The Bible Archive

It would not be inconceivable to think that Paul is using the illustration of the potter and clay in a completely new way, or at the very least, a way unimagined by the readers of the Prophets. After all, many have argued that that is exactly what Matthew did (cf. {{Isa 7:14}}; {{Matt 1:23}}—young maiden vs. virgin). But I don’t think that fits in with what Paul is doing.

While establishing the righteousness of God in the Gospel he makes a repeated effort in showing how the revelation of this righteousness is completely consistent with God’s previous revelation of righteousness.

We’re considering God’s righteousness and seeing how it works with mercy specifically in the case of the Jews. Thus far Paul impressed on us his sorrow that the Jews are not presently believers of the revealed Christ. Paul has been showing us how important a people they truly are and has taken us through history showing how and why God’s Word of Promise was established. We saw how they were kept from Edom’s fate only by God’s mercy. Let’s look at this mercy.

The Voice completely changed Noah’s life. One moment he’s heading to market the next God is telling him that everything is about to die.

Big deal, right? I’ve just illustrated the comparisons and
contrasts in the different movements in the book of Romans—what’s the big deal.
I mean, sure it all winds up proving (somewhat) interesting and I had some pretty
architectural illustration as well as a pic of Beethoven’s ninth—but what does
it matter? Rey, are you saying the verses in Romans have no value when they’re on their own?

Let’s take a lesson from Mr. Bilbo Baggins when his company
was wandering around old Mirkwood. That little hobbit screwed up his courage
and scrambled up one of those dark trees to have a look about—seeing where they
were, where they had come from and hopefully where they were going. Trudging
along the path, the party might’ve lost focus of the point of the trip just the
fact that they were getting nowhere fast. So, at this point in our study, it
would perhaps be beneficial to take a look at where we are in the book of
Romans and simultaneously study some similarities in the lay of the land and
some differences. Perhaps we might even find out where we’re going.

According to Romans 7, is Paul describing a pre-conversion experience
or a post-conversion experience? Why aren’t we perfect after being
justified and reckoning ourselves dead? Is there even a problem that we
should be aware of? What is a believers current relation to sin? 
Is a dichotomous lifestyle applauded by Paul in Romans 7 (as in
Christian in the inside, but continually sinful in the flesh? What does
the flow of thought tell us?

Update: We worked out the study over in this section here and Romans 8.

"Excuse me, sir but there is a gaping hole in God's righteousness."
We're back in the courtroom where Paul is defense lawyer for God. The
prosecution is Man and he's trying to prove how God is unrighteous.
"You say that God is righteous in that he justifies the sinner…but he
did nothing to the sinner's mind!"

For you to study while I’m working on a post: What is Romans 5 all about? Is it a summary of the reason all men are guilty before God? Is it an explanation on how Christ is a new Adam…just like him but without sin?

Read the portion and think it out.

-r-

Update: Romans 5 part one and part two.

After using case-law to establish precedence in defense of
God's righteousness when He declares a sinner justified, Paul now makes the
link to the present discussion. We have a man who is in a position of total
depravity in that specific sense which we have previously established. The man
is ruined before God and although God enjoys good works the idea that a person
can use works to make their state righteous before God is completely useless.
This man's solution was illustrated in case-law but how is faith a conduit to
righteousness in actuality? How can faith make the believer  secure?

An oft-used and pale illustration to direct our thinking: A
man is at home, bankrupt and up to his eyebrow in debt. Call him Rey. Any
similarities to my own present financial condition are purely coincidental.

Court in Session

In our courtroom (other articles linked below), we find the defendant’s
lawyer, Paul, showing more evidence. Men are judging God (the
defendant) and bring the unjust claim that He has no say in their
actions and is in fact faulty in His ruling. Paul’s argument then is to
defend God’s righteousness and we have already mentioned that this
defense consists of four major movements.

The first line of defense is God’s righteousness in the very
fact that He judges. We noted God’s right to judge in the future and
even His present judgments. We subsequently found that all of mankind
is guiltily under God’s righteous judgment for all have sinned and come
short of the glory of God and they know it.

We do see several sub-themes running throughout the book of Romans and
one of these is actually the basis for the major part of the defense’s
evidence?the fact that “the just shall live by faith” (1:17). We
discussed some matters of interpretation in light of the usage of
terminology in the thought-flow of Paul’s argument and now find
ourselves looking at this solution of the problem of the first section currently asking, “How is God righteous in
Justification?”

Romans Chapter 2-3

Romans Chapter 1

The red of roses poured out upon the fields, upon the fields drenched in the rose's blood
The violets hue all purplish blue, the blue imbued into the violet's hue

My poem is weak, without any strength, like the strong walls of Jericho, broken down as chaff
I don't know what I'm doing with this, whoever knows what I'm doing please illuminate me

Sorry for the use of horrible poetry. If you want to read real poetry, perhaps you should look in greener pastures.
This little poem I wrote up is a very weak re-write of my original
"Roses are red" poem from the Romans post from long-long ago.

What you might notice in my poem is that although there is rhyming
it is not necessary to what I was trying to convey since it's not found
throughout.

This portion in Paul's argument is coming to its pinnacle. Paul has
deftly drawn the reader into the court-room where God is the wronged
party and His defense is being offered. Paul started the argument by
highlighting the point that God is righteous in that He judges.

Not missing the beat, Paul quickly illustrated how
God judges the guilty heathen?no mention of hidden counsels or any such
thing of the sort, but guilty men willfully against God, suppressing
His words and finally embracing their sin, exhorting those who do the
same.

Lest the moralist listener "tut-tut's" these wicked heathens, taking a stand
on the side of God by judging those horrid sinners, Paul makes sure to
point out that they are just as guilty. That by standing on God's side
and judging the sin about them (and not the sin in their own hearts),
they effectively store up wrath for themselves for a future day. These
moralists can be found in the Jews who were given the Law but by their
repeated sin, the Gentiles blaspheme the very name of God.

Paul now does concede a point, as mentioned in our last
(and so very long ago at that) session. It's not that to be Jewish is
worthless, not at all. It would almost seem that Paul has proved his
point too well by leaving off in the middle of this thought-flow with
such an idea that Circumcision is actually of the heart (if we read it
as such, although we've already discussed what Paul was referring to).

We left off
seeing the thought flow of this first major theme, namely that the
grossest-sinner-and-unbeliever is in the same exact boat as the
moral-and-upright-unbeliever. This category of moralist includes, of
course, the Jew (as aforementioned). The Jew stood on the side of God
judging the sins of the people around him, clamoring at the evil found
therein.

This Jew found comfort, Paul would point out, on the fact of the Law
and the special relationship the Jew had with God (v17). The moralistic
Jew would boast in this relationship and in the knowledge of God’s will
regarding morality because the Jew received instruction from the very
Law itself.