being in the control of another. For the righteous, those in Christ Jesus, being in God’s hands was both a relief and comfort “for His mercies are great” (2 Sam. 24:14). But, for those who “turn back” there is nothing that remains except a “terrifying expectation.”

Throughout this epistle the writer leaves no doubt concerning the consequences of returning to Judaism. The question before his readers is why would you contemplate such a step, because what you have in Christ Jesus is “so much better” than you ever had before?

112 Reese, 48. 113 Lightfoot, 90. 114 Reese, 181. 115 Cited by Reese, 184. 130

Conclusion

Paul states in Colossians 2:13-14 that the certificate of debt which consisted of decrees was cancelled when it was nailed to cross. In Ephesians 2:14-16 he states that in Christ’s flesh He abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances. In 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 Paul states that the letters’ glory which was engraved in stone was fading away. The Hebrew writer’s words follow a similar theme, but draw the argument to its inevitable conclusion. After putting one’s hand to the plow (Lk. 9:62) there is no returning to Judaism and still being in a right relationship with God. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (Gal. 5:3-4).

Bibliography

Curry, Melvin, ed. Hebrews for Every Man. Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 1988.

Hagner, Donald A. New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1983.

Lightfoot, Neil R. Jesus Christ for Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews. Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1976.

McGarvey, J. W. Original Commentary on Acts. Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, Ninth Edition.

O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Hebrews. Grand Rapid, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Pace, Martel. Truth for Today Commentary: Hebrews. Searcy, AR: Resource Publishing, 2007.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament Epistles: Hebrews. Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Books, 1992.

131

Did The Events Recorded In Acts 15 Take Place Before Or After Those Recorded In Galatians 1 & 2?

By Allen Dvorak

“After this, Paul stayed many days longer…” (Acts 18:18; ESV).116

Such statements can be found frequently in the work of the inspired historian Luke (e.g., 9:19, 23; 14:28). Although he was precise about chronological matters in some cases (e.g., Acts 20:6), his overall purpose in writing was not to construct a precise timeline of the events chronicled in Acts. As a result, we are sometimes left without specific chronological information about some of the events/periods in the life of the apostle Paul. It is also evident that Luke did not record everything that happened to Paul.117

The book of Acts does give us a “skeleton” framework for Paul’s life. We have the story of his conversion and the early days of his preaching. We are apprized of his association with the congregation at Antioch. Luke also recorded three evangelistic journeys of Paul and his incarceration in Jerusalem at the conclusion of the third journey. We know of his imprisonment at Caesarea and the trip to Rome as a prisoner. Of the general order of events, we can speak with some certainty.

Even though Luke did not “date” all of the major events in Paul’s life, the connection between some events in Acts and secular events to which Luke referred supplies us with some chronological markers. For instance, we know that Herod Agrippa’s death, recorded in Acts 12, occurred in the summer of A.D. 44. As a ruler appointed by Rome, secular records inform us of the transition that followed his death.

During Paul’s second missionary journey, he appeared before Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, while at the city of Corinth (Acts 18:12). Although there is some question about exactly when Gallio became proconsul, his time in office can be placed in the timeframe of A.D. 51-52.118

We also know that, during his Caesarean imprisonment, Paul appeared before two Roman procurators (“governors”), Felix and Festus. The dates of their time in office can also be dated (A.D. 52-60; A.D. 60-62, respectively). Since Paul appeared before both of these

116 Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted. 117 For example, Paul’s second visit to Corinth is not recorded in Acts (see 2 Corinthians 2:1; 12:14; 13:1). It is also obvious that many of the things Paul suffered, as generally enumerated to the Corinthians, were not recorded by Luke (2 Corinthians 11:23-25). 118 Gallio’s proconsulship is dated by means of secular inscriptions. “The dates of Gallio are well established by other inscriptions. He must not have arrived in Corinth before July, A. D. 51. Paul appeared before him after having ministered in the city for almost 18 months. That would date Paul’s arrival in Corinth at the beginning of A.D. 50” (Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 515). 132 procurators, we can place Paul’s time in Caesarea to include the end of Felix’s time in office.119

The famine in Acts 11, concerning which Agabus prophesied, was during the time of the emperor Claudius (v. 28). However, since Claudius ruled for an extended period of time (A.D. 41-54) and famines are not always date-specific, that chronological marker may not be specific enough to assist us in any helpful way.120

Utilizing the chronological information already mentioned, we can put together a general summary of Paul’s life (as far as Acts records), including his visits to Jerusalem (of primary interest in our study). Such a summary follows:121

His conversion and time in Damascus (Acts 9:1-22) A.D. 33

Time in Arabia (Galatians 1:17)

Return to Damascus

1st Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-30)122

Time in Syria and Cilicia (Galatians 1:21)

Time in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26)

2nd Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; 12:25) A.D. 45

First missionary journey (Acts 13:1 – 14:27) A.D. 45-48

3rd Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-30)

Second missionary journey (Acts 15:40 – 18:21) A.D. 50-53

4th Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 18:22)

Third missionary journey (Acts 18:23 – 21:15) A.D. 53-58

5th Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17 – 23:30)

119 Luke wrote that two years had passed when Festus took the place of Felix (Acts 24:27). 120 “To be sure, there was not one Empire-wide famine during the reign of Claudius (nor at any other time); there were, however, ‘frequent famines’, according to the historian Seutonius, and this is an adequate fulfillment of the prophecy. There was certainly famine in Judea c. AD 46…” (Marshall, p. 204). 121 The dates suggested in this summary are just one viewpoint of the chronology. See Appendix B for other opinions. 122 Hereafter, Paul’s visits to Jerusalem will be referenced by their order in the book of Acts, i.e., Visit #1, Visit #2, etc. 133

Imprisonment in Caesarea (Acts 23:32 – 26:32) A.D. 58-60

Journey to Rome (Acts 27:1 – 28:16) A.D. 61

Imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:17-31) A.D. 61-63

Naturally, some of Paul’s epistles supply personal notes that also assist the Bible student in putting some of the events of the apostle’s life and even his epistles in chronological order. It is some of Paul’s comments, found in Galatians, about his own history that are the subject of this study.

The Galatians 2 Controversy

In his Galatian epistle, Paul mentioned two visits that he made to Jerusalem. His first reference to a Jerusalem visit is in Galatians 1:18.

15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:15–18)

The overwhelming opinion of commentators concerning this visit to Jerusalem is that it was Paul’s first visit, the one recorded in Acts 9:26-30 (Visit #1). This study is focused on the controversy surrounding the identity of a second visit, mentioned by Paul in Galatians 2.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. (Galatians 2:1)

Just as there is broad consensus regarding the identity of the first visit, commentators are generally agreed that the second visit in Galatians is not Visit #5.123 However, Paul’s reference is understood by various Bible students to be to Visit #2, Visit #3 or even Visit #4. Before evaluating the arguments for and against each of these views, there are several matters that should be considered.

1) What is the time referent in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1? When Paul wrote “after three years” (1:18), did he mean three years after the time of his conversion (referenced in 1:15-16) or did he mean three years after his return to Damascus following his stay in Arabia? When Paul wrote “then after fourteen years” (2:1), did he mean another fourteen years after the three years referenced in Galatians 1:18 or did he mean fourteen years after his conversion? Opinions vary as to Paul’s intention.

123 Conybeare & Howson, p. 250. 134

2) If Paul used an inclusive (any part is reckoned as a whole) method of reckoning time (in his comments in Galatians), a period of three years could actually have lasted only a little over one year (one full year and small portions of the year preceding and following). Likewise, fourteen years could actually refer to a period of time only slightly longer than 12 years (12 full years and small portions of the year preceding and following the 12 full years). Without knowing how Paul calculated his time, it is difficult to say with precision what dates should be associated with these visits to Jerusalem.

3) Could Visit #2 and Visit #3 actually be a “doublet” (a pair of similar things)? Some commentators have concluded that the Jerusalem visit of Galatians 2 must be Visit #3 (Acts 15) because of similarities between the two and yet do not believe that Paul would have failed to mention Visit #2 (Acts 11). Their solution is to propose inaccuracy on the part of the historian Luke, affirming that he gave two accounts (Acts 11 & 15) of the same visit to Jerusalem. Alan Cole describes this view, but rejects it:

More radical biblical critics find the answer in saying that Acts 11:30 and 15:2 represent variant accounts of the same incident, and that we have here an example of a ‘doublet’, in fact. But this is an impossible view for those who have a high opinion of the historicity of Acts, a historicity borne out in recent years in many minor aspects. That being so, we cannot say that Galatians 2:1 refers to this one and the same Jerusalem visit.124

F. F. Bruce refines the description of this viewpoint:

It has been held that these two were originally variant accounts, drawn from two separate sources, of one and the same visit, of which Gal. 2:1–10 presents a first- hand account: so J. Wellhausen, ‘Noten zur Apostelgeschichte’, Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. (1907), 1ff.; E. Schwartz, ‘Zur Chronologie des Paulus’, ibid., 263ff.; K. Lake, BC (The Beginnings of Christianity) I.5, 199ff.125

4) Conybeare and Howson include Visit #4 as one of the options for the identity of the second visit in Galatians, but they offer no example of any commentator who takes that position.126 F. F. Bruce identifies some who hold this view.127 Personally, I discount this view.

5) Could the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 2 be another visit besides the five mentioned in Acts? Conybeare and Howson cite some writers who take that view.128 This is not outside the realm of possibility inasmuch as we are aware that Acts does not record everything that Paul did or that happened to him.

124 Cole, p. 101. 125 Bruce, p. 108. 126 Conybeare & Howson, p. 249-250. 127 Bruce, p. 109. He mentions J. Knox and J. van Bruggen. 128 Conybeare & Howson, p. 250. 135

Two Reconstructions

The following is a chart published in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (article on New Testament chronology by John Piper) that portrays clearly the two major (most common) views regarding Paul’s visits to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians:129

Reconstruction 1 Reconstruction 2

Acts Galatians Acts Galatians

9:26-30 = 1:18 9:26-30 = 1:18 11:30 = 2:1-10 11:30 = omitted 15:1-29 = omitted 15:1-29 = 2:1-10

Reconstruction #1 is the view that Galatians 2 is a reference to Paul’s Visit #2. Reconstruction #2 is the view that Galatians 2 is a reference to Paul’s Visit #3.

Several arguments have been offered in favor of each reconstruction or against the opposing reconstruction. My evaluation of each argument follows its presentation below.

Arguments for Reconstruction #1 130

Argument #1) Paul’s purpose in Galatians in recounting his visits to Jerusalem was to show that he had received the gospel he preached directly from Christ and not from any man. He didn’t visit Jerusalem to receive instruction from the other apostles. With that purpose in mind, it seems unlikely that Paul would omit his second visit (famine visit – Visit #2). Jumping to the third visit (Acts 15) would give his Judaizing detractors the opportunity to allege that he could have gotten his gospel on that second visit and to charge him with dishonesty for the omission.

Evaluation – This argument appears to me to be particularly convincing. Paul clearly stated his objective in Galatians 1:11-12.

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Accepting the premise that he recounted his visits to Jerusalem for the purpose of showing that he did not receive the gospel he preached from any man, his argument is

129 Elwell, Vol. 1, p. 445. 130 The arguments for each of these reconstructions are summarized from those given in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (pp. 445-446), although most of the arguments are common and can also be found in other sources cited in the bibliography. 136 immeasurably weakened by the omission of Visit #2 in the personal history he gave in Galatians. William Ramsay emphasized this point in his comments on Galatians 2:

Here in passing let us ask the question, Did Paul in this autobiographical sketch, given in such solemn yet vehement style, with the oath by God that he is not deceiving them—did Paul, I say, omit to mention that he had paid another visit to Jerusalem between the two that he describes? The question seems almost an insult; yet many scholars of the highest order consider that he here leaves out of sight the visit described by Luke, 11:28–30, and 12:25. I confess that, after studying all that the orthodox scholars say on this point I find a higher conception of Paul’s character and truthfulness in the position of the critics who conclude that Luke utterly misconceived the sequence of events in early Christian history and interpolated an intermediate visit where no visit occurred, than in Bishop Lightfoot’s position that “of this visit Paul makes no mention here.” Paul’s argument is rounded on the rarity of his visits, and his aim is to show that on these visits he received no charge from the Twelve. Reason and truth rebel against the idea that he left out the middle visit. If he passed over part of the facts here, what situation can be imagined in which he would feel obliged to tell all the facts? And on that supposition, that Paul omitted a fact so essential to his purpose and to honest autobiography, the entire body of orthodox scholars have built up their theory of early Church history! It cannot be! Luke’s second visit must be Paul’s second visit [recounted in Galatians – asd]; and when we build boldly on that plain foundation, the history rises before us in order and symmetry.131

Cole succinctly summarizes Barclay’s argument by stating,

But the whole point of the argument would seem to be lost if Paul has omitted the account of a second visit and gone directly to tell of a third visit.132

Argument #2) The meeting in Galatians 2 appears to have been a private meeting between Paul and Barnabas and the “pillars” (James, Cephas and John), but Acts 15 clearly describes a public discussion witnessed by the whole church. It is thus more likely that the visit of Galatians 2 refers to a private meeting that occurred during the visit of Acts 11, a meeting Luke did not record.

Evaluation – Acts 15 certainly describes a public meeting, rather than a private meeting. However, if Reconstruction #1 can assume that such a private meeting could have occurred in Acts 11, even though Luke didn’t record one, why can’t the same assumption be made with respect to Acts 15? The fact that Acts 15 describes a public meeting doesn’t preclude the existence of a private meeting as well. This argument is a weak one.

Argument #3) “Paul’s eagerness to give to the poor mentioned in Galatians 2:10 connects naturally with the second Jerusalem visit when he was in fact delivering relief to the poor (Acts 11:30).”

131 Ramsay, pp. 186-187. 132 Cole, pp. 100-101. Gunther (p. 30) and others make the same argument. 137

Evaluation – When Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem in Acts 11, they were bringing financial aid from brethren in Antioch in anticipation of the famine predicted by Agabus (vv. 27-30). It would seem almost unnecessary to encourage Paul to “remember the poor” when he was in the very process of helping in their aid. Such a connection is not impossible, but it seems a little “awkward.” On the other hand, it could be argued that the apostles were encouraging Paul to continue to do what he was already doing – encouragement in view of his future work among the Gentiles. Of course, Paul’s comment in Galatians 2:10 – “the very thing I was eager to do” – would form a natural connection to his Acts 11 visit, during which he was engaged in bringing aid to the poor.

Argument #4) The fact that Paul did not mention in Galatians the decision reached as a result of the Acts 15 meeting in Jerusalem suggests that the meeting had not yet taken place. Since the decision of the Acts 15 meeting and the problem of circumcision addressed in Galatians were directly related, Paul certainly would have mentioned the decision as an important part of his argument in the epistle.

Evaluation – I believe this to be a very strong argument. The decision of the Acts 15 meeting conveyed in the letter sent to Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia would have been outstanding evidence that the gospel Paul preached was not his own, but in fact reflected that of the Holy Spirit as the letter stated (Acts 15:28).

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: (Acts 15:28)

It should be remembered that Paul’s objective in Galatians was to affirm that the gospel he preached was not his own, but that which he had received by revelation (1:12). The letter, reflecting the will of the Holy Spirit, would have been an excellent witness to that point…and yet Paul didn’t mention the letter to the Galatians!

Max Anders argues for Reconstruction #2:

In Galatians 2, Paul continues to defend himself. Apparently, his critics had not only attacked the authority of his gospel but had also said he was a renegade, opposed to and independent from the apostles in Jerusalem. After responding to their first charge, he responded to the second charge by pointing out that the Jerusalem apostles had, in fact, endorsed his message. They affirmed that he was part of their team.133

It should be pointed out again that while the apostles did indeed “endorse his message,” Paul did not mention the letter of Acts 15, nor did he directly reference the decision reflected in that letter. Admittedly, this is an argument based on what Paul did not write, but the omission seems very significant. A similar and accepted argument is made with reference to the date of Hebrews, i.e., if the temple had been destroyed prior to its

133 Anders, p. 20. 138 authorship, surely the author of Hebrews would have mentioned that fact, in light of its significance to the argument of the book.

Commenting on the visit of Galatians 2, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, citing another author, suggest four reasons why Paul did not mention the decree of Acts 15:

The same visit to Jerusalem as in Ac 15:1–4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Ga 3:3; 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, “Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law” (Ga 5:4), [PALEY].134

In Galatians 2:6, Paul affirmed that those “who seemed influential added nothing to me,” the same point that he was making in Galatians 1:12. However, he also noted that he met with those individuals and “set before them…the gospel I proclaim among the Gentiles in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain” (Galatians 2:2). Although Paul wanted the Galatians to know that he had not received his gospel from men, he also was not averse to comparing his gospel with that preached by others. To cite the decree from the Jerusalem meeting would not have detracted from his apostolic authority, but rather would have confirmed that he was preaching the same gospel as the other apostles. We must also remember that the decree was not made independently of Paul; Paul and Barnabas spoke at the Jerusalem meeting and the recounting of their experiences among the Gentiles was partly responsible for the decree.

Reason #3 makes a distinction where there is no difference. The cause of the Jerusalem meeting was that some were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5). The essence of the decree from the Jerusalem meeting was that Gentiles did not have to keep the Law of Moses, the very thing that Paul was affirming in the book of Galatians. Reason #4 seems to be suggesting that the Galatians thought keeping the Law of Moses was optional. But Paul wrote, “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised…” (Galatians 6:12 – emphasis mine - asd; see also 2:14). That doesn’t sound optional! In short, I am unconvinced by these arguments regarding the value of citing the Jerusalem decree.

134 Jamieson, et. al., p. 326. 139

In listing reasons to support Visit #3 as the Galatians 2 visit, the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible argues exactly opposite of Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, even though these commentators hold the Reconstruction #2 viewpoint!

On the basis of form and content Galatians is similar to Romans and to 1 and 2 Corinthians; it would thus seem to come from the same period—considerably later than the Jerusalem council. If so, it is likely that Paul would have included a reference to the Jerusalem council (namely Gal 2:1–10) in his recollections, since its outcome supported his own stance on circumcision set forth in the letter.135

Argument #5) Peter was rebuked by Paul for withdrawing from Gentile believers in Galatians 2:11-14. It would be unlikely that Peter would behave that way so soon after the meeting in Acts 15 when the issue of the status of Gentiles had been settled.

Evaluation – This is not a very compelling argument. The argument depends upon the short time between the Acts 15 meeting and the rebuke related in Galatians 2:11-14. Hypocrisy, however, is not a function of time (cf. the time between Peter’s affirmation of loyalty to Jesus and his three denials in the courtyard of the high priest; Mt. 26:30-35; 69- 75).

In addition, if the visit of Galatians 2 is Visit #2 (Acts 11), the time between Peter’s hypocrisy and his experience with Cornelius (Acts 10) was also short. In essence, the same argument above would work against the visit of Reconstruction #1 as well.

Argument #6) The Galatian letter was written “quickly” after the establishment of the Galatian churches (1:6). That would fit well if it was written soon after Paul’s first missionary journey and before the meeting of Acts 15.

Evaluation – If Galatians was indeed written soon after Paul’s first missionary journey, the date of writing would not have been a long time before the meeting of Acts 15. The relatively small difference in time makes this argument less than compelling. The word “quickly” would perhaps rule out Visits #4 & #5, but fails to make a clear distinction between the possibilities of Visits #2 and #3.

Argument #7)136 In Galatians 2:2, Paul noted that he “went up [to Jerusalem – asd] by revelation” (NKJV). This fits well with Visit #2, a visit to Jerusalem prompted by the prophecy of Agabus concerning a famine (Acts 11:27-30).

Evaluation – The question to be asked, regarding the revelation mentioned by Paul, is whether Paul received a revelation directly, instructing him to go to Jerusalem or the revelation was to Agabus and indirectly involved Paul as a messenger with aid for the

135 Elwell, p. 446. 136 This argument was not mentioned in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, but Gunther mentions it (pp. 30-31). 140 poor. The ESV translates “because of a revelation” (κατά with the accusative case),137 a translation of the preposition that is still vague enough that no definitive answer to the question can be given. I would describe this argument as suggestive, but not conclusive.

Arguments for Reconstruction #2

Argument #1) “The main purpose of Paul’s visit in Galatians 2:1–10 appears to be the same as that in Acts 15:1–29; both dealt with the issue of whether circumcision should be required of gentile converts (Gal. 2:3–5; Acts 15:1, 5). That similarity is obvious: but there is no such explicit similarity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11:30.”

Evaluation – This is, in my estimation, a very reasonable argument. When one reads of the Galatians 2 visit, the circumstances do indeed seem similar to those of Acts 15. Utley points out:

I personally believe Galatians 2 relates to Acts 15 because in both cases Barnabas was present, the subject matter is the same, and Peter and James are both named.138

However, it should be noted that Barnabas is mentioned in both Visit #2 and #3. Peter was evidently present in Jerusalem during both Visit #2 and #3. The account of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11 is not very detailed; perhaps that is the reason there is no “explicit similarity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11:30.”

The question of Gentile circumcision appears to have been a recurring one. It is not outside of the realm of possibility that this question was addressed during the Acts 11 visit AND the Acts 15 visit, even though there is no “explicit” record of this. Nor is it hard to believe that Paul had to deal with Judaizing teachers prior to Acts 15. It certainly seems clear that he had to deal with them AFTER Acts 15 (see the descriptions of Paul’s detractors in his apologia of 2 Corinthians 10-13).

Argument #2) Galatians is similar to Romans and the Corinthian epistles in both form and content and thus was probably from the same time period, i.e., after the Jerusalem meeting of Acts 15. It is argued that Galatians 2:1-10 is, in fact, a reference to the Jerusalem council, “since its outcome supported his own stance on circumcision set forth in the letter.”

Evaluation – I would disagree that Galatians is similar to Romans and the Corinthian epistles (particularly First Corinthians) in content. In addition, arguments on “form” tend to be subjective in nature. As to the affirmation that Galatians 2 does, in fact, reference Paul’s visit of Acts 15 – if this was clear, the controversy regarding the Galatians 2 visit wouldn’t even exist! It does seem clear, however, that Paul did not explicitly reference the letter that resulted from the Jerusalem meeting, or the decree it contained. I believe this argument to be a weak one.

137 Dana & Mantey give “along, at, according to” as meanings for κατά with the accusative case (p. 107); Summers gives “along, according to” as possible meanings (p. 31). 138 Utley, p. 18. 141

Argument #3) Since Barnabas’ name is given first place in Acts 11:30, he appears to be the leader (see also Acts 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7), a position that Paul seems to have occupied from the first missionary journey onward (Acts 13:9, 13, 43, 46, 50). In Galatians 2, Paul wrote as though he was the leader, suggesting a visit after the first missionary journey, i.e., Visit #3.

Evaluation – This argument suggests that we can arrange events in chronological order based on the order of the names of Paul and Barnabas in the text. I would make two observations about this affirmation. First, the order of the names is not even consistent in Acts 15 (Paul and Barnabas – vv. 2, 22, 35; Barnabas and Paul – vv. 12, 25)! This makes one wonder if any concrete conclusion concerning leadership can be drawn from the order of names. Second, did Paul actually write in Galatians 2 as though he was the leader? In Paul’s account in Galatians 2, he wrote that he “went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me” (v. 1). Does that language imply that Paul was the “leader” of the two? He didn’t write that he “took” Barnabas with him (see, however, the NKJV here – “…and also took Titus with me” – emphasis mine - asd). This argument suffers primarily from the question of whether Paul indicated his “leadership” in Galatians 2.

Argument #4) During the Galatians 2 visit, Paul was recognized by the “pillars” (James, Cephas and John) as the apostle to the Gentiles, on par with Peter as the apostle to the circumcised. “But if Galatians 2 recorded the events of Acts 11:30 and the first missionary journey had not yet occurred, the ‘pillar’ apostles could hardly have recognized Paul’s authority as apostle to the Gentiles.” Such recognition would have been much more likely following the first missionary journey.

Evaluation – Paul’s role as “apostle to the Gentiles” was not based on his work among them (in the first missionary journey or even his other journeys), but rather by divine commission. In the Lord’s initial appearance to Saul on the road to Damascus, Saul was informed that he would be sent to the Gentiles (Acts 26:16-17). Ananias was told this as he was being sent to Saul in Damascus (Acts 9:15). The Lord reminded Saul of his mission to the Gentiles while in a trance during his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion (Acts 22:17-21). To argue that Paul wouldn’t have been recognized as the “apostle to the Gentiles” until AFTER the first missionary journey would necessitate that these visions were unknown to the other apostles and that Paul’s mission to the Gentiles was the result of his work among them on the first missionary journey. That is hard to believe; thus I believe this argument to be a rather weak one.

Final Considerations

In evaluating the arguments for and against the two “reconstructions,” a few arguments stand out. In favor of Reconstruction #1 (Galatians 2 visit = Visit #2), arguments #1 (Paul’s purpose in recounting his visits) and #4 (absence of mention of the decree from the Jerusalem meeting) are the most convincing to me. In favor of Reconstruction #2

142

(Galatians 2 visit = Visit #3), argument #1 (similar circumstances between the Galatians 2 visit and the Acts 15 visit) seems to me to be the strongest.

As the table in Appendix A suggests, the majority of sources I consulted favor Reconstruction #2, i.e., that Paul’s Galatians 2 visit to Jerusalem is the visit recorded in Acts 15.

I, however, believe Reconstruction #1 to be the better viewpoint. At the risk of stating the obvious, the value one places on the various arguments for and against each reconstruction will depend on which aspect of the Galatians account is emphasized. I place a great deal of weight on Paul’s stated purpose in recounting his visits (Galatians 1:11-12).

143

Appendix A

Visit #2 Visit #3 Source Comments (Acts 11) (Acts 15) Conybeare & Howson X William Ramsay X R. Alan Cole Doesn’t take a firm position Timothy George X F. F. Bruce X J. B. Lightfoot X Daniel Arichea & Eugene Nida X H. D. M. Spence X Bob Utley X A. T. Robertson X Marvin Vincent X Kenneth Wuest X Max Anders X Matthew Henry X Hershel Hobbs & Franklin Paschall X John Walvoord & Roy Zuck X Jamieson, Fausset & Brown X J. P. Lange, Philip Schaff, et. al. X R. C. H. Lenski X Kenneth Boles X Charles Cousar Doesn’t take a firm position Larry Richards & Lawrence Richards X James Mays X Warren Wiersbe X Andrew Knowles X LeRoy Lawson X Ted Cabal, Chad Brand, et. al. X James Dunn X John Calvin X N. T. Wright X Robert Nicoll X John Wesley X Harold Mare X Earle Wilson, Alex Deasley, Barry Callen X Robert Gundry X Henry Alford X I. Howard Marshall X Richard Longenecker X Cited by Utley 13 23

144

Observations regarding Appendix A

1) Of course, the identity of Paul’s visit is not determined by majority opinion. The chart does, however, illustrate the fact that a majority of commentators favor Reconstruction #2.

2) The listed sources are just those to which I had access and that actually addressed the chronological question.

145

Appendix B

Events in Paul’s Life Piper139 NBD, 3rd Ed.140 Ramsay141 Gunther Conybeare142

Conversion 32 Summer/35 33 31 36

Time in Arabia Early summer/37

Return to Damascus

1st Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9) 34 Summer/37 34 33-34 38

Time in Syria & Cilicia (Gal. 1:21) Autumn/37

Time in Antioch (Acts 11) 40-41

2nd Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11/12) 47 Autumn 47 Winter/45-46 44 45 March/47 – First Missionary Journey 47-48 April/48 – Sept/49 46-47 48-49 August/49 3rd Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 15) 48 Autumn 49 Winter/49-50 48 – (49) 50 Arrival in April/50 – 51 – Second Missionary Journey Corinth April/50 – Sept/52 49-53(52) March/53 Summer/54 /early 50 4th Visit to Jerusalem (Acts 18:22) Sept/52 March/53 53(52) Summer/54 June/53 – Autumn/54 – Third Missionary Journey Spring/53 – May/57 54-57 May/57 Summer/58 5th Visit to Jerusalem mid 57 May/57 May/57 Winter 57 Summer/58 June/57 – July Winter/57 – Summer/58 – Imprisonment in Caesarea 57-59 June/57 – August/59 59 August/59 August/59 August/59 – August/59 – Sept/59 – August/59 – Journey to Rome 59 February/60 February/60 March/60 Spring/61 February/60 – February/60 – Spring/61 – Imprisonment in Rome 60-62 60-61 March/62 End of 61 Spring/63

Observations regarding Appendix B

1) These sources acknowledge that these are approximate dates.

2) It is interesting to observe the large variations in the suggested dates of such events as the conversion of Paul and his first visit to Jerusalem.

3) In addition to chronological benchmarks confirmed by secular sources, Paul mentioned a “gap” of 14 years in Galatians 2:1. Sources in the table have dated Paul’s conversion and his second and third visits to Jerusalem according to their view of the identity of his Galatians 2 visit and how they view the counting of the fourteen years.

139 John Piper in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, p. 448. 140 The New Bible Dictionary, 3rd Ed., pp. 198-199. 141 Ramsay, p. 395. 142 Conybeare & Howson, Vol. 2, pp. 665-666. 146

Bibliography

Alford, H. Alford’s Greek Testament: an exegetical and critical commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976.

Anders, M. Galatians-Colossians. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.

Arichea, D. C., & Nida, E. A. A handbook on Paul’s letter to the Galatians. New York: United Bible Societies, 1976.

Boles, K. L. Galatians & Ephesians. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982.

Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.

Campbell, D. K. (1985). Galatians. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Caner, E. M. (2007). Is Allah Identical to the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ? In T. Cabal, C. O. Brand, E. R. Clendenen, P. Copan, & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

Cole, R. A. Galatians: an introduction and commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Conybeare, W. J., & Howson, J. S. The life and epistles of St. Paul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893.

Cousar, C. B. Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians : a literary and theological commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2001.

Dana, H. E. & Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company, 1957.

Dunn, J. D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. London: Continuum, 1993.

Fields, W. C. (1972). Galatians. In H. F. Paschall & H. H. Hobbs (Eds.), The teacher’s Bible commentary. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers.

George, T. Galatians. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

147

Gundry, R. H. Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.

Gunther, J. J. Paul, Messenger and Exile: A Study in the Chronology of His Life and Letters. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1972.

Henry, M. Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Knowles, A. The Bible guide. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001.

Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., & Schmoller, O. A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Galatians. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.

Lawson, L. Galatians, Ephesians: Unlocking the Scriptures for You. Cincinnati, OH: Standard, 1987.

Lenski, R. C. H. The interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians. Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937.

Lightfoot, J. B. (Ed.). St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. A revised text with introduction, notes, and dissertations. London: Macmillan and Co., 1874.

Mare, W. H. New Testament Background Commentary: A New Dictionary of Words, Phrases and Situations in Bible Order. Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2004.

Marshall, I. H. Acts: an introduction and commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980.

Mays, J. L. (Ed.). Harper’s Bible commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.

Ramsay, W. M. St. Paul the traveller and the Roman citizen. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907.

Rendall, F. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. In The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary. New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.

Richards, L. O. The Bible reader’s companion. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991.

Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. The teacher’s commentary. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987.

148

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). Galatians. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

Summers, Ray. Essentials of New Testament Greek. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1950.

Utley, R. J. Paul’s First Letters: Galatians and I & II Thessalonians. Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1997.

Vincent, M. R. Word studies in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887.

Wesley, J. Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818.

Wiersbe, W. W. The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 1, p. 689). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996.

Wilson, E. L., Deasley, A. R. G., & Callen, B. L. Galatians, Philippians, Colossians: a commentary for Bible students. Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2007.

Wright, T. Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004.

Wuest, K. S. Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: for the English reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

149

Paul’s Concern Over The Jerusalem Collection And How It Fits Into The Jew/Gentile Thing

By Dan Chaney

How Important Was Paul’s Collection For The Needy Saints In Jerusalem?

So much so that it occupies significant portions of his letters. He gives instructions concerning how and when to take up the collection in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. He spends chapters eight and nine of 2 Corinthians discussing the joy and desire of the Macedonians’ participation in this collection; and uses their example to encourage the Corinthians to finish what they had started regarding this collection. In Romans 15:14-32 we see Paul takes a 2,000 mile detour because of his desire to hand-deliver this collection. Galatians 2:10 may also be a reference to this collection. In Philippians 4:14- 20 Paul thanks the church at Philippi for contributing to his needs to support the missionary journey by which Paul was able to collect these funds.

So why was this collection so important? Why take a 2000 mile detour? Why persist even after being warned by the prophet Agabus that if you go to Jerusalem you will be bound and delivered into the hands of the Gentiles (Acts 21:11)? Was it…

The Fulfillment Of Prophecy?

Some suggest Paul saw his outreach to the Gentiles as a fulfillment of prophecy. God promised Abraham that all the nations would be blessed through his seed (Gen. 22:18). Isaiah prophesied that in the last days all the nations of the world would stream to the mountain of the Lord’s temple (Isa. 2:2). “Johannes Munck connects Paul’s collaboration with the Gentiles and the prophecies that predict that last days.”143

The Practicality Of The Need Of The Saints In Jerusalem?

Another reason to be considered is just the practicality of the need of the saints in Jerusalem. This is not the first time Paul has delivered funds for needy saints in Jerusalem. In Acts 11:27-30, Agabus foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine all over the world. In response to this, the disciples determine that relief funds be sent to the brothers and sisters living in Judea. These funds were sent by the hands of Paul and Barnabas.

A Promise He Had Made To The Church Leaders At Jerusalem?

Others believe Paul’s motivation was due to a promise he had made to the church leaders at Jerusalem in Galatians 2:10. Paul and Barnabas were asked to “remember the poor.”144

143 Heredia. 144 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New Living Translation. 150

Some believe Paul had a “falling out with the Jerusalem church” due to rumors about what he had been preaching. “[Karl] Holl, referencing Rom. 15:26-27, suggests that Gentile contributors were indebted to the Jerusalem church. Because Jerusalem was believed to be the hub of the early Christian movement, Paul and his Gentile congregations were legally obligated to return financial support to the mother church.”145 One author even dares to suggest that the collection was never exactly for the poor anyway, but was more of a “franchise fee” for the apostles themselves.146

Obviously those examples are of the ludicrous variety. But Paul did make a promise to the leaders of the church in Jerusalem that he would remember the poor. He even said that he was “eager to do so” (Gal. 2:10).

The Date Of Galatians

If this is the major reason for the collection, then the date of the book of Galatians would factor in here, based upon when Paul made the promise to remember the poor…which many believe is a reference to the poor in Judea. In Galatians, Paul gives a defense against Jewish Christians who taught that Gentile believers in Jesus needed to follow the traditions of the Jews. Paul condemned those who taught a gospel contrary to the one he had delivered (Gal. 1:8-9). To give context to his position, Paul recounts his own personal history, his former zeal for these traditions, his conversion and his relationship with the Jerusalem church and its leaders. He also shares a promise he made that he would remember the poor. Paul had already brought one collection to the poor in Acts 11. Paul and Barnabas delivered funds from the Antioch church.

If Acts 11 is Galatians 2, Paul goes on two journeys before making the third one a collection raising trip. If Acts 15 is Galatians 2, Paul goes on one journey before making the third one a collection raising trip. Some believe Paul begins revisiting the churches of Galatia in order to follow up on the epistle of Galatians. Some suggest the letter was written from Corinth between Paul’s 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys, about the time the letter of Romans was written.147

How does this relate to the collection and its purpose? Some believe Paul learned from his failure in Galatia; that just preaching and teaching was insufficient. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. So Paul arranges for this collection to help bridge the gap between Jews and Gentiles.

Bridging The Gap

I believe the collection was an effort to bridge Jew and Gentile relations that were strained not just because of obvious cultural reasons, but because of the false teaching of the Judaizers in the early church. I think you can overstate the purpose of the collection

145 Heredia. 146 Rossen. 147 Shelton. 151 as well. Teaching was an obvious reason for Paul’s 3rd missionary journey. It wasn’t all about the collection. But to deny that the collection was of great importance would also be a mistake.

Romans 15 makes it clear that Paul was concerned about Jew/Gentile relations. I believe that is why he chooses to make a 2000 mile detour, so that he could put his own “seal” upon the delivery of this collection. The entire book of Romans is an explanation of the gospel Paul preached, how it was to the Jew first and also to the Greek. In Romans 11:13- 14 Paul makes clear that some of his motivation to preach to the Gentiles was so that he might stir up some of his own countrymen and provoke them to jealousy and thus save them through this same gospel.

Let’s consider Romans 15:20-28. Paul makes it clear, his ambition is to preach the gospel where Christ has not already been named. He has a desire to be a frontier evangelist. Paul is so passionate about this mindset, that he lists it as the reason he has not been able to come visit the Roman brethren. But now, he says, I have a strong desire to see you. He hoped the brethren in Rome would help him on his way to Spain to continue his frontier evangelism.

Except for one huge detail…Paul is going to make a 2000 mile detour first. If Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, as many believe, then Jerusalem is about 1000 miles in the wrong direction. Paul really wants to go to Rome. He has longed to do so for many years. But now, he still isn’t headed to Rome. Why? Because he wants to deliver these collected funds first, by his own hand.

So does Paul want to go to Rome or not? I believe him, in vs. 23. The conclusion we are forced to draw is that this detour to Jerusalem is really important. “But,” as John Piper asks, “what could possibly be so important that Paul can’t simply hand it off to someone else to do in Jerusalem?”148

Piper lists four facts from Romans 15:25-28:

1) Paul still intends to come to Rome and then go to Spain. 2) There are poor Christians in Jerusalem. We know there had been a severe famine in AD 44 and 48 thanks to Josephus (Antiquities iii. 15.; xx. 2.5; 5.2). 3) The Christians in Macedonia and Achaia had taken up offerings to send to the poor in Jerusalem. (2 Cor. 8-9) 4) Paul himself is delivering this offering to the poor in Jerusalem rather than giving this task to someone else.

Why? Why this detour? Why not hand it off to someone else, like he’s done before? He entrusted Onesimus with his letter to Philemon, a letter that concerned Onesimus’ own fate. Various tasks of significant responsibility were entrusted to Timothy and Titus: delivering letters, preaching the gospel, dealing with difficult brethren, even elders. So why not hand this off to them? Not only that, but we know there were representatives from each church carrying their own funds. So why does Paul have to go himself?

148 Piper. 152

Was Paul worried about embezzlement and the gospel’s reputation? 2 Cor. 9:13 connects the gospel and this offering. “By their approval of this service, they (the poor saints in Jerusalem) will glorify God because of your (Gentiles) submission, flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ.” In other words, one of the things at stake in this collection for the poor is the demonstration of what the gospel does to people – it makes them generous. It frees them from the love of money. And so, if Christians embezzled these funds, it would contradict the very nature of the gospel.

Was Paul worried about his own reputation? Again, consider the promise Paul made in Gal. 2:10. Paul says I won’t forget to remember the poor.

Note Romans 15:27. “They (Gentile believers in Macedonia and Achaia) were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them (the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem). For if the Gentiles have come to share their (Jews) spiritual blessings, they (the Gentiles) ought also to be of service to them (those Jewish Christians) in material blessings.”

But Why The Race Issue?

Why draw attention to the two races in this section? Why not just say “what a good work these brethren are doing for those brethren?” Why specify the races? I believe it goes back to Romans 11. Gentiles are like wild olive branches that were grafted into the root of the natural branches. We Gentiles have our spiritual life and hope and blessing because we have become Jewish by belonging to the Messiah. We are attached to the Jewish root. All of the spiritual blessings we enjoy in Christ, were borne out of God’s promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:16-27). Jesus said in John 4:22, “Salvation is of the Jews.”

Paul wanted his Gentile audience to remember that. In Romans 11:17-18, he said:

17But if some of the branches [that is, Jews who did not accept Jesus as Messiah] were broken off, and you [Gentiles—most of us here in this room], although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree [that’s exactly what Paul means by the “spiritual blessings” in Romans 15:27], 18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.

Then there is this from Piper:

Paul didn’t have to bring this up. He could have motivated generosity to the poor purely by love for people without any reference to being Gentiles and Jews. But he brought it up and we should hear it and embrace it. Paul has a burden that Jew and Gentile be one in Christ, and to that end Jews realize that their spiritual blessings have flowed to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, and Gentiles need to realize that God’s covenant with Israel is the source of their life….These two truths cut the root of ethnic pride. Gentiles dare not boast over the Jews but seek the salvation of Jewish people, and rejoice over their unity with those who

153

embrace Jesus. And Jews dare not boast in their heritage as a privileged possession, because the Messiah is giving it freely to anyone who believes in him.149

Conclusion

I think a lot more can be said about the inherent Jewishness of our salvation and I believe brethren today have much they could learn about their being supported by a Jewish root. Two times in Romans 11 Paul warns the Gentiles about being arrogant toward or gloating over their Jewish roots (vs. 18, 20b, 25). Why? Because the Jewish root—the Jewish fathers, the Jewish scripture, the Jewish promises, the Jewish history, the Jewish Messiah—supports you, not the other way around. Being a Christian means finding your ancestry in Abraham (Gal. 3:27). It means loving the Torah, and Writings and Prophets and learning from them. Let the words “support you” humble you. It is not you who support the root. The root supports you. People who need to be supported should be slow to boast.

Well, who is being supported in this collection mission of Paul’s? Gentile funds are supporting Jewish brethren. And Jewish roots support Gentile branches. Do you see the potential lesson to be learned by this great contribution? And what about the fact that the Macedonians begged to participate? Out of much poverty they begged to be part of this. Don’t you think Paul would share this encouraging message with the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem, if he used the same information to stir up the Gentile Corinthian brethren to service?

Note also that Paul asks the Roman brethren to pray for him and his efforts and that his “service for Jerusalem prove to be acceptable to the saints” (Rom. 15:31). I believe Paul was worried about how the saints in Jerusalem would receive this gift. What a relief, what a blessing the reception must have been in Acts 21:17 when the brethren “received them gladly.” Although, much to my personal chagrin, Paul doesn’t say anything about the delivery of the gift.

There is another application we can all make from Paul’s words here. Note verses 26-27, where he says:

26For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased [that is a key word and Paul will repeat it in verse 27; it means they wanted to do this; Paul did not have to twist their arms] to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. 27They were pleased to do it [there it is again], and indeed they owe it to them.”

We know these are not careless, throw-away words, because when Paul describes the giving of the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8:2 this is what he stresses: “In a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a

149 Piper. 154

wealth of generosity on their part.” This is what is in the words they were pleased in Romans 15:26 and 27. They delighted to do this. In fact, Paul says, they begged to do it (2 Cor. 8:4).

And then Paul adds in verse 27, “And indeed they owe it to them.” It was a debt, an obligation. In other words, the giving to the poor Christian Jews in Jerusalem was both duty and delight. It was owed and it was freely given.

What can we learn from this? There is no necessary conflict between duty and delight. It is possible to love doing what you ought to do. Indeed, you should pursue that joy in your life. And how did Paul drive this point home? He went two thousand miles out of his way to deliver these funds from Gentile believers to Jewish believers.

Internet Articles

Heredia, Michael. “The Jerusalem Collection: Paul’s Method of Reconciliation Among Jewish and Gentile Christians.” http://www.academia.edu/5715463/Paul_and_the_Jerusalem_Collection

Hurtado, Larry. "A Polite Bribe?": Paul and the Jerusalem Collection https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/a-polite-bribe-paul-and-the-jerusalem collection

Pickup, Martin. "A Response To Steve Gibson's Galatians 6:10 and The Great Collection" http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume35/GOT035238.html

Piper, John. “Joy + Debt = A Two-Thousand Mile Detour To Jerusalem.” www.desiringgod.org/sermons/joydebt-a-two-thousand-mile-detour-to-jerusalem

Rossen, Loren. “Why Paul Took Up The Collection” lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-Paul-took-up-collection-rom-1525.html

Shelton, Ray. “Paul’s Letter To The Galatians” http://fromdeathtolife.org/galhtml/galintro.html

Related Work

Aaron, Elijah. “The Acts of The Apostles: Fulfilling God’s Great Commission.” Workbook

155

Acts 21 and Paul’s Vow: What Was He Thinking?

By David Norfleet

In Acts 21, the text records the apostle Paul returning from his third preaching journey. This third of his journeys was begun with the intent of strengthening the brethren (Acts 18.23).150 After traversing the regions of Galatia, Phrygia, Ephesus, Macedonia, and Greece, he returned to Jerusalem, bringing “alms to my nation and to present offerings” (Acts 24.17). But, it also mentions he was found in the temple “having been purified” (Acts 24.18). It is within the ideas of presenting an offering and Paul’s purification, as well as the seeming acceptance of the “four men’s vow,” that a dilemma arises for every student of Scripture when considering Acts 21.17-26. The dilemma is this—did James and the other Jerusalem elders go too far in appeasing the Jewish Christians? Did Paul sin in conceding to the demands of the eldership in Jerusalem? Or was this simply another case where Paul and the eldership were being all things to all men so that some could be saved (1 Cor. 9.19-21)? Commentators and other students of scripture have long struggled with this text. Notice this comment made by Adam Clarke which conveys the puzzlement of most when they encounter this text:

However we may consider this subject, it is exceedingly difficult to account for the conducts of James and the elders and of Paul on this occasion. There seems to be something in this transaction which we do not fully understand.151

Prior to engaging in an examination of the text, it would be beneficial to consider the nature of biblical narrative literature, and the text of 1 Corinthians 9.19-21.

The Nature of Narratives

Obviously, Acts falls into the genre of literature known as narrative. Narrative literature has several key features that will figure prominently in our discussion. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart innumerate these features in their work How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth:

 Narratives usually do not directly teach a doctrine, but rather illustrate doctrines that are taught elsewhere.  Narratives record what happened—not necessarily what should have happened or what ought to happen every time. Furthermore what happens in narratives are not necessarily good examples for us. Frequently, they are just the opposite.

150 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture notations are from the 1995 NASB. 151 Cited by David L. Roper, Truth for Today Commentary: Acts 15-28 (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 2005), 277. 156

 We are not always told at the end of narratives whether what happened was good or bad. We are expected to be able to judge this on the basis of what God has taught us elsewhere.  All narratives are selective and incomplete. Not all the relevant details are given. What does appear in the narrative is everything that the inspired author thought important for us to know.  Narratives may teach explicitly (by clearly stating something) or implicitly (by clearly implying something without actually stating it).152

Fee and Stuart further state:

Bible characters are sometimes good and sometimes evil, sometimes wise and sometimes foolish. They are sometimes punished and sometimes shown mercy, sometimes well-off and sometimes miserable. Your task is to learn God’s word from the narratives about them….153

Considering this information, we must accept that narratives require interpretation. Taking the information provided by the inspired writer, we must then attempt to draw a conclusion based upon our knowledge of God’s expressed will in other places. Such is the case with Acts 21, as there is not an explicit statement of divine approval or disapproval. Whatever conclusion you draw about Paul’s actions, you must acknowledge at best it will be an interpretation of the text.

1 Corinthians 9.19-21: Universal License or Qualified Appeal?

Among most commentators and exegetes of Acts 21, the most common interpretation of the text is based upon an appeal to 1 Corinthians 9:19-21. These appeals, however, very seldom qualify the text in question. Any interpretation that does not qualify 1 Corinthians 9:19-21 in some way has failed to take into account the greater context of Scripture, as well as the immediate context of Paul’s statement.

1 Corinthians 9.19-21 is a further explanation of Paul’s decision to not accept support from the Corinthian saints during his stay in that city as stated in 1 Corinthians 9.18:

When then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel (1 Cor. 9:18).

He willingly enslaved himself to the Corinthians and others for the primary purpose that he “might win more” (1 Cor. 9:19). He eagerly relinquished his freedoms and rights as a means to avoid placing unnecessary obstacles that might hinder men from becoming believers in Christ Jesus. Paul in this text is saying that he accommodated himself to the

152 Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 106. 153 Ibid, 105. 157 customs and practices of the people to whom he preached.154 For example, to the Jews he became as a Jew. That would include Timothy’s circumcision (Acts 12.3), Paul’s vow (Acts18.18), and calling himself “a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” (Acts 23.6-7). But, that did not give Paul universal license to act in ways that would be contrary to law or God’s expressed will. In fact, Paul himself said in 1 Corinthians 9:21, “…though not being under the law of God but under law of Christ.” As Bob Dickey wrote:

This does not mean that Paul acted out of hypocrisy or sinful compromise to win Jews. He simply avoided giving unnecessary offense in matters of custom or personal preference.155

Note also this comment by Günther Bornkamm:

Paul could not modify the gospel itself according to the particular characteristics of his hearers.156

Gareth Reese makes this pertinent comment as well:

It should be carefully observed that Paul is here describing the INNOCENT concessions and compliances which arise from harmless and generous condescension of a loving spirit.157

The point being articulated is that 1 Corinthians 9:19-21 is only applicable if it can be shown that Paul’s, James’, and the other Jerusalem elders’ actions were not sinful.

Acts 21:17-26

As we begin to consider this text, I think we must agree with the sentiment of Adam Clarke cited earlier. This text does present us with a conundrum. On one hand, it feels we may be judging the motives of our brothers Paul and James, and on the other we have Paul seemingly acting out-of-character to the message he had previously proclaimed. Despite that difficulty, drawing an interpretation is unavoidable. The challenge for us is to draw an informed conclusion that we pray is in keeping with the sum total of God’s word.

It is my conclusion, based upon a compilation of the evidence, that the elders, and ultimately Paul, allowed their love for their fellow-countrymen and those who had converted to Christ to override the truth that God had already revealed on this matter.

154 Mike Willis, Truth Commentaries: I Corinthians (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2008), 245. 155 Bob Dickey, “Personal Liberty and the Brethren,” in Christ and Culture at Corinth: Lessons from First Corinthians, ed. Ferrell Jenkins (Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 1996), 149. 156 Cited by Gordon Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 433. 157 Gareth Reese, The New Testament Epistles: I Corinthians (Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Books, 2004), 317. 158

There is no single point of evidence on which this conclusion rests, but a compilation of minor textual points that force the drawing of this conclusion. I do not claim this to be the definitive answer, and yet wrestle still with this text, but the evidence continues to point me to that conclusion.

In Acts 15 the apostles, Jerusalem elders, and Jewish Christians of the day wrestled with the idea of how Gentile Christians were to enter the kingdom. Were they first to be made Jewish? We know the resolution of the matter and how they resolved it—they appealed to God’s revelation. In Acts 15 the focus was on the Gentile Christians, but the question was never asked or answered of what to do with the Jews who converted to Christianity. How much of the Law or customs was proper for them to continue to observe? How much should the Gentiles be forced to submit to in order to appease the conscience of Jewish Christians? Acts 21 reveals that that conflict still remained between Jewish and Gentile Christians. But Acts 21 is much different than Acts 15; in fact, it’s almost an antithesis of Acts 15, most especially in the absence of an appeal to God’s revelation or guidance in the matter at hand.

Let us begin by examining the text verse-by-verse to see the incongruities of this situation.

 One of the first things that should strike us in this text is the conspicuous absence of any mention of the gift collected by Paul from the Gentile churches. On Paul’s third journey, which began in Acts 18:23, one of his primary purposes was a collection from the Gentile Christians which was to be used as a gift to the poor among the Jerusalem saints (Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor.16:1-4; 2 Cor. 9:1-2; Gal. 2.9-10). Yet what they had worked so hard in supplying was met with unrecorded silence.

There have been many theories put forward as to why that was the case. F.F. Bruce suggests that the Jews would have seen Paul’s gift as undermining or competing against the temple tax and thus Luke did not report or record it so it would not be used against Paul at trial.158 James Boice suggests that Luke did not share Paul’s enthusiasm toward the plan.159 Both suggestions, while possible, I think are difficult to prove and/or support.

But, there are two other suggestions worth considering. One is that Luke simply excluded that information as it did not serve his purposes at that particular time.160 That seems doubtful, as that was one of Paul’s primary motivations for returning to Jerusalem at this time. There is another possibility to consider, however, and

158 F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 429. 159 Reese, 318. 160 Roper, 281. 159

that is the gift did not cement relations between Jew and Gentile Christians as Paul hoped (Rom. 15:25-31), and this because a group of the Jewish Christians distrusted him. What was to be a generous gift of fellowship, sharing, and love was largely forgotten because wrong attitudes toward Paul were allowed to fester in the church at Jerusalem.

Let us turn our attention to the specifics of the text itself in which I believe that the Holy Spirit, through Luke, provides enough “clues” to enable us to comment on the behavior we find in this chapter.

 In Acts 21:17 it states that upon entering Jerusalem Paul was greeted with joy and gladness by the brethren. This seems entirely appropriate when brethren once separated are reunited; but at the same time, it has an oddity to it based upon what was about to unfold. Those who greeted Paul with joy represented his personal friends who came to greet him at Mnason’s home, or (and I think more likely) this comment reveals a schism in the church of Jerusalem. A division where a segment of the Jewish Christians had willingly believed the rumors that had spread concerning the apostle because of their continued adherence to the Law, and others recognizing their obedience to the gospel had themselves begun to abandon the Law and its practices.

 In verses 18-20 Paul met with the elders of the church in Jerusalem and began a great discourse on all that had been done through him among the Gentiles, and the text says “they began glorifying God (imperfect tense).” On the surface that seems the only appropriate reaction for godly men to make, but as we read the rest of verse 20 we are left with a strange feeling as they transition from glorifying God to their recounting of the conversion of the Jews. Some linguists have described it as if there is an unwritten “but” that needs to be interjected between the two thoughts; as if the elders’ thoughts were only in “half-step” with Paul while he spoke of his activities, as subsequent events show that they had come to the meeting with a hidden agenda.161

After relating “how many myriads” of Jews who were converted to Christ, the elders make a somewhat puzzling statement. They say these new converts “are all zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20). J. W. McGarvey commenting on this text says the following, “They [Jewish converts] recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught ‘apostasy from Moses.’”162 James does not say they observed parts of the Law, the traditions, or merely the customs, but the Law itself. That is the exact attitude of the Pharisees who apparently were converted and made their

161 Roper, 282. 162 J.W. McGarvey, Original Commentary on Acts (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, Ninth Edition), 258. 160 voices heard at the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15:10. But, it was this very thing that Paul had been converted from (Gal. 1:14; Php. 3:5-9).

It may be helpful at this point to have a timeline in mind and attempt to ascertain what Paul had already said on this subject, as one attempt to explain this text was that Paul was merely uninformed at the time of this event.

His mind [Paul’s], and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject as they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that ‘we are no longer under the law,’ was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only more like Peter’s in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews.163

Note the estimated dates of Paul’s travels, as well as the dates of these epistles:

Pauline Events in Paul’s Life Epistle Epistles Dates Dates 37-40 AD Paul at Damascus 45-47 AD First Journey 52 AD First Thessalonians 51-53 AD Second Journey 52 AD Second Thessalonians 57 AD First Corinthians 55-57 AD Galatians 54-58 AD Third Journey 57-58 AD Romans 58-60 AD Imprisonment in Judea 60-61 AD Voyage to Rome 62 AD Ephesians 62 AD Philippians 61-63 AD Imprisonment in Rome 62 AD Colossians 63 AD Philemon 64-65 AD Hebrews 64-65 AD Titus 63-67 AD Post-Imprisonment Journeys 64-65 AD First Timothy 66-67 AD Second Timothy

163 McGarvey, 260. 161

If this chart and the dates are correct, Acts 21 and the events therein would be around 58- 59 AD. By this time Paul would have already written Galatians and Romans. Therefore, by the time of the events recorded in Acts 21, Paul, by inspiration, knew that keeping the Law was not necessary for righteousness; in fact, in attempting to keep the Law you could not achieve righteousness at all.

15 We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:15-16). 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24-25).

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God…. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 7:4; 10:4).

Let us now return to the text itself.

 The charges being leveled against the apostle in Acts 21:21 contain some elements of truth, but ultimately proved to be completely false. We have already alluded to Paul’s stance in Galatians and Romans where he revealed his reverence for God’s law as revealed through Moses, but acknowledged it was merely a tutor leading us to Christ. Furthermore we have seen in Acts (16:3) where Paul had a Jew (Timothy) circumcised. Paul had not campaigned for Jews to forsake their Jewishness (Col. 2:16-17), as long as they realized it did not avail anything toward salvation (Gal. 5:6).

But, these accusations may have a deeper significance in the context. First, it is interesting to notice how closely these accusations mirror those held by unconverted Jews (v. 28). Both a portion of the converted and unconverted Jews saw Paul as an enemy to “our people and the Law and this place.” I think this parallel is very suggestive of the core beliefs of this group of Jewish Christians (they held the same convictions as the unconverted Jews) which were, if not supported, at least was tolerated by James and the other elders. These were not merely personal convictions, but the matter at stake was how Jews would become Christians and ultimately disciples of Jesus Christ. I think James Burton Coffman points to the crux of the matter, “The mistake of the Jerusalem elders and the majority of the church was in the supposition that God had two plans, one for the Gentiles and another for the Jews.”164

164 James Burton Coffman, Commentary on Acts (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1977), 408. 162

 We then come to this question in verse 22, “What, then, is to be done?” It is an interesting question in and of itself. But, in seeking its answer we notice a conspicuous absence of the methodology of Acts 15. I would submit the elders should have consulted God, addressed their flock, and handled the situation directly. In other words, act like godly shepherds and leaders! John Wesley had this to say about their actions: “James should have told those Jewish Christians: I do not keep the Law of Moses; neither does Peter; neither need any of you!”165

While you may not agree with the conclusion above, you must acknowledge this question was not really a question at all, but rather merely a rhetorical statement made by the elders exposing their pre-arranged agenda. They had already decided this matter, and in verse 23 commanded Paul in what to do (the Greek verb poiēson is in the imperative mood.). A strange act by elders of a local congregation of which Paul an apostle was not subject.

I will comment more on the vow and its significance in a moment, but I would like to make a few isolated comments on the remaining verses in this section.

 In Acts 21:23 we read of four men who had undertaken a vow (possibly a Nazarite vow). The indication given here is that these men who had made this vow had become unclean before the time of termination included in the vow.166 The “have” as translated by the NASB, indicates the men who had undertaken the vow were saints or members of the Jerusalem church.

 In verse 24 the Jewish elders appear merely to be seeking Paul’s vindication rather than the education of these saints. They encouraged Paul to submit to their plan or course of action. The plan’s focus was not on how Christ had broken down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14), but to support the impression that Paul still kept and honored the Law. The plan originated from the same man, James, who earlier had said that the Law was “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). As Roper indicates, “Now they were ‘asking’ Paul to convince fellow Christians that he was still committed to and willing to shoulder that unbearable yoke.”167

Paul was asked to be the financier—the one who enabled these poorer Jews to meet the demands of their vows by bearing the cost of the sacrifices which were part of the vow’s completion. Josephus records that Agrippa I regularly did this for poorer Jews, not out of piety, but for political acceptance.168 The question is were the Jerusalem elders motivated in a similar way?

165 Cited by Roper, 284. 166 Reese, 797. 167 Roper, 287. 168 Cited by Coffman, 411. 163

 Acts 21:25 is another verse that seems somewhat strange in context. The elders apparently realize that their proposal could be taken as a retraction or unsupportive of the decision reached in Acts 15.169 They seemingly wanted to reassure Paul their proposal only applied to his interaction with Jewish Christians.

 The purification that Paul did undergo in the first half of verse 26 appears to be related to his admittance to the temple (Acts 24.18). It was customary for anyone mixing with those counted as unclean (Gentiles) to ritually wash before entering the temple (Num. 19:12).

“…the each one of them” in the second half of the verse was a reference to the four men engaged in the vow and not the apostle. Paul was only buying the sacrifice so they could “shave their heads” or end their vow. It should be noted those proceeds would go to the temple coffers to support the priesthood.

Additional Evidence

The above section represents sundry points on the text itself, but there is additional evidence that possibly could influence our interpretation of this text and their actions. In what follows are three additional points to consider.

The Vow—Other or Nazarite?

Comment needs to be made on the vow itself as it is central to these events. Much has been written on this vow and the commentators that I have read are in unanimous agreement that this was a Nazarite vow. In fact, the Pulpit Commentary says, “… [It] is emphatically the vow of the Nazirite.”170 The significance of this type of vow is expressed well by David Roper:

As far as our study is concerned, the most significant aspect of the Nazarite vow is that it involved sacrifices, including sin offerings. After a man had purified himself, to resume his vow he had to bring two turtledoves or pigeons to the priest, and the priest offered ‘one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering’ to ‘make atonement for him concerning his sin’ (Numbers 6:11). When the man finally completed the vow, among other sacrifices he was to bring a ‘ewe-lamb a year old without defect for a sin offering (Number 6:14).171

Some object to the possibility of this being a Nazarite vow, as it would necessitate Christians to make a sacrifice for sin and preclude them from partaking of the Lord’s Supper (Num. 6:3). That is precisely the point. If we assume that James, the other elders, and Paul were acting scripturally they could not endorse such a vow, but if their

169 Roper, 287. 170 AGES Digital Library. 171 Roper, 286. 164 concessions to Jewish sensibilities was “out-of-bounds,” the vow would be just another example of this attitude.

One must argue against all the available evidence to make this vow anything other than a Nazarite vow. Not only did it involve the unshorn hair but a sacrifice to indicate the completion of the vow at which time the hair could be shaved (this is different than Acts 18 where hair was cut as part of the vow). The similarities to Numbers 6.1-21 are too striking to ignore.

We have no unassailable evidence that Paul participated in the vow himself, but he did finance the vow of these four men making him an accessory or enabler of their actions.

Acts 21 and Galatians 2

Another point to consider is that this interpretation of Acts 21 better comports to the sequence of events recorded in Galatians 2.

Galatians 2 mentions two different Jewish groups which came to Antioch. The first group mentioned in Galatians 2.4 seems to parallel those in Acts 15:1 and were not sent or at least authorized/supported by James (Gal. 2:6-10). But a second group came as mentioned in verse 12 and they were from James the text says, and their coming and/or beliefs lead to division between Jewish and Gentile Christians. This could be merely a fraternal reference, but one must admit that it is very suggestive of the attitude of James and his view of the differences that exist between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Why only Paul?

The last point involves the anger of the unconverted Jews in Jerusalem at the apostle Paul. They were not angry at him because he taught Gentiles or that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews to be saved, but rather their anger concerned his stance and teaching about the Law (12:28; 2 Cor. 11:24). If James and the elders preached/taught a similar message, one wonders why the crowds were not stirred in anger against them?

Conclusion

G. Campbell Morgan stated, “I hold that Paul made the greatest mistake of his ministry on this occasion.”172 I am unsure if I can be that emphatic, but the evidence presented in this paper, while largely circumstantial and at times speculative taken in mass, suggests that James and the other elders of the church in Jerusalem were overly-accommodating to this group of Jewish Christians. And Paul, in participating as he did, clouded the true nature of the gospel (Eph. 2) and contradicted the stand he made elsewhere.. We can sympathize with the elders in Jerusalem. Living in the heart of Judaism, they faced an almost impossible task since Jews, in general, did not distinguish between their religion and their race. The challenge to live “at peace with all men” (Rom. 12:18) and

172 Cited by Roper, 278. 165 making oneself “a slave to all so that I might win more” (1 Cor. 9:19) without compromising the truth (Pro. 23:23) is never easy. It was not easy in Jerusalem and it will not be for us. Let us not cloud the issue by ignoring the evidence when it is before us…

Bibliography

Bruce, F. F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973. Coffman, James Burton. Commentary on Acts. Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1977. Dickey, Bob. “Personal Liberty and the Brethren,” in Christ and Culture at Corinth: Lessons from First Corinthians, ed. Ferrell Jenkins. Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 1996. Fee, Gordon. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987. Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Press, 2003. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Columbus, OH: The Wartburg Press, 1944. McGarvey, J. W. Original Commentary on Acts. Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, Ninth Edition. Mott Jr., L.A. Acts of the Apostles: A Study Guide. Jacksonville, FL: 500 Partners, 2000. Reese, Gareth. The New Testament Epistles: I Corinthians. Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Books, 2004. Roper, David L. Truth for Today Commentary: Acts 15-28. Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 2011. Stott, John R.W. The Bible Speaks Today: The Message of Acts. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990. Willis, Mike Truth Commentaries: I Corinthians. Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2008.

166

Paul And The Law: Is Romans 7:7-25 Autobiographical? If So, Does It Speak Of Paul’s Experience With The Law Of Moses, The Law He Is Under To Christ, Or Both? Finally, Is There Some Sort Of Disparity Between Romans 7:7-25 And Philippians 3:1-6?

By Allan Turner

The Context

Having found Jews and Gentiles to be sinners in need of justification/salvation (Rom. 1- 3:20), Paul spends the rest of chapters 3-5 proclaiming the basis (the “how,” if you will) of such justification. In doing so, he makes it clear that it is, in fact, “by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28). This is not the “faith only” doctrine of the Calvinists and a large number of Protestants, for they wrongly think faith to be the sole condition of justification. Yes, Paul certainly teaches that grace is the sole basis for God’s justification of sinners, and faith the sole means of receiving it, but there are, in truth, several conditions of grace which must be met in order for one to be justified—with faith itself being one of these, along with repentance, confession, and baptism.173

Believing, as we do, that the Bible is inspired, we know it is no mere coincidence that Romans 7:14-25—which is one of the most disputed texts in all of Scripture—is sandwiched between the “new birth” of Romans 6 and the hope and special assurances set forth in Romans 8. This puts us in a far better position than many, particularly modern critics, when trying to rightly divide what Paul is saying in chapter 7 (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15).

In chapter 6, which I view as transitional (I’ll explain what I mean by this term in just a moment), Paul points out that a justified sinner rises from the watery grave of baptism “a new creature” in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), and as such, is “dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:11). Thus, we see a transition taking place in baptism, for not only is a believing, repentant sinner justified in the watery grave of baptism, he is also clearly regenerated, “born again” or “made alive” (Jn. 3:3, 7; Col. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:23). Therefore, having been set free from sin and spiritually born again, Christians willingly and cheerfully submit themselves to God as “slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18). Paul follows this up in Romans 6:22-23 with:

173 For a more detailed discussion of the “grace conditions,” see my presentation at the 2014 ABS entitled “In What Sense Is The ‘Faith’ In Salvation By Grace Through Faith (Eph. 2:8-9) ‘Faith Only,’ Or ‘Faith Alone,’ And In What Sense Is It Not? (Parts I & II).” 167

22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.174

Given this, the question before us is, “How could such glorious victory “in Christ” in any way be connected with the wretchedness of which Paul speaks in Romans 7:26?” It is precisely here that the gauntlet is thrown down by those who do not believe Paul could be talking about his experience as a Christian—“no way, no how!,” they declare. I understand why they think this way, but respectfully, but vigorously, disagree.175 To demonstrate why, I must lay a bit of groundwork, so please bear with me.

The “Double Cure”

In the book of Romans and elsewhere, Paul makes it clear that law keeping has nothing directly to do with a sinner’s justification, in that “a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds [or works] of the law” (Rom. 3:28; 9:32; cf. Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Eph. 2:9). Even so, we are keenly aware that we are, in truth, “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). This is all a bit confusing to some, and this due, at least in part, to a failure to appreciate the differences between justification, regeneration, and sanctification. A correct understanding of these terms is vital to knowing what Paul is saying in chapter 7. What follows, then, is a brief review of how all three of these terms function in connection with our overall salvation. But before doing so, it is important to understand salvation’s “double cure.” In the old hymn “Rock Of Ages,” the first verse reads:

Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee; Let the water and the blood, From thy wounded side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Saved from wrath and make me pure.176

These lyrics remind us of our universal plight before God, the Creator; for as sinners, we have an impossible-to-remedy legal problem, as well as an impossible-to-remedy corruption problem—problems which have, as far as I can tell, both affected and effected (perhaps “infected” would even be a better term) our very natures. These two problems, although quite different, have a common cause (viz., sin), and thus may be viewed as the “double curse” of debt and death. When we understand this, it provides for a much better appreciation of the double-cure redemption that is ours in Christ Jesus.

Justification

174 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version. 175 For one who takes a different view than I will be defending here, see Gareth L. Reese’s New Testament Epistles: A Critical And Exegetical Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 176 R. J. Stevens and Dane K. Shepard, eds., Hymns for Worship, 368. 168

The solution to the debt problem is well attested to, and finds its remedy in justification “by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11; Php. 3:9).177 As already indicated, it is just this justification that seems to be the main thrust of Paul’s teaching in Romans 1-5. It is the justification of the “ungodly”—i.e., the justification of those who deserve only judgment and condemnation. It is available only to those who cast themselves upon the mercy of Him who, on the basis of His Son’s cross-work, is able to save those who “kiss [worship and render obedience to] the Son” (Psa. 2:12). This is accomplished for the believing, repenting, confessing sinner at the point of baptism (Col. 2:11-14). Thus, unless, and until, one has met these conditions of grace, he cannot be justified.178 Having been so justified, we remain this way (viz., 100% justified) as long as we continue, by faith, to “walk in the light” (1 Jn 1:7). It is just here that the second part of the double cure comes into play, for as crucial as our justification is, it is but one aspect of God’s gift of grace. In other words, grace is more than justification. Jack Cottrell appropriately calls this “The Other Side Of Grace,”179 and does so to emphasize the remedy grace provides for the death problem of the “double curse,” which includes both regeneration and sanctification.

Regeneration

Now, if justification was all there is to it, we might have been simply “assumed” into paradise at our baptisms; but there’s more to it than justification. In addition to having our sins forgiven and thus justified, we have been “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10a). These works—works which constitute the law code we are under to Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2)—are works which God “prepared long ago to be our way of life” (Eph. 2:10b, ISV). These works—again, think law code here—were never designed by God to be the means of our justification/salvation (cf. Rom. 3:19-20; Gal. 3:24), as the only such “means” of justification is, and always has been, faith in the “coming one,” who we now understand to be “Shiloh” (Gen. 49:10), the resurrected Christ. These works were designed by God “beforehand” to be the deeds that would be performed by a race of “new creature[s]” (Jn. 3:3, 7; 1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) who would be following in the footsteps of the second or “last” Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). This race of born-again creatures who would one day be made sinlessly perfect in connection with the redemption and glorification of their “natural” bodies (1 Cor. 15:44-49; Php. 3:21). Additionally, these “works” would function as the very deeds by which this new race would “prove” to a lost and dying world “what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:1-2). In other words, although the justification of sinners is the indispensable foundation of our new-creation status, a status

177 For detailed definitions of “justification” and its cognates, see Allen Dvorak’s “Justification By Works” presented at the 2013 ABS. 178 But in saying this, no one should think this is, in any way, an endorsement of “baptismal regeneration,” a false doctrine advocated by Catholics and others who claim it is the act of baptism itself that saves. However, this is definitely not the sense in which Peter says, “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:31, KJV). Instead, baptism is the occasion (the time and place) wherein God has promised to gift us with the double cure. 179 Cottrell, Set Free!, p. 333. 169 that rests not in deeds or works of law, but unwavering faith in God’s resurrected Son, we were nevertheless “born again” or regenerated to do the deeds or works of the law code we are under toward Christ, which are works our “old [unregenerate] man” (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22) was never fully disposed to do.180

Hence, the questions that immediately come to mind are, “When, where, and how does this regeneration happen?,” and “Why are we now disposed to do those things we were previously disinclined to do?” What follows is my attempt to briefly answer these questions.

Like justification, the when and where of regeneration is the watery grave of baptism (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). This conflicts with what Calvinists and many Protestants believe. For them, water baptism is nothing more than a sacrament, “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” In this way of thinking, sinners are “born again” before being baptized. This is evidenced by the song “Water Grave,” made popular by the Imperials, a religious quartet, the chorus of which says:

I’m goin’ down to the river. And I’m gonna be buried alive. I want to show my Heavenly Father, The man I use to be has finally died.

It is regrettable that this “buried alive” doctrine is even now being espoused by some brethren. They believe a repentant believer is saved/justified before baptism. This allows them, among other things, to espouse broadening the scope of “fellowship” to include the “pious unimmersed” à la Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett et al., who are, in turn, following in the footsteps of K. C. Moser (1893-1976), the old champion of this way of thinking. For him, and those like him, belief and repentance, not baptism, are the locus where and when regeneration takes place. This can be seen in his book The Way of Salvation (1932), which was written principally to defend his “man, not the plan” theology:

In repentance one dies to sin and is raised to righteousness…. Now, under Christ it is the work of baptism to represent this change of mind toward sin and righteousness…. The burial in baptism implies a previous death…. In repentance the “old man was crucified with him” and signified by the burial in baptism…. In our repentance two changes take place. First, like Christ and with him, we die unto sin. Second, like Christ and with him, we are raised to live unto God. But these changes are represented by Paul as taking place in baptism…. Now, Paul cannot mean that baptism effects repentance; that one dies to sin and is raised to righteousness in the act of baptism. This would be to ascribe to baptism a miraculous power. Repentance

180 In this regard, we will do well to remember that we were not born totally depraved (or even somewhat so) as our Catholic and Reformed friends wrongly think. Before the age of accountability, children are simply not amenable to law before God. Consequently, they are spiritually “alive” (Rom. 7:9a). However, upon reaching the age of accountability, the maturing child becomes amenable to God’s law and, like all of us, becomes spiritually dead (Rom. 7:9b). 170

would then be a gift of baptism, not an act of man. Paul certainly means that baptism signifies repentance—the burial standing for death to sin, the emersion representing a resurrection to righteousness (italics mine).181

Clearly, Moser believed that regeneration is an event which takes place in the sinner’s heart as a result of his faith and repentance. He most likely believed such thinking to be an effective remedy for Calvinism’s claim that man can have nothing at all to do with his own salvation. This is the case, they assert, because even since Adam’s sin, all men are born totally depraved and thus incapable of doing anything good, especially anything in order to save themselves (contra Acts 2:40 and 1 Timothy 4:16). Another factor in Moser’s thinking was, more than likely, the propensity of many Restorationists, and those who followed in their footsteps, to shy away from the idea that God continues to be actively and directly involved in His creation after the supposed end of the “age of miracles.” It is this same anti-supernaturalist bent that continues to militate any idea that the Holy Spirit works directly in justification, regeneration, and sanctification, as well as any place else, for that matter. After all, if the Holy Spirit works “only in and through the word,” as many creedally claim, then any assertion that the Holy Spirit is directly involved in man’s regeneration is bound to be viewed with raised eyebrows at best, and flat condemnation at the worst. Instead of accepting, by faith, that “by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13), countless sermons have been preached and articles written on why this was “only in and through the word.”

With that little excursion behind us, we return to the subject at hand. In running away from the obvious errors of Calvinism, Pentecostalism, etc., some have run right past Jerusalem, if I might be permitted to use this expression. In doing so, they have believed in, practiced, and vigorously defended a religion more closely attuned to 17th-18th century Deism than to 1st century Christianity. I speak now of Moser and the like. They have failed to appreciate what Paul, in Romans 6, makes undeniably clear, and this is that regeneration takes place not at the point of repentance, but in the watery grave of baptism:

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (emphases mine).

Consider also what he said in Colossians 2:11-13:

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses (again, emphases mine).

181 Moser, pp. 89-90. 171

In these passage, Paul makes it clear that the death and rebirth of the old man takes place in baptism, not repentance. Now, it is certainly true that at the point of repentance our old man turned from sin and truly desired to do God’s will, which, in and of itself, is a direct contradiction of Calvinism, for it says that it is impossible for an unregenerate man—a man who they think to be totally depraved—to do God’s will. Although it is true that the old man is depraved all right (viz., a depravity that is acquired through sinning), he is clearly not totally depraved, as Calvinists think. In truth, the old man is capable of believing, repenting, and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord. He can also be baptized in order to be justified, regenerated, and sanctified, and the passages emphasized above are explicit proof of it.

With the previous Moser excerpt in mind, notice that Paul says nothing about baptism “signifying,” “picturing,” or “showing” some sort of rebirthing, born-again event that had already occurred as the result of repentance. Such thinking is mere supposition. Besides, the signifying, picturing, or showing has to do with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and our imitation of it, from a spiritual standpoint. Now, it is true that we have often argued that in order to be a suitable candidate for baptism, one must be dead to sin vis-à-vis repentance—namely, that we bury a dead man in the watery grave of baptism, not a “made alive” one, as the denominations and some brethren teach. Even so, we have usually qualified this with the idea that having become “dead to sin” as the result of our repentance, we were sill “dead in our sins,” which makes it clear, then, that most of us never had any notion that we were already alive in Christ prior to baptism. Perhaps it would be better to quit describing repentance as being “dead to sin” and just call it what it is—namely, repentance, which may be fairly summed up as an admission of sin and a conscious decision to turn from it. After all, it is clear (and I speak now of what Paul said and not what we may have thought), that we die to sin in baptism, not repentance. Therefore baptism is not now, nor has it ever been, the “outward sign of an inward grace.” There should be no doubt, then, that even after belief, repentance, and confession, it is the “old man,” dead in sin, who dies in the watery grace of baptism and is raised a new creature in Christ. Having now gone over the when (time) and where (place) of regeneration, we’re ready to take a look at the how of it.

There is sufficient evidence that the principle agent of regeneration is the Holy Spirit. In fact, the very nature of the event itself (i.e., resurrection, new creation, new birth) precludes any idea that it is something the sinner may accomplish for himself. In other words, regeneration, like justification, is not a work of man, but of God:

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:13).

Thus, the putting to death of the old man and the raising of the new creature in Christ are “the working of God, who raised [Jesus] from the dead” (Col. 2:12). There must be no doubt, then, that in our regenerate, born-again, new-creature, spiritually-resurrected state, “we are [God’s] workmanship” (Eph. 2:10). And although the Holy Spirit has an indirect

172 role in our regeneration, in that His word is the instrument or tool to bring us to faith and repentance (Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23), we must not overlook the fact that He is also the very agent who, in the baptismal event itself, brings about our new birth via a direct operation upon our sin-sick, fallen spirits (1 Cor. 12:13). As an inherent, intrinsic source of life, the Holy Spirit, who is “the Spirit of life” (Rom. 8:2), and the Living Water (Jn. 4:10-14; 7:37-39), imparts/implants new life to our spiritual natures in regeneration—that is, “it is the Spirit who gives life” (Jn. 6:63).

To further illustrate this point, it should be noted that Jesus, using the expression “born of the Spirit,” attributes the new birth to the Holy Spirit three times in John 3:5-8. Then Paul, under the figure of spiritual circumcision, attributes regeneration to the Holy Spirit in Romans 2:29.182 When this is tied in with Peter’s sermons in Acts 2 and 3, where he speaks of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in 2:38 and the “times of refreshing” in 3:19 (and both these expressions are viewed as parallel), it combines to tell us that when the Spirit, as a gift from the Father and the Son, is given to our “old man” in the watery grave of baptism, our spiritual nature is both refreshed and renewed. Thus, “even when we were dead in trespasses, [He] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph. 2:5).

With these things under our belts, we are ready to consider the question, “Why are we now disposed to do those things we were previously disinclined to do?” In answering this question, we get closer to the subject at hand, for in Romans 7:22, Paul said:

22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

By rehearsing what Paul said in these verses, I’m not trying to solve per se the problem presented by chapter 7. What I’m trying to do is lay a bit of groundwork for doing so. Notice what Paul says here—namely, “I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.” These are not, I’m convinced, the words of an unregenerate sinner. Instead, I see them as belonging to a spiritually born-again Christian who is totally predisposed to doing God’s will in all things. The fact that he doesn’t is, in fact, the very thing we seek to understand. In the meantime, the answer to the question, “Why are we now disposed to do those things we were previously uninclined to do?,” a three-parter: “I can!,” “I ought!,” and “I will!”

By “I can!,” we’re speaking the language of liberation. With our spirits (hearts and minds) regenerated, we have been raised up (empowered) to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Consequently, “our [new] way of life” (Eph. 2:10b, ISV) is described as a “walk[ing] in the light” (1 Jn. 1:7). As noted in our previous studies together, this is not a

182 It should be obvious that I believe “in the spirit” (en pneumati) is better translated as “by [or through] the Spirit” (cp. 2 Cor 3:3; 2 Cor. 3:6). 173 walk of sinless perfection, for if it were, we would need no continued cleansing by the blood of Christ. Instead, walking in the light is descriptive of our less-than-perfect walk of faith—a faith that continually seeks to meet the conditions of God’s magnificent grace.

The “I ought!” reflects the language of obligation. As creatures who were created in the image of God, but subsequently were corrupted by sin, and are now spiritually born again as the result of God’s undeserved grace, we ought (we must) be about our “Father’s business” (Lk. 2:49), which consists of “do[ing] good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).

Finally, “I will!” invokes the language of motivation. In other words, as repentant, confessing believers who have been raised to walk in newness of life, we will do good works not just because they are the right thing to do, but because of the grateful love we have for God, our Father, Jesus, our Lord, Redeemer, Brother, and Friend, and the Holy Spirit, who has raised us up (i.e., regenerated us) from our watery spiritual graves as spiritually new creatures in Christ.

I said all that to say this, there can be no mistake that the Bible teaches that the death of our “old man” and the resurrection of our “new man” in the watery grave of baptism occurred “in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom. 6:6, ESV). Consequently, we are “dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:11). “Therefore,” Paul says, “do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Rom. 6:12). “And,” he continues, “do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Rom. 6:13).

In summary, before being saved by grace through faith, we were living in a state of condemnation, slaves to sin (Rom. 6:6). We were desperately sin-sick (Jer. 17:9) and unable to please God with respect to His law (Rom. 8:7-8), in that we had all failed to keep it. In effect, we were bad trees, unable to produce good fruit (Matt. 7:16-18). But upon rendering obedience to the gospel (and contrary to Moser et al. there is a plan that goes with the Man), we were not just justified (i.e., with no longer any condemnation hanging over our heads), but regenerated as well. Not only do we have the blessed assurance of life everlasting, but via the Holy Spirit, our spirits have been granted new life. As a result, our “inner man” has been renewed in the ability to rule over our sinful, lustful, corrupted body (Rom. 6:6-14). Because of this, we can obey (i.e., we’ve been enabled to obey) God’s good commandments (viz., His most excellent law). Having therefore died to sin, we no longer want to live anymore in it (Rom. 6:2). We are therefore going to be striving, with God’s help, to eliminate sin from our lives. This is the point of Ephesians 2:10. Although we have been saved by grace through faith, and not as the result of our feeble, sin-sick encounters with God’s law (Eph. 2:8-9), “good works” (i.e., works of obedience) are still a part of the obligation we are rightly under to Christ. So even though it is clear we are not saved by ex ergō n nomou or “deeds [or works] of law” (Rom. 3:20, 28), we have, nevertheless been saved for such works, as Ephesians 2:10 makes clear. Keep in mind here that these “good works,” as Paul calls them, are

174 what make up, substantially, the law code we are under to Christ. Empowered by God’s Spirit, we can do these “good works,” and were, in fact, created anew in Christ Jesus for this very thing. A grateful, renewed heart not only can do God’s commandments, it will do them, gladly and lovingly, to God’s glory, which brings us to the subject of sanctification.

Sanctification In Stereo

The word sanctify (hagiazō) is the verb form of the adjective “holy” (hagios). Therefore, to be sanctified is to be made holy in the sense of 1 Peter 1:15-16, which says, “but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’” There can be no mistake that the word sanctification carries with it the idea of an initial, one-time act that took place when God separated us from “this present evil age” (Gal. 1:4), transferring us into “the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Col. 1:13). As such, it is a change of status or position before God and the world, just as is justification and regeneration. Thus, to be sanctified, in this sense, is to be “set apart,” and this is the way it’s used in 1 Corinthians 6:11, where it’s connected with the washing of baptism. Therefore, justification cum regeneration is the starting point of, as well as the prerequisite to, this sense of sanctification. However, there’s another sense in which sanctification is used. When used this way, it describe an on-going process—a process through which the Christian becomes more and more holy, more and more separated from sin, and it is in this sense that I will be using the term in what follows (once again see 1 Pet. 1:15-16). When used this way, sanctification is synonymous, for all practical purposes, with “works” or “deeds”; specifically, the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10.

Again, and this is often difficult for folks to understand, the works of sanctification are not works done in order to be saved. Instead, they are works done as a result of being saved. Miss this point, and Paul’s gospel is transformed into something it was never intended to be—namely, a system of justification by “works,” which, when all is said and done, requires some sort of “perfect” doing, particularly when it comes to the “backside of grace.”183 It is terribly frustrating that almost any consideration of “salvation by grace through faith; not of works lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9) has been effectively co-opted by:

(1) “Law-ers” who believe we are “saved by works,” and

(2) “Grace-ers” who believe we are “saved from works.”

Truth is, both are wrong! The Bible teaches we are “saved for works” (Eph. 2:10), and as such, our obligation (and “Grace-ers” clearly don’t like this word) is still to fear God and keep His commandments, for this is, and always has been, the whole duty of man (cf. Eccl. 12:13)—a duty which surely does not change upon becoming a Christian (cf. Gal.

183 Again, for a fairly detailed discussion of this issue, see my 2014 ABS article entitled “In What Sense Is The ‘Faith’ In Salvation By Grace Through Faith (Eph. 2:8-9) ‘Faith Only,’ Or ‘Faith Alone,’ And In What Sense Is It Not?” (Parts I & II). 175

6:7-10). In Christ, and no longer “slaves to sin” (i.e., freed from a system of justification by “works” (or perfect law keeping, if you will), we are willing and joyful “slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:16, 18-20).

However, we have not become such slaves in order to, unto, or for the purpose of, being saved, or even staying this way. Instead, we are willing slaves precisely because we have been, and are, saved in connection with the precious blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As justified sinners who have been born again and set apart spiritually, our driving passion is to glorify God in all we do (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; Eph. 3:20-21; 1 Pet. 2:13). Consequently, ours is a “faith that works” to bring glory, honor, and praise to God, our Redeemer, who in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, bought us off the slave block of sin and set us apart (sanctified us) with “His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Therefore, praise be to Him “who is able to keep [us] from stumbling, and to present [us] faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to God our Savior, who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen” (Jude 1:24-25).

With these truths firmly established in our minds, it’s time to consider Paul’s words in Romans 7 and how they fit within the scheme of things

The Text

When it comes to Romans 7:14-25, there are, in essence, but three basic interpretations:

(1) Paul was writing of his own pre-Christian experience under the law of Moses,

(2) he was writing of man’s experience in general apart from Christ, or

(3) he was writing of his own experience as a Christian.

I believe the latter to be correct, with the following qualification. I view the whole of Romans 7:7-25 as having to do with Paul’s experience with law in general, whether it be the law of Moses, or the law he was then under to Christ. Thus, and by extension, I believe his particular experience with the law of Moses, and the law he was then under to Christ (1 Cor. 9:21), extends universally to any man, under any law code, he found himself under to God. This would, of course, include the Gentiles and the law-of-the- heart code they were under to God (cf. Rom. 2:11-15). Thus, I see Paul’s experience with law, first with the law of Moses, and then the law code he was under to Christ, as typical of man’s collective experience with whatever law he finds himself under before God—an experience which always comes up short of what those laws required.

As a Jew, Paul had never been under the law the Gentiles were under, as his law code, before becoming amenable to the law code he was under to Christ, had always been the law of Moses. Consequently, when I read Romans 7:7-13, I understand the particular law to which Paul refers to be the law of Moses. Even so, we must not allow what Paul says in these verses to keep us from seeing the bigger picture, which is that not only have all

176 sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23), but that all of us who have experienced the “newness of life” that comes from a right relationship with the blood of Christ will continue to sin (cf. Rom. 6:4; 1 Jn 1:8), and this because of our present half- done condition. By “half done,” I mean that we remain in “lowly” bodies that are awaiting the final redemption that will be theirs in the coming resurrection (cf. Php. 3:21).

Therefore, when attempting to understand Romans 7:7-25, it is important to appreciate its position in the letter, especially chapters 1-8, which set forth the doctrine upon which everything else rests. When these verses are viewed this way, which is far from the parenthetical, out-of-place pronouncement some have thought it to be, we come to understand that salvation by grace through faith is far from the perfect doing some have imagined it to be. On the contrary, and as Paul forthrightly demonstrates (Rom. 7:7-25), his personal experience with law occupies an important position in the overall teaching of chapters 1-8, a section that contains the most sublime explication of the glorious, fleshed- out, up-close-and-personal gospel of Jesus Christ that appears in the whole of Scripture.

Of note in Romans 7:7-25 is Paul’s use of the personal pronouns (“I” and “me”), as well as the past and present tense (i.e., all those “have known,” “had said,” “produced in me,” “was dead,” etc. kind of expressions.). It seems clear Paul is speaking of a time in the past when, as a child, who had not yet reached the age of accountability, and he stood completely sinless before God. This is evidenced by his use of “apart from the law sin was dead” in verse 8b and “I was alive once without the law” in verse 9a.

Now, if Paul was speaking of himself, and the most straightforward reading of the text indicates he was, then he was referring to his experience as a circumcised Jew before he reached the age of accountability. “But,” he said, “when the commandment came” (v. 9b), and this would be a reference to his “adult” accountability to the law of Moses, he made it clear that “sin revived and [he] died” (v. 9c). “Revived” is a poor translation of anezē sen that gives the wrong impression. For when Paul experienced the law he was under to God as an amenable “adult,” sin “came alive” (ESV), or “sprang to life” (LEB), both of which more accurately convey the meaning of the Greek. In other words, Paul was not saying sin revived when the law came, but that it was “made alive” (NASB), and as a result, he died. If this was not Paul’s experience before and after his amenability to the law of Moses, then I am at a loss to know when this would have been.

So, although I believe that in the overall context of chap. 7 Paul is addressing his experience with the law of God in general, I am convinced that verses 7-13 have to do particularly with the law of Moses. But when we come to verses 14-25, I am just as convinced that Paul is speaking of his experience with the law he was then under to Christ. This, I think, is evidenced by Paul’s continued use of the personal pronoun (viz., “I,” “me,” “my”), but more particularly his switch from the past to the present tense (viz., “I am…,” “I do,” “I delight,” “I see,” etc.). Especially is this realized in his gut- wrenching cry and follow-up question: “O wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (v. 24). But even more convincing is his hopeful declaration of faith in verse 25a, “I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

177

It is this interpretation of Romans 7:7-25 that I believe best defines its meaning, and thus most helpful to those who make up the church in Rome. After all, if Paul is simply contrasting the primary difference between the law of Moses and the grace we have access to in Christ, of what value would that have been to Gentiles who were never under the law of Moses in the first place? With this said, what follows is my defense of this interpretation.

When it comes to verses 14-25, I’m convinced Paul has in mind his experience with the law he was under to Christ. Therefore, as abhorrent as it is to many, I believe the “wretched man” of verse 24 is none other than the “faithful unto death” apostle Paul, who firmly believed there was a “crown of righteousness” laid up for him that would be his at the Lord’s appearing (cf. Rev. 2:10; 2 Tim. 4:8). Of course, just why I believe the wretched man of verse 24 to be Paul himself is the very thing I’m under obligation to prove. For how is it that Paul could describe himself this way without falling prey to the charge he was being duplicitous in chapters 6-8; and if not quite disingenuous, then surely subject to the charge of being a double-minded man who was unstable in all his ways (Jas. 1:8)? Again, how could the wretched man of verse 24 be an actual description of the apostle Paul without his readers viewing him as some sort of reprobate? These are some of the questions I’ll be trying to answer in my feeble attempt to exegete what Paul said in this section.

The Nature Of The Struggle (7:14-20)

7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual,… This is a transitional statement, summing up the basic point of verses 7-13 and reaffirming the goodness of the law in reference to the questions posed in verses 7 and 13. It also opens the way for Paul’s forthright examination of his own spiritual walk of faith, which serves, in turn, as a mirror for every Christian. But I am carnal, sold under sin. Although the translation of sarkinos as “carnal,” as in the KJV, ASV, and NJKV, is literally correct, they do not, in my opinion, provide a clear understanding of how sarkinos is being used here by Paul. Worse yet are the NIV’s “unspiritual” and the ISV’s “merely human.” In my opinion, the NASB’s “of flesh” and the NRSV’s and ESV’s “of the flesh” do a much better job of conveying what Paul has in mind here. The word itself is from sarx, which means “flesh.” So, although sarkinos can be used to mean under the control of our flesh, as the NASB’s “in the flesh” of 7:5 and “according to the flesh” in 8:5, it is not used that way here. Here it basically means “composed of flesh,”184 and thus does not refer to man as a whole, as the materialists erroneously think, but simply the physical part of man—namely, “our lowly body” (Php 3:21, ESV).

Even so, what Paul says here is more than simply a metaphysical statement that man is composed of a physical body, for it is also a statement with moral implications. The first of these is the idea that although we have been justified and regenerated, we still come under the influence of our sin-sick bodies—bodies that have not yet been set free from the “bondage of corruption” to which they remain enslaved (cf. Rom. 8:18-25). Moses

184 Cranfield, vol. I, p. 375. 178

Lard said it well when he wrote, “I Paul am fleshly; though redeemed, and pardoned, and accepted, I am still fleshly; not wholly so, but fleshly, fleshly because still in a body of flesh, from the influence of which, so long as I am in it, I cannot become entirely freed.”185

The moral implications of sarkinos are further amplified by the modifier “sold under sin” (pepramenos hupo tē n hamartian), which carries with it the idea of being sold to sin, as a slaveholder, and thus under sin’s power or control. But if this is truly a description of the Christian’s walk of faith, how can it be reconciled with Romans 6:6, 15-23, which says that although we “used to be slaves of sin” (v. 17, NIV), we have been “set free from sin and have become slaves of righteousness” (v. 18, NIV)? Actually, this is not quite the problem many think it to be, for chapter 6 refers to the liberation of our spirit or inner man, not our body. Chapter 7 is designed to make it absolutely clear that our bodies have not yet been so redeemed (v. 25; cf. 8:23). Therefore, and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, Paul, using himself as an example, teaches us that even though we are already redeemed spiritually, our bodies (our “fleshly” parts) are still, in their unregenerate state, “sold under sin” (i.e., very much accustomed to, and habituated by, sin). Even so, what Paul teaches here can in no way be taken as an excuse for the sin we continue to commit. For having been set free from sin and born again spiritually, we are able to exercise effective operational control over bodies that remain inclined or predisposed to sin. Furthermore, empowered as we are in all this by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:13), we are able to actually use sin-sick bodies in service to God (Rom. 6:6, 12-13). Thus, Paul’s “I am of flesh, sold under sin” statement neither excuses sin nor consigns us to hopelessness. Still, “it does explain why and how we, even as Christians, continue to be plagued by sin and are subject to an on-going struggle and occasional defeat.”186

7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. Although Paul clearly does not want to sin, he is talking about the fact that he still does. Thus, he is not saying he doesn’t “understand,” as the NKJV translates ginōskō, for he makes it clear that he does know or understand what is happening (cf. 7:14). Instead, he’s saying he does not “allow” what is happening, as in the KJV. Put another way, he does not approve, condone, nor acknowledge the legitimacy of the sinful things he sometimes finds himself doing (i.e., he is not denying he sometimes sins, for it is a fact that he does, only that he does not accept such behavior as being right or legitimate). In this sense, what he’s saying is, “I do not acknowledge sin as my true master; I do not accept the legitimacy of its rule over my life.”187 For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. Key words here are “want” and “hate.” “Want” (thelō) represents the born-again disposition of the regenerate spirit or inner man. It represents the inherent desire of the new creature in Christ to obey the “good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (12:2), which he sometimes finds himself not doing. On the other hand, “hate” (miseō) represents the dislike, loathing, and abhorrence the regenerate spirit has for the sinful things he sometimes finds himself doing. Such hatred is the natural outgrowth of repentance and the supernatural result of the new birth. So even though that which is occasionally being

185 Lard, 236. 186 Cottrell, Romans, vol. I, p. 446. 187 Ibid., p. 447. 179 done is sin, the disposition of the one doing it (in this case, Paul) is that of a regenerate heart, not the mind of an unregenerate sinner. The heartbreaking irony, of course, is that what we sometimes find ourselves doing is the very opposite of what we are wanting to do.

It is this struggle we see played out in verses 16-20: 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

The Source Of The Struggle (7:21-25)

In this section, Paul identifies the source of the willingness to do one thing and the doing of something else, found in 7:14-20, as the conflict that is taking place between our redeemed spirits and our as-yet-unregenerate bodies. He has already intimated this in 7:14 (“I am of flesh,” ESV) and 7:18 (“in my flesh”), but now embarks upon explicit detail.

7:21 I find then a law,… Here Paul is saying that when he analyzes what is going on within himself, this is what he discovered. And what is this? That there is a “law” (nomos) working within him. As used here, this word must mean “governing principle,” “the rule of life,” “the regulating pattern,” etc. This is also the way he used it in 3:27 and 8:2. And what is this “law”? that evil is present with me, the one who wants to do good. In the NIV, this reads, “When I want to do good, evil is right there with me,” which as an interpretation pretty much strikes a pose between normative and dynamic equivalency. In other words, as a Christian determined to speak kind and compassionate words of comfort and encouragement, it is sometimes not very long before I find myself speaking angry words of discouragement. Resolved to never again commit a particular sin, as soon as circumstances once again present themselves, I find myself doing one more time the very thing I hate. Why does this happen? The answer is found in what follows.

7:22-23 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Here Paul cuts to the chase. In very explicit terms he contrasts the two parts of man’s dual nature. One of these is the “inward man” (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16 as well). This is the spirit or soul. Paul also refers to it as “my mind” (v. 23). In the justified and regenerate sinner this “inner man” (Eph. 3:16) has been so radically transformed that he, or it, is referred to as a “new man,” and thus contrasted with the “old man” who had previously been in bondage to sin (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10). The other part of man’s dual nature is his fleshly body (see previous comments on “of flesh” in 7:14), which Paul simply calls “my members” (cf. Rom. 6:13b).

180

Another contrast being made in these verses has to do with two kinds of “law.” One of these laws or governing principles is God’s law, which Paul describes as “the law of my mind” (v. 23b). This is yet another piece of evidence that the words being spoken here are not those of an unregenerate sinner. For so important to him is God’s law, that he describes it as being the all-encompassing code that governs his renewed, regenerate, born-again mind. In contrast to this, he speaks of “another law,” which he further describes as “the law of sin” (23b). It is called “law” for the sake of symmetry with the “law” of his mind, and is used here in the sense of a power that exerts control. Thus, conflict is present in our walk of faith because one part of who we are, which is a spirit- body duality, is intent on following God’s law, while the other is predisposed, as a result of its fallen, habituated, unregenerate nature, to follow the law of sin.

Miss this, and one fails to appreciate the fact that there is a real, on-going, spiritual battle taking place for the Christian’s mind. Even for those very much aware of this struggle, there is the tendency to view it as an “out there” battle. This, too, is a result of not fully understanding what Paul is here teaching, for the battle, indeed, is primarily an internal one. Yes, Satan and his minions are still at work all right, desperately trying to lure us into sinning. But even this is focused on the internal struggle between our redeemed spirits and our own corrupted-by-sin bodies. In other words, Satan, although a defeated enemy, still has a toehold or beachhead at the very essence or center of our being. Sadly, it is just here—namely, the spirit-body struggle at the very core of our being—that some succumb to the wiles (tricks or devices) of the Devil. Thinking themselves habitual sinners who can never be what God created them in Christ Jesus to be, they throw up their hands in frustration, surrendering saving faith to the Devil’s lie. Some of us have either been there ourselves, or have come awfully close to being there, and it is just here that Satan is at his strongest. Consequently, I believe what Paul wrote here is the antidote to all such thinking. Furthermore, and on the other side of this pitiful equation, there are those who have convinced themselves they have gotten so good at this thing called Christianity that they seldom, if ever, sin. Eaten up with arrogance, these folks are bald- faced liars to boot (cf. 1 Jn. 1:10). This means that those in this latter group are just as deceived by, and in the clutches of, Satan as are those in the first group. And so, it is most ironic that a section of Paul’s letter which was apparently designed as an immediate and effective remedy for all such thinking is so widely disputed.

The military metaphors Paul uses to describe the inner struggle of Christians are quite instructive. With a beachhead in our as yet unregenerate bodies, the law of sin wages war against the law of our minds, which is none other than the law of Christ, a law now firmly entrenched in our inner beings. As a result, Satan’s onslaught against our determined desire to do what is right comes not just from the outside, like those to be found in our ungodly, secularized culture, but from within our own selves. Betrayed by our own sin- sick bodies, we sometimes—and once would be enough—find ourselves defeated by such things. This is what Paul is talking about when he says, “bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members” (v. 23b). In the NIV, it reads, “making me a prisoner,” which is but another military metaphor for the taking of prisoners in war. Even so, it is important to understand that Paul is not talking about a constant state of captivity or imprisonment, but only an occasional defeat. Although our “fleshly,” habituated-to-sin

181 bodies remain an ever-present vulnerability, and will remain so until they are resurrected and glorified, our justified and regenerate spirits make it possible for us to effectively control our sin-sick bodies most of the time. But until the final victory is achieved in the resurrection, we face the danger of our souls/spirits being occasionally recaptured by sin.

7:24 This causes Paul to cry out: O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? This is not, as some suppose, the cry of an unregenerate sinner who is constantly caught up in sin. Instead, it is the cry of a Christian with a born-again spirit who continues to be plagued by a “body of death” that makes him susceptible to sin, which is thus a reference to his yet unregenerate fleshly body. To refer to his body as a “body of death” is first a reference to the fact that it continues to be under the curse of physical death. But it also references the body’s spiritual corruption as well, for what is being a slave to sin (7:14), or to be indwelt by sin (7:17-18), or to be used as an instrument of warfare against the soul (6:13), putting the whole person in jeopardy of eternal death, if it’s not a state of spiritual death? So, even though the Christian’s spirit has already been made alive in Christ, his body is still so much in the grip of sin’s power that it is referred to as a “body of death.”

It is no wonder then that Paul cries out, “O wretched man that I am!” Is this the cry of despair? Many think so, and therefore cannot bring themselves to believe this is the cry of a Christian, particularly the great apostle Paul. I disagree. Yes, it is certainly the cry of frustration, anguish, and heartache; and who among us has not felt exactly like this when we’ve sinned, especially when we know we’ve continued to do so over and over again? Again, the point here is not so much how often we sin, whether frequently or rarely (and no one must doubt that we do get better at not sinning so frequently as we go through the sanctification process), but the disturbing fact that we do continue to sin after being spiritually born again. Therefore, this cry of Paul’s is not the despairing cry of one who has no hope. It is, instead, the cry of one who knows his hope—not just now in the present world, but in the world to come—is rooted, as he says in the very next verse, in “Jesus Christ our Lord!”

7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! Paul does not mean Jesus as the Mediator of his prayer, but Jesus as the Source or Basis of the rescue he refers to in verse 24b. Both the current indwelling Spirit and the future resurrected body are gifts deriving from the resurrected, glorified, exalted Christ. Thus, immediately following his previous outburst of anguish over continuing to sin and his subsequent outpouring of praise for the Messiah, Paul proceeds to sum up the struggle he has so candidly laid out in verses 14- 23. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. The “I myself” here is the emphatic autos egō, and does not mean “I by myself” (i.e., apart from Christ), as some think, especially those who see this whole section as referring to the unregenerate. Instead, Paul is talking about the body-soul duality that is who he is as a person or self; for although there are two parts to his nature, he is still but one person, one ego, one self, the man Paul. Thus, the conflict taking place between his inner and outer man is a very real part of who he is. “With the mind” which represents his spiritual nature, he serves the law of God. “With the flesh,” which represents his corrupted, sin-sick body, he far too often (again, once would be enough) finds himself

182 serving the law of sin. To make this “sinful nature,” as the NIV does, misses the point and reflects a Reformed bent. Nonetheless, it is clear from what Paul says here, and what we know from experience, that our as-yet-unregenerate bodies remain under sin’s cruel influence, and as such, continue to be at cross-purposes with our redeemed and God- centered minds—minds which want to do God’s will in all things.

In other words, the truth of the matter is that before conversion we had become enslaved to sin with our whole selves, i.e., the totality of who we are as both body and soul/spirit (6:17). In the process, we willingly offered up our bodies as slaves to sin (6:19-20). This was not God’s fault, for we were not born this way, as Calvinists and others think; nor was it the fault of God’s most excellent law. On the contrary, we became this way by choice when confronted with God’s law and the demands it placed upon us, in that we rebelled against His legitimate right to rule over us. But that was then; this is now. Now, in our inward man (i.e., our spirits), we have willingly switched our allegiance to the law of sin to serve the law of God (Christ). As a result, we are fully committed to serving the law of Christ not just with our spirits, but with our bodies as well (6:19). But it is just here that the battle rages, for although the inner man has the responsibility to bring the outer man into check, the body continues to resist, clinging instead to “the law of sin and death” (8:2). In the meantime, and with the assurance of God’s continued grace, and knowing we have not yet attained perfection, we press on, that we may lay hold of that for which Jesus Christ has laid hold on us (cf. Php. 3:12).

There’s A Great Day Coming

Indeed, there’s a great day coming. It’s a day in which our corrupted bodies of death will be regenerated and fully redeemed, being raised incorruptible, and thus changed or transformed from the lowly humiliated bodies they have become (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:52; Php. 3:21, KJV). So once again we see that Paul’s “who will save me from the body of this death?” outcry was not a question he did not know the answer to, but his affirmation that his hope of God’s grace was not just in this world, but in the world to come where he believed his fully sanctified and redeemed resurrected body would be fully suited to dwell in “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (1 Pet 3:13).

Here at the end of this section, I believe I have presented ample evidence to conclude that chapter 7 is in fact Paul’s articulation of his own continuing struggle with sin, a struggle common to every Christian. As such, it was strategically placed exactly where he and the Holy Spirit wanted it to be in order to qualify what he wrote in chapter 6, and thus facilitate the amplification that comes in chapter 8. Indeed, the symmetry of chapters 6, 7, and 8 is perfect, much to the chagrin of man-made think-sos.

If The Interpretation Defended Above Is True, How Does It Jibe With What Paul Said In Philippians 3:6?

183

Php. 3:4b-6 4b If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Now, if Paul wrote in Romans 7:14-25 of continuing to struggle with sin after becoming a Christian, even to the point of sometimes losing the battle, then how was he able, with a straight face, to argue, in Philippians 3:6, that “concerning the righteousness that was in the law [of Moses],” he was “blameless”?

For those who defend a so-called “‘Lutheran’ Paul,”188 his statement here is nothing more than racial hubris, in that he was invoking blamelessness based on what he thought the Torah had said about his unconditional election to salvation. But as we all know, the Torah taught no such thing! Yes, the Jews were unconditionally elected all right; but to service, not salvation! Then there are those who believe that Paul, in Philippians 3:6, was claiming to be “blameless” (i.e., sinless) because he had, in point of fact, kept the law of Moses flawlessly. As we learned at the 2013 ABS, this is the position that some proponents of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), like E. P. Sanders et al., advocate. According to Sanders, keeping the law really wasn’t as hard as most have thought, and the apostle Paul is simply using himself as proof. Consequently, Sanders believes the only thing wrong with the Judaism or “pattern of religion” of Paul’s day was that it wasn’t Christianity.189

Truth is, neither the Lutheran nor NPP Paul accurately describe what he was saying here about his pre-Christian experience. Yes, he was certainly depicting a haughty attitude all right, but it wasn’t based solely on his standing as a Jew, as those who espouse a Lutheran Paul think, for it is clear from the context that he was speaking of his own personal zeal and accomplishments as well: “And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (Gal. 1:14). Furthermore, so zealous was Paul that he “persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it” (Gal 1:13). All of which points to the fact that the pre-Christian Paul did indeed have “confidence in the flesh—i.e., taking pride in the things he was able to accomplish, things which lifted him above his countrymen (i.e., “11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess,’” Lk. 18:11-12). Therefore, there must be no doubt that Saul of Tarsus was eaten up with hubris and was, therefore, not “blameless,” if by the use of this word is meant “sinlessness.”

When taking all this into consideration and combining it with what Paul said about the effect the law of Moses had on him when he reached the age of accountability and became amenable to it (viz., “it killed me,” Rom. 7:11), we know that Paul could not be saying he was sinless when subject to it. Instead, he was using “blameless” (amemptos) exactly the way he used it and its cognates in others places. For example, in giving instructions to Timothy concerning the appointment of “elders,” Paul told him a “bishop

188 Stephen Westerholm’s Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics. 189 Sanders, p. 552. 184 then must be blameless” (1 Tim. 3:2). The word here is anepilēmpton. It can mean, just like amemptos, spotless or sinless (cf. 1 Tim. 6:14). Nevertheless, as with many other words, the context in which it is used has much to say about its meaning in that context. Here, Paul is not saying a bishop must be spotless or sinlessly perfect, only that he must not be a person who can be legitimately accused of “walk[ing] in darkness” (1 Jn. 1:6). Viewed positively, such blamelessness is described as a “walk[ing] in the light,” which again, is clearly not sinless perfection (cf. 1 Jn. 1:7).

Therefore, I believe it must be concluded that what Paul was conveying in Philippians 3:6 is exactly what he was intending to convey, and this is that as a proud and haughty Jew who was zealous for meeting all the commandments and conditions laid out in the law of Moses, he had done so well as to be free of any charge his countrymen would think to bring against him. But if, as Sanders thinks, the only problem Paul had with the law of Moses was that it wasn’t Christianity, this absolutely flies in the face of Paul’s argument manifested in all he said everywhere, which is, “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory” (Rom. 3:23). After all, this is the same Paul who went on to say:

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Pho. 3:7-11).

One More Thing

1 Thess. 5:23-24 23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it. In addition to being a proof-text for trichotomists,190 verse 23 is one of those passages that is used to question whether our bodies are still waiting to be regenerated/fully redeemed. According to these folks (and some of these are brethren on both sides of the “law-er”-“grace-er” divide), our justification and regeneration was not just something that happened to our spirits, but instead, the full, once-for-all redemption of the whole man—an event that took place when we were justified, regenerated, and sanctified, which are, these think, just three words which simply mean the very same thing, which is “saved.” For many denominationalists, this is the “once saved, always saved” doctrine—a doctrine that, among other things, totally ignores and making moot the internal struggle presently taking place between our justified, regenerate spirits and our yet unregenerate bodies.

190 See my “A Review Of A Biblical Worldview Largely Rejected By Realized Eschatologists” at the 2010 ABS. In this article, I address the duality vs. trichotomy of man debate. 185

Yes, there is a very real sense in which the totality of who we are, bodies and souls/spirits, have already been purchased/redeemed (cf. Acts 20:27; Eph. 1:13-14). Indeed, God already owns our bodies. But the kicker is, they have not yet been born again or regenerated. This is what the sanctification process is all about, for one day our bodies will be resurrected (or changed) and glorified. At that point, and this is what Paul is praying for in 1 Thess. 5:23, we will have become 100% justified, regenerated, and sanctified. Our present hope is focused on that day and the One who will have made it possible. Oh, what a great and glorious day that will be!

So there is a real sense in which the totality of who we are, both in body and soul, has already been redeemed, just as there is a very real sense in which we have already been adopted as sons (Rom. 8:15). Nevertheless, there’s a sense in which we are yet to be redeemed and adopted, and this will come at “the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23b). Again, what a great and glorious day that will be!

Using 2 Corinthians 5:1 as a proof-text, there are those who claim there is no continuity between our heavenly bodies and the sin-sick, death-stricken ones we are now stuck with. They have either forgotten or never really understood even the very first thing about resurrection—namely, if our bodies aren’t resurrected, then there is no resurrection. Now, it is true that every resurrection is not a resurrection of our bodies (i.e., our dead-in-sin spirits were raised up, or resurrected, at our new birth), but the resurrection of our dead bodies are exactly that—the resurrection, or the giving of life to, our current mortal bodies:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:42-44, emphasis mine).

These bodies of ours are not simply husks to be cast off in death. On the contrary, they have been predestined to one day be resurrected and glorified with Christ in His resurrection and glorification (cf. Rom. 8:29-30; Php. 3:21). Yes, indeed, there is a great day coming!

In Conclusion

By God’s grace we have embarked upon a great endeavor that will culminate in the resurrection and glorification of (i.e., the perfection of) our bodies in the “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13). There in eternity we will no longer be encumbered by corrupted, sin-sick bodies. We will instead be sinlessly perfect forever and ever. Indeed, there’s a great day coming!

In the interim, we have become willing participants in an on-going sanctification process by which God, the Father, through the Holy Spirit, is molding and shaping us into the

186 image of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, not just now, but in the age to come. Let us therefore be diligent to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Php. 2:12).

Finally, another way of viewing this is to see it as a battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. In this battle, the focus of evil (i.e., Satan, his spiritual minions, and humans who remain in their clutches) is on our now regenerate mind, for if this citadel can be breached, these forces will have won the battle. But there is more, for in this formidable battle for our minds, there is an “enemy within the gates.” If we remain ignorant of this, we are in grave danger. Even when we do know it, we must do everything we can to capture him, thus bringing him into check. Otherwise, he will destroy our only hope of everlasting life. Truth is, we have met the enemy within our gate, and he is us, at least in part. But instead of becoming so discouraged that we wind up surrendering, let us take courage in the assurance that God, with our cooperation, is presently turning this enemy into a friend, a magnificent feat that will culminate in the resurrection and glorification of our unregenerate, physically dead mortal bodies. It is only then that we will have become sinlessly perfect; it is only then that there will be true and lasting “Shalom!” Oh, what a great and glorious day that will be!

Bibliography

Cottrell, Jack. Romans, 2 vol. “The College Press NIV Commentary.” Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996.

______. Set Free!: What The Bible Says About Grace. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 2009 (second printing 2010),.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vol. “The International Critical Commentary,” new series. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans. Cincinnatti, OH: Standard Publishing, n.d., but Preface is dated February 3, 1875.

Moser, K. C. The Way of Salvation. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1932. Reprint, Delight, AR: Gospel Light, n.d.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament Epistles: A Critical And Exegetical Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Moberly, MO: Scriptures Exposition Books, 1987, reprinted 1996.

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977.

187

Stevens, R. J. and Shepard, Dane K, eds. Hymns for Worship, Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2000.

Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Internet Articles

Dvorak, Allen. 2013 Alpharetta Bible Study. “Justification By Works.” http://alpharetta- bible-study.com/images/PDFs/2013/06%20-%20Justification%20by%20Faith%20 by%20Allen%20Dvorak.pdf

Turner, Allan. 2014 Alpharetta Bible Study. “In What Sense Is The ‘Faith’ In Salvation By Grace Through Faith (Eph. 2:8-9) ‘Faith Only,’ Or ‘Faith Alone,’ And In What Sense Is It Not?,” parts 1 & 2. http://alpharetta-bible-study.com/images/ PDFs/2014/ Turner%20-%20Faith%20Alone.pdf

______. 2010 Alpharetta Bible Study. “A Review Of A Biblical Worldview Largely Rejected By Realized Eschatologists.” http://alpharetta-bible-study.com/images/ PDFs/WhatIsMan.pdf

188

Did Jesus Die As Our Substitute?

By Allen Dvorak

There are several statements (or their equivalents) that are commonly heard as individuals describe the purpose of Jesus’ death. Some examples include:

“Jesus suffered the punishment due the sinner.”

“Jesus paid the price for our sins.”

“On the cross, Jesus took our place.”

“Jesus died as our substitute.”

If these sample statements are examined closely, it will be recognized that they do not all necessarily have the same meaning. Some of these statements are suggesting that the death of Jesus was the remedy for our sins (“paid the price for our sins”; “died as our substitute”), but others are affirming that, in Jesus’ death, He suffered the penalty for the sins of mankind.

What do we mean when we say that the death of Jesus was “substitutionary”? Are we saying that Jesus suffered the punishment that we, as sinners, are due? Or are we saying that Jesus was our substitute in the sense that He did what we could not do?

The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus died on our behalf, i.e., for our benefit. For instance, consider these passages:

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)191

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)

But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

191 All quotations of Scripture are taken from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise indicated. 189

By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:8)

It should be noted that “for us” or “for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6b, 8b) does not necessarily mean “as a substitute.” The preposition huper (ὑπέρ) is the one found in Romans 5:6, 8 (“for us” / “for the ungodly”). BDAG gives the meaning of this preposition, when used with the genitive, as “a marker indicating that an activity or event is in some entity’s interest, for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone/something” and lists Romans 5:8 under the section with the epsilon heading.192

Louw-Nida defines the preposition in the same way: ὑπέρa (with the genitive): “a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event or on whose behalf an event takes place—‘for, on behalf of, for the sake of.’”193 194

Why Did Jesus Die?

It is crucial that the requirement for the forgiveness of sins be understood. The Hebrews author identified the requirement in this passage:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22)

Hebrews 9:22 states a critical principle: forgiveness of sins (atonement) requires the giving of a life, which is the significance of “the shedding of blood.” The sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law illustrates that principle with its animal sacrifices, particularly as seen in the Day of Atonement ritual.

The Mosaic Law, with its shadows, also teaches us about the nature of that sacrificial life. Animal sacrifices in general and particularly sacrifices for sin were to be physically perfect, i.e., without blemish (Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:16). Note the obvious parallel to Jesus:

18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

192 Arndt, p. 1030. 193 Louw-Nida, Vol. 1, pp. 801–802. 194 The preposition “for” in Hebrews 2:9 is also translated from the Greek preposition ὑπέρ. 190

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:14)

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:22)

Some explanations of the atonement provided by Christ fail to observe this important principle identified in Hebrews 9:22. God doesn’t forgive sins without the requirement of shed blood being met. Some views of the atonement portray God as “forgiving” sin without the satisfying of any requirement. In such views, He becomes like some parents, who promise punishment for disobedience (sin), but then simply set aside the punishment without cause.

Propitiation

The death of Christ is clearly connected to several ideas in the Scriptures. For instance, the Scriptures teach that “God put forward” Jesus as a propitiation.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put 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. (Romans 3:21-25)

The word translated propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) carries the idea of appeasing wrath by an offering to satisfy justice. God’s judicial wrath is directed toward those who sin:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)

God’s wrath against sin is appeased by the sacrifice of Jesus, His blood representing His life given on the cross. We are “saved by him from the wrath of God” (Romans 5:9b).

Redemption

The word redemption speaks of the paying of a ransom for the purpose of providing liberty. The blood of Jesus is identified as the ransom paid for the freedom of the sinner.

191

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (Ephesians 1:7)

18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

Justification

Paul argues in Romans that man will not be justified through his own merit, i.e., by works. We will be “justified by his grace as a gift” (Romans 3:24a). For the sinner, justification is the consequence of forgiveness. We are justified by his blood (Romans 5:9a). The judicial requirement for forgiveness, the giving of a perfect, sacrificial life, was satisfied in Jesus’ death on the cross. In light of Jesus’ sacrifice, God is just to forgive sin and not require of the sinner the penalty for sin (Romans 3:25b-26).

Reconciliation

We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Romans 5:10). However, reconciliation necessitates the removal of that which has separated two parties. Man is separated from God by his sins (Isaiah 59:2). Does God “justify” men, i.e., declare them free from sin, without any “cost,” without any “requirement”? The Scriptures also teach that the application of Jesus’ sacrificial offering depends upon the response of man (Romans 3:25 – “to be received by faith”).

Penal Substitution

The classic theory of penal substitution suggests that Jesus received the punishment due all sinners. According to this theory, he died a “substitutionary” death in that sense. The classic theory also affirms that the sins of mankind were imputed (transferred) to Jesus. This idea is drawn from such passages as:

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all…11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:6, 11-12)

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24)

192

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Galatians 3:13)

Note that the text of Galatians 3:13 does not say explicitly that Jesus took our curse for us; it says that he became a curse for us. The preposition in Galatians 3:13 translated “for” in the phrase “for us” is huper. The pronoun translated “us” is in the genitive case and thus should be defined as noted earlier in this manuscript. The same argument made on Romans 5:8 with regard to “died for us” can be made regarding Galatians 3:13…and Hebrews 2:9.

“He Bore Our Sins”

In discussing the subject of penal substitution, it should be acknowledged that the primary question is not if Jesus bore our sins, but how. Did He literally “bear” them in the sense of becoming guilty of them or did He “bear” them in some figurative sense?195 It would seem that Ezekiel 18:20 would bear (pun intended!) on this question. The principle of that passage not only denies the Calvinistic doctrine of total inherited depravity (at least the guilt aspect of that doctrine), but also the idea of the general transference of mankind’s sins to Jesus, a foundational concept of the classic theory of penal substitution.

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20)196

It is sometimes argued that 2 Corinthians 5:21 also teaches that mankind’s sins were transferred to Jesus.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21; ESV)

I would observe, first of all, that the text of 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not explicitly say “made him sinful,” but rather “made him to be sin.” Just as the expression, “the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6b) must be understood figuratively, so the text in 2 Corinthians 5:21 obviously must be understood figuratively. Using sin as a synonym of “iniquity,” did the Lord lay on Jesus’ physical back the sins of mankind, like bricks, each weighing so many pounds? Of course not! Sin is not a physical weight or volume. Sin is the violation (commission or omission) of divine law. How could Jesus literally

195 Some would argue that the sins of mankind were imputed to Jesus, but not the guilt of those sins. Personally, I don’t understand how this would work. My understanding of the concept of the “imputation” of sin is that it is essentially the charging of guilt. 196 New King James Version. 193 become sin? Likewise, a literal meaning of “laid on him the iniquity of us all” makes no sense. Consider this illustration. In my youth, I lied to my father. Lying is a sin, an act in which I say something that I know is not true. Did the Lord literally “lay” on Jesus my lie? How could that possibly be done? Did Jesus literally become a liar? I would argue that He did not.

The expression “made him to be sin” (2 Cor. 5:21) obviously connects Jesus in some way with sin, but it is not an inescapable conclusion that Jesus had the sins of mankind imputed to Him or that He became guilty of the sins of all mankind. I understand Paul to be saying that Jesus was “made to be sin” in that He became an offering for sin. In that way, He was “connected” to sin just as a sin offering had a connection with the sin of the one who offered it.

That such an understanding is reasonable is seen in the teaching of Scripture elsewhere. For instance, Isaiah described the death of Jesus as “an offering for guilt” (53:10). The same Hebrew word used to describe guilt offerings in Leviticus (’āšām) is used by Isaiah to describe the death of Jesus.197

15 “If anyone commits a breach of faith and sins unintentionally in any of the holy things of the Lord, he shall bring to the Lord as his compensation, a ram without blemish out of the flock, valued in silver shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering. 16 He shall also make restitution for what he has done amiss in the holy thing and shall add a fifth to it and give it to the priest. And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven. (Leviticus 5:15–16; ESV – emphasis mine - asd)

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:10-11; emphasis mine - asd)

If the sins of mankind were not imputed to Jesus, how did He “bear” them? Note this comparison of Isaiah 53:4 with Isaiah 53:11-12.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4)

11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12)

197 Hutto. 194

The Hebrew word translated “borne” in verse 4 is the same word translated “bore” in verse 12b. The Hebrew word translated “carried” in verse 4 is the same word translated “bear” in verse 11b. The gospel writer Matthew helps us understand the meaning of “bearing our griefs” and “carrying our sorrows” in verse 4 by quoting that passage in Matthew 8:17, indicating that Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah 53:4.198

16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.” (Matthew 8:16–17; ESV)

How did Jesus “bear” their griefs and “carry” their sorrows? He healed the sick and cast out the evil spirits/demons. Did Jesus bear their sicknesses by becoming sick? Did He carry their sorrows by becoming possessed? No, He provided the means for their healing, their release. He provided the remedy for their problems; He didn’t personally become afflicted with their problems.

Did Jesus “bear” our sins in the same way? Remember that the same words are used in verse 4 and verses 11-12. Did Jesus bear the sins of mankind in the sense of receiving man’s punishment or did He provide the means for our spiritual healing, our release? Once again, He clearly gave His life as a sacrifice for our forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). Additionally, the word translated “bear” in Leviticus 16:22 is the same as in Isaiah 53:4 (“borne”) and 12b (“bore”). When the scapegoat “bore all their iniquities,” did it become a sinner? Is that the only possible way to understand the expression?

The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:22; ESV)

“Jesus took our punishment on the cross.”

The primary emphasis of penal substitution is that, on the cross, Jesus suffered the punishment for mankind’s sins. An appeal is sometimes made to Isaiah 53:5 to suggest that Jesus was chastised as punishment for the sins of mankind.199 And indeed, the English word “chastisement” carries the idea of punishment. This verse is perhaps one of the most troubling for those who see remedy rather than penalty in the death of Jesus.

But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5; ESV)

198 The word translated “griefs” in Isaiah 53:4 literally means “sicknesses.” 199 For example, Vine writes, “Isaiah predicted that God’s chastisement on man was carried by the Suffering Servant, bringing peace to those who believe in Him: ‘But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed’” (53:5).” (Vol. 1, p. 123.) 195

Note that the biblical text (ESV) does not say “our” chastisement, but rather “the” chastisement. I have been unable to find any translation that uses the personal pronoun “our,” although a number of versions use the word “punishment” to translate the Hebrew word mucar, with some such translations giving the impression that Jesus suffered the punishment that man deserves as a result of his sin (e.g., NRSV, NIV, The Message).

There is, of course, no doubt that Jesus was chastised by men, i.e., treated as an evildoer. However, Isaiah 53:10 states that it was also the will of the Lord that Jesus be “crushed.”

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10; ESV)

The key question is: Did Jesus receive the chastisement (punishment) that sinners should have received? There is no doubt that the death of Jesus brought peace to sinners,200 but was that peace predicated particularly upon the chastisement suffered by Jesus…or simply by His death, sacrificial in nature, as the requirement for forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22)?

The Punishment for Sin

Perhaps we can approach the question of penal substitution from a different direction. If Jesus, on the cross, took the punishment that man deserved, what was that punishment?

Spiritual Death?

The Scriptures clearly teach that one of the consequences of sin in this life is spiritual death, i.e., separation from God. Note the following passages:

13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness…16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Romans 6:13, 16; ESV)

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1; ESV)

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, (Colossians 2:13; ESV)

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:26; ESV)

200 See Romans 5:1 – we have peace through justification by faith. 196

The punishment for sin, however, is eternal separation from God. Note these passages:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23; ESV)

9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10; ESV)

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41; ESV)

Physical Death?

Is physical death really the punishment for sin? Banished from the tree of life, physical death passed on all men because of Adam’s sin, regardless of their individual spiritual condition (Genesis 3:19, 22-24). Certainly the sin of an individual sometimes brings physical death as a consequence of sin, but death is universal, taking even those who are innocent of sin and those whose sins have been forgiven. If Jesus took on Himself mankind’s punishment for sin (i.e., physical death) for sin, why do ALL men still die physically? Furthermore, if the punishment for my sins is physical death, why should I worry about that punishment…since I will die physically anyway? Forgiven or unforgiven, every man keeps his appointment with physical death.

What about the teaching of Ezekiel 18:4, 20? Do these verses teach that physical death is the punishment for sin?

Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4; ESV)

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20; ESV)

Note the difference between the ESV and the NKJV in verse 20:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20; NKJV)

It is one thing to suffer because of the sin of another; it is quite another thing to “bear the guilt” for the sins of another. The common experience of mankind suggests that individuals often suffer temporal consequences as a result of the sins of others. The ESV

197 creates a contradiction with other passages with its poor translation of verse 20. Sometimes the son does suffer because of the iniquity of his father, but he doesn’t bear the father’s guilt.

With those thoughts in mind, what death is contemplated in Ezekiel 18? Is it spiritual death or physical death? I pointed out the difference in the ESV and NKJV translations to emphasize the truth that sometimes the righteous do die physically because of the wickedness of their fellow man. This would seem to mitigate against the meaning of physical death. Otherwise, Ezekiel 18:20 would be affirming something that we know to be false. It seems to me that spiritual death is more likely the death indicated in Ezekiel 18:20.

Suffering?

Crucifixion was not just a method of execution; it was intended to maximize the suffering of the one being punished. Why did Jesus die in such a horrible way? As one brother in Christ observed, “There are many other ways in which Jesus could have given His life that wouldn’t have involved nearly as much suffering.” True. Perhaps that was the point of the cross.

As noted earlier in this study, the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament in general and particularly sacrifices for sin were to be physically perfect, i.e., without blemish (Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:16). I understand those animals to have been accepted by God as a substitute for the sinner. The sinner, in effect, had forfeited the pure and innocent life given him by God and so God required a “perfect” life in return in order to receive the atonement of his sin. Obviously, the sinner could not offer his own life, already blemished by sin.

Jesus Christ is the clear antitype to the animal sacrifices. He lived a morally unblemished life. There was not an exact equivalency between the life of the animal sacrificed and the life forfeited by the sinner under the Levitical system (they were of different moral qualities, i.e., amoral versus moral). In contrast to those animals, Jesus could offer a morally unblemished life on behalf of sinners.

I offer these thoughts as a possible explanation for the principle contained in Hebrews 9:22. But this explanation still doesn’t answer the question of why Jesus suffered the way that He did in His death. It only explains (hopefully!) why Jesus died. At the very least, however, Jesus’ great suffering demonstrated His love for mankind (1 John 3:16; Romans 5:7-8).

The Scriptures emphasize not just the death of Jesus, but the suffering involved in that death. In Isaiah 53, He is described as “stricken” (vv. 4, 8), “smitten by God” (v. 4), “afflicted” (vv. 4, 7), “wounded” (v. 5), “crushed” (vv. 5, 10), suffering “chastisement” and “stripes” (v. 5), “oppressed” (v. 7), “put to grief” (v. 10), and suffering “anguish” (v. 11). It is clear that the prophet emphasized the suffering that characterized the death of

198 the Lord’s Servant. The author of Hebrews also commented on the purpose of Christ’s suffering.

9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:9–10; ESV)

8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (Hebrews 5:8–9; ESV)

What punishment, then, did Jesus experience? Did He die physically on the cross as the punishment for sin that man deserves? Since all men still die physically, the best that can be said in defense of this idea is that Jesus reverses the penalty of death by causing men to be resurrected in the final day.

For the sake of argument, let us grant for the moment the premise that Jesus was temporarily separated from the Father while on the cross. Is the punishment for sin a temporary separation from God? Should we understand a temporary separation on the cross to be the “equivalent” of eternal separation (“the second death”) because it was Deity separated from Deity? What passage of Scripture would we use to substantiate this equivalency?

If eternal separation from God is the punishment for sin, did Jesus experience that on the cross? Even if one accepts the view that Jesus was separated from the Father for some time on the cross, i.e., “God turned His back on Jesus,” I don’t know of anyone who believes that separation to be eternal.

Hell, the final destiny of the wicked, is a place of suffering. Was His suffering on the cross (obviously not an exact equivalency with the suffering of hell) accepted in place of man’s suffering in hell?

An Immoral God?

Some argue against “penal substitution” (Jesus bore the punishment due mankind) on the basis that it would be immoral for God to punish the innocent. Noted author Jim McGuiggan writes:

The trouble with believing that God punished Jesus with the punishment that sinners were due to get for their sins is that if God punished Jesus he was punishing a man he knew to be utterly innocent and utterly righteous—that’s immoral and God himself forbids it (Deuteronomy 24:16).201

201 “Did God PUNISH Jesus?” 199

Personally, I would grant the argument that forcing the innocent to suffer punishment for the guilty would be unjust, immoral, and thus the divine prohibition. On the other hand, would it be immoral for God to allow one individual to accept the punishment of another? If the Scriptures teach anything about the death of Jesus, it is that He went to the cross willingly (cf. Philippians 2:8). McGuiggan’s argument, in opposition to penal substitution, seems to me to be weak.

Others, in arguing that Jesus’ death was not an example of penal substitution, go as far as to affirm that Jesus’ death was not even God’s plan/idea. Consider these statements by a single individual:202

“God didn’t nail Jesus to the cross. Peter told the Jews, ‘…you nailed [Him] to a cross’ (Acts 2:23). God’s hands didn’t put Jesus up on the cross, but it was ‘the hands of godless men’ who put Him there (Acts 2:23), and if they were godless, they weren’t acting on God’s orders. Then in Acts 3:13-14, Peter told the Jews they ‘delivered and disowned’ Jesus in the presence of Pilate, who decided to release Him. In Acts 4:10, Peter told the priests that they crucified Jesus. In Acts 5:30, Peter told the Sanhedrin members that they put Jesus to death. In Acts 7:51-53, Stephen told the priests that they were betrayers and murderers and lawbreakers. Paul preached it in Acts 12:28. The blame and the guilt for the death of Jesus is always placed on men, never on God.”

“The death of the Christ was not God’s idea…it was man’s idea which God foresaw, and God used it to accomplish His purpose in providing salvation.”

I would never charge God with “guilt” for the death of Jesus. But to say that “the death of the Christ was not God’s idea,” is indefensible. Note these Scriptures:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10; ESV)

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23; ESV)

And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22:41-42; ESV)

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:8; ESV)

202 These two quotations are from private correspondence and are cited merely as examples of the viewpoint under consideration and thus the identity of their author is inconsequential for the purposes of this study. 200

Conclusion

In His death on the cross, did Jesus only offer the remedy for our sins…or did He also pay the penalty for our sins?

There is no question about the fact that Jesus’ death is connected to or necessitated by the sins of mankind in some judicial way. Hebrews 9:22 makes the critical connection between the death of Jesus and our sins. Through that sacrifice, we enjoy the remedy for our sins – the gracious forgiveness of God.

The focus of this study has been to determine if, in His death on the cross, Jesus also received the penalty for sin deserved by mankind. Should we consider the death of Jesus to be punishment from God…or the fulfillment of God’s will just in the sense of offering a sacrifice for mankind’s sins? There is also no question about the fact that Jesus was treated as a transgressor, a sinner, by both the Jews and the Romans. He was certainly “chastised” by men as though He was a transgressor, but did He “take our punishment”?

Three possible options have been suggested in this study for the identity of the “punishment for sin”: 1) physical death, 2) eternal spiritual death and 3) physical suffering intended to represent the suffering of hell. Perhaps there are other possibilities, but each of these possibilities for the identity of the “penalty” has some weaknesses, in my opinion.

In the final analysis, whether one believes that Jesus “took our punishment” or not, certainly we should agree that His death was necessary for our forgiveness. If the requirement for forgiveness was the shedding of blood, then God is just to forgive our sins upon the meeting of that requirement (Romans 3:26).

Is there any sense in which Jesus acted as our substitute in His death? To answer that question, we need to answer this question first: Why were the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law inadequate to forgive sin (Hebrews 10:4)? I believe it was because they were amoral creatures. The life offered for sin was not comparable to the life of the one who sinned. Of course, the sinner could not offer a perfect life for his sins. God permitted a substitute in the animals offered instead. The circumstances of the sinner have not changed. God accepted the shed blood of Jesus, who lived a morally perfect life, as the sacrifice for sins. In that sense, He is certainly a substitute.

201

Bibliography

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Hutto, Robert. “The Guilt Offering.” Biblical Insights 15.4 (2015) 8.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

The Holy Bible. The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

The Holy Bible. The English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Good News Publishers, 2011.

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996.

Internet Articles

McGuiggan, Jim. Did God PUNISH Jesus? 2004. http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Jesus&id=1260

202