Categories
romans salvation

XII Effective Belief (Romans 5)

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.

Categories
romans salvation

XI Case Law (Romans 4): Court in Session

In the courtroom of the book of Romans, 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?” Questions, Questions.

It is an excellent question then, and I’m sure one that some Roman official posed to Paul over dinner while discussing matters of state and religion (Rom 24:24,25).

“So Paul, ” says Felix while taking an olive “You say that your God is righteous, yes?”

“Surely.” Answers Paul, seeing the shift and preparing to pounce with the Gospel.

“And you say that all have sinned, yes?”

“Indeed.” Here it comes, thinks Paul, nows my chance!

“How is it possible for a righteous God who judges sin to not judge you…a sinner?”

How would you answer the charge? Do you simply write off the question that it is on the basis of God’s grace and His predetermined councils? Do you say it is because you made a mental decision for God in the present and now He can’t judge you? To adhere to one of those answers may make God’s righteousness mere face-play and the other makes God’s righteousness fleeting. It is a legitimate question.

  • Firstly we must realize that Paul’s answer lies in God’s infinite grace via the work He did on the cross through the Son (3:21,22). This work isn’t man’s work and in fact, not even man’s idea or plan?it is completely and wholly found in the Sovereign God (3:25) to implement this plan.
  • Secondly, this grace is not given as a payment for any action. Underline Paul’s use of belief and faith. He is not saying that God’s grace is what forces a persons belief nor is he saying that a person’s belief forces God to bestow grace.
  • We are left at a crossroad; how is God’s grace which justifies the ungodly Jew or Gentile is appropriated without besmirching God’s character? Paul does the wisest thing at this point in time by offering up a piece of evidence from case law.

Case-Law

In serious trials the first thing that any lawyer who’s worth his salt will do is research other cases or rulings which can effect the current law. Sometimes it’s a case exactly like the one in court which will either force the court’s hand or it casts the entire process to a higher court of appeals. Case-law sets precedence.

We must be incalculably careful then when reading these verses to not jump to the conclusion that Abraham’s belief resulted in a payment. We must be equally careful not to warp the text to make it read that Abraham’s belief was mere face-play by God. Let’s proceed then with great care.

What of historical Abraham who was declared righteous?(4:1) Was it by something he did? Note the usage here of works which is put in contrast to Abraham’s belief.

  • Point 1 is that Abraham did not receive a payment of righteousness for his works but God credited to him righteousness through belief. (4:2)
  • Point 2 is that the contrast is not only that of works versus faith but also payment versus credit. In one case the person does the action that merits payment in the other case a person relies on the only one who can make payment. (4:2-5)

Abraham wasn’t forced to believe like a mindless puppet nor was Abraham doing such a good work by believing that God was compelled to reward him. The fact is that he trusted on God who had all these things ready for Him and He relied on His word, seeing the end goal in adhering to the word of God (Heb 11:13).

Forgive me for the momentary tangent but some might then quote Ephesians 2:8 saying that “Yes, Abraham’s faith was a gift by God!” to which I freely agree: but what is faith? Is it something that’s kept in a lockbox, given to a person to be opened so that they can have eternal life? Is it something like a key given to puppets who will surely open the door because they can’t help it? Surely not, faith is that trust which is found in a person but not of the person’s own accord but of the one who is trustworthy.

You men out there who married your wives; I ask you “Do you trust her?” and you say “surely”. If I ask you how you came about that trust you definitely wouldn’t say that you just came up with that trust from the blue or because you’re that type of trusting person. In fact, you would say that you saw how she was before you were married, how she was faithful in all she did and devoted to the work and how ceaselessly she would do her work that you could count on her: you trusted her. She gave you that trust by her faithfulness!

How does faith come? By hearing the very words of God (Rom 10:17), the only faithful one.

This is why case-law brings tangential evidence in David himself, the man who proved faithless in a serious situation. David didn’t credit himself for his restoration or grace but he credits God for that righteousness apart from works! Note the words of the Psalm “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered, the one to whom the Lord will never count sin!”

We also see that this blessedness is not only for the circumcision, but for the uncircumcised as well. Paul holds up the actual event of Abraham’s credited righteousness by shining light on the timeframe of this event. It occurred when Abraham was not circumcised reflecting the fact that circumcision was not the cause of the credited righteousness. (4:9-12)

You may say “What does circumcision have to do with justification at all?”. Yes, that is a good question in that Paul doesn’t seem to be writing to a main audience of Jews but rather to Gentiles and although such a point is important in the context of Judaizers how does it bear import at this portion of the letter?

If you remember, the point is still the case-law of God justifying people who don’t deserve justification based completely on his promise ( 4:12-21) that he will do as such. The promise to Abraham and to his future generations was not brought to fruition by the merit of the people nor by their continued belief nor their adherence to the law but rather by the very word of God. If they were to become inheritors by the keeping of the Law, God’s spoken promise to Abraham would have been mere fluff (I speak as a man).

So then this faith was not something that merited God’s righteousness but the conduit to the riches of God’s grace (4:22)! There will always be failure in man’s work to try to achieve the perfection and glory of God?it is inevitable. But for a person to completely give up on anything they can possibly do and hate the sinful position they’re in and pinning all their hope and faith and trust and dependence on the God of Abraham who promised that He is just and able to justify the ungodly by the death of his Son then the very goodness of grace is available to this believer. It is not a result which merits, it is a reliance on credit.

Abraham’s faith was not an empty belief but a dynamic dependence that resulted in this old man, physically dead in the sense of reproduction, continuing to perform with his spousal duties towards his wife convinced of God’s promise! (4:16-22)

So then, looking at this completed picture we have how grace is credited. It is not by the merit of works nor by the merit of belief…if that were the case it would be by law, which only brings death. This crediting is given to those who pin their hope on God’s promise, a living hope, which looks at the One who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. God’s righteousness remains intact for it was by His Son that our transgressions were paid by an actual work of His own accord. It was for the sake of our justification that Christ was raised from the dead, man’s decision over-turned but the wrath and work already poured out on the cross. (4:23-25)

Categories
romans study

Romans Chapter 2-3

Romans Chapter 2-3

Categories
romans study

Romans Chapter 1

Romans Chapter 1

Categories
romans study

The Book of Romans Part 9 (3:10-18) To Rhyme or Not To Rhyme

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.

Now, what would you do if someone brought you this poem and told you the poet is saying that the fields are drenched with the blood of a rose? You would probably look at the thing and realize one thing, at least—that I (the poet) was speaking (writing) metaphorically. If the messenger also pointed out that the poet didn’t have a clue what he was doing with the poem by highlighting part b of the second verse, you would either agree or disagree completely because the passage has culminated to that stanza. It is a matter of proper interpretation in light of the literary structure. It would be one thing if the poem was written in prose…but since it obviously has metaphoric language and is obviously making analogies and there seems to be some sort of structure, the common reader should draw a different conclusion.

Welcome to Hebrew Poetry—the same poetry used in the Bible. You very well know that the Bible is loaded with poetry. Psalms comes first to your mind, perhaps followed by Song of Solomon and maybe Proverbs. Upon further investigation you may see tons of poetry in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Minor Prophets and scattered throughout much of the New Testament! One writer I saw had noticed that the entire book of Isaiah was in itself structured as a huge poem (which adds validity to the single authorship of Isaiah!)

What’s important about this is that some people take the scriptures and read a poetic passage as if it’s prose or direct commandments or a literal statement, completely ignoring the fact that the passage is written poetically.

Hebrew poetry uses what smarter people than me call “parallelism”. What this means, in simple terms, is that the first part is echoed or contrasted in the second part to convey a single point.

The red of roses poured out upon the fields
upon the fields drenched in the rose’s blood

 Note the first verse where the second part is conveying the same message as the first part…there is an allusion to the color of the rose being likened to blood and the rose is found in the fields. The passage is not highlighting the blood or the field but the color of the rose which is easily recognized by the second verse:

 The violets hue all purplish blue,
the blue imbued into the violet’s hue

It’s not that the blue of the violets are imbued while the red of the roses is drenched…the word picture is highlighting the seeming nature of the color. The violets magical hue seems to come from inside while the piercing red of the rose looks drastically different from its surroundings. Neither prophecy nor message of the nature of flowers…just thoughts on color. In English it would likely read:

 Roses are red
Violets are blue

Now sometimes in Scripture such parallelism uses contrasts to illustrate one point—even within the parts. If you note my verse:

My poem is weak, without any strength,
like the strong walls of Jericho, broken down as chaff

 The two phrases are in complete contrast but within the parts you’ll notice “weak” versus “strength” and “strong walls” versus “broken down as chaff”. The verse is describing that the penned words are weak…not pummeled or once strong…just that they are weak and worth throwing out. Let’s take an example from Scripture then from Proverbs 6:20 and 21:

 My son, keep your father’s commands
and do not forsake your mother’s teaching.
Bind them upon your heart forever;
fasten them around your neck.

“Father’s commands” and “mother’s teaching” are conveying the same thought—the very things that the son was taught. “Keep” and “do not forsake” are conveying the same thought—to hold those things. “Bind them” and “fasten them” are conveying the same exact thought as the previous line of putting these things close to the son. “Your heart” and “your neck” convey the same thought—very close and a matter of survival!

I’m not going to bother going into staircase, chiastic, external, and inverted parallelism. That reaches beyond the scope of the present study. The point is that a person can’t look at a passage that is speaking poetically without trying to understand what the poem is actually saying. Some people have taken a very famous poetic passage and interpreted it so strictly literally that the passage looses its hermeneutic meaning within the literal passage. Going above and beyond what dispensationalists have often been accused of (without warrant) the interpretation becomes so stilted that it does damage to the passage in general.

Paul, inspired by the Spirit of God, recipient of messages from the risen Lord Jesus Christ, an Apostle by the mercy of God, delves into the Old Testament passages (often poetry) and puts together a poetic passage in Romans 3:10-18. The passages he pulls together often refer to something else but by the guiding Spirit of God, Paul is allowed to put together one of the most inclusive summaries which illustrate the condition of man. Illustrate I say, for the passage here is not literal and although some will agree that some of it is metaphorical in other parts some will say are completely literal non-poetic statements.

For example, the words:

 Their throat is an open grave,
with their tongues they keep deceiving
The poison of asps is under their lips
Whose mouth is full of cursing

Is it too hard to see the similes or anthropomorphism that the inspired Apostle is illustrating in this portion of the passage? Is it too hard to see the repetition of parts of or dealing with the mouth (throat, tongue, lips and mouth)? It’s not that the throat is literally an open grave, is it? It’s not that the literal” poison of asps” are under their lips is it? What is the point that that the Apostle is trying to make by piecing together these poetic passages to formulate a poetic whole? For some will take the following portion and make it mean something realistically ridiculous:

There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks God
All have turned aside, together they have become useless
There is none who does good
There is not even one

 To take this portion to mean that not a single person does good is to destroy the very thought flow of the argument which Paul is presenting. To this point Paul has been addressing the heathen which knowingly denies the revealed attributes of God (Rom 1:18-18), the moralist who stands on the side of God and does the same as the heathen (Rom 2:1-11) and the Jew who stands on top of the Law while simultaneously being a lawbreaker (Rom 2:17-24). Sinners who deny God with their eyes wide shut, as it were, who in their efforts actually think that the things they are doing are just (Rom 2:23-25) and are proud to teach others to do the same (Rom 1:32).

The statement refers to all of mankind before the position of God in trying to attain the very honor of God on their own merit. It’s not that God ignores good works; that would be ridiculous. Go talk to Cornelius (Acts 10:1-3) if his works were useless or not prior to salvation. Go talk to the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-23) who spoke to Jesus about keeping the entire law (doubtful but Jesus didn’t slam him down with a “You are become useless!”). We wouldn’t look at the heathen who is trying to do good in society and tell them that they are the same kind of sinner as a Manson but we would say that before the eyes of God they are not meriting anything.

The only merit God finds in man is via the all-pleasing sacrifice of the cross. In light of that perfectly bright and good work the works of man, no matter how good, are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6—poetic passage!). It is by the light of the denied gospel that men are condemned; it is by their works that they are judged (Rom 2:16; Rev 20:12 and many others—look at my Mission Statement if you want more passages).

You see, some have taken this passage (and certain others…) completely robbed it of its context and in the next breath have managed to send infants to hell with God finding pleasure in doing it.

Something that I’ve personally noticed from the Lord Jesus in Scripture, His message corresponded to reality. Whenever He spoke to the disciples, He wouldn’t say something so abhorrent or contrary to reason as to be completely Other and thrown into the realm of Reasonless. To look at the world through the colored lenses of catechisms, councils, confessions and commentaries is to look at the world without the light of God but the light of learned men. Approach poetic passages with proper interpretive methods and compare them to their surrounding context and enjoy how God’s plan unfolds, corresponding to reason found in the very wisdom of God.

Next, we’ll actually look at the climax to this section.