Same drill. At least 100 word response to something in the post, then 2 further comments in relation to something someone else has commented. Worth up to 10 points of a 30 point total.
__________
9:30-33 "What therefore will we say? [We say] 1) that Gentiles who were not pursuing righteousness took hold of righteousness, even a righteousness on the basis of faith (ἐκ πίστεως), and 2) Israel, who was pursuing a Law of righteousness did not attain to the Law?
Why? Because [they pursued it] not on the basis of faith but as on the basis of works. They stumbled on the stone of stumbling, as it has been written, "Behold, I am placing in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of tripping, and the one who has faith on him will not be ashamed.
In my opinion, this passage establishes that when Paul uses the phrase "on the basis of faith," he is thinking of human faith primarily (rather than Jesus' faith). Faith in the verses above even refers to faith on Christ, even though in chapter 4 faith is mostly directed toward the God who raises the dead (e.g., 4:17).
The faith that (most of) Israel has not had is thus faith oriented around Jesus. Dunn's hypothesis that "works" here primarily refers to works of Jewish Law that most distinguished Jew from Gentile could work, although Paul could also simply have works in the absence of Christ in view.
The mention of a "righteousness on the basis of faith" perhaps argues for a double entendre back in 3:21, where Paul speaks of a "righteousness of God apart from works of Law." In other words, this righteousness would refer both to God's saving righteousness and the righteousness accredited to a believer on the basis of faith.
10:2-3 For I witness to them that they have a zeal but not according to knowledge, for not knowing the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they were not subjected to the righteousness of God.
These two verses seem proof positive (against N. T. Wright) that Paul can use the phrase "righteousness of God" in relation to human righteousness. These may very well be double entendres, also referring to God's saving righteousness, but a reference to the human righteousness accredited on the basis of faith seems necessary from the train of thought.
I wonder if Paul thought of himself in the past when he wrote 10:1. Certainly he had a zeal at that time (cf. Phil. 3:6). His zeal was not according to knowledge.
As a point of application, it seems all too easy to be zealous over the wrong causes or even to be too zealous for something that is not as important as we make it out to be. This has seemed especially true with regard to religion throughout history.
10:4 For Christ is the goal of the Law leading to righteousness to everyone who has faith.
This statement seems similar to Galatians 3:23-25: "For before faith came we were being gaurded under Law, being imprisoned for the faith about to be revealed, with the result that the Law has become our paedogogue unto Christ, in order that we might be justified on the basis of faith."
It is common among certain interpreters to read this verse to say that Christ fulfilled the Law for us, that Christ is the end of the Law. But this is not Paul's meaning. Paul is simply saying again what he has said before, that the Law was intended to point us toward Christ by showing us our inability to be righteous in our own power, by our own works.
10:9-11 ... if you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and have faith in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart it is faithed leading to righteousness and with the mouth it is confessed leading to salvation, for the Scripture says, Everyone "who has faith in him will not be ashamed."
Here Paul gives us the content of faith, what we believe. We believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, as in Romans 4:24. Sanders is wrong to think that this sort of content of faith is unusual for Paul. It is the default content of faith.
To confess Jesus as Lord is to recognize that God raised him from the dead and enthroned him at His right hand as cosmic king. To confess him as Lord is to confess our allegiance to him as Lord, not a mere confession of words.
Such faith in God's doings and in Christ as the one to whom God is doing it and through whom He is doing it, effects coming salvation, when believers will escape the wrath of God.
10:13 For "everyone whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
This quote is fascinating because the verse Paul is quoting, Joel 2:32, clearly refers to YHWH--whoever calls on the name of YHWH will be saved. Richard Bauckham and others have argued that it is very likely that Paul would have known that YHWH was the LORD that stood beyond this text. Is Paul therefore equating Jesus with YHWH? Bauckham would say so.
One more to come...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
85 comments:
Hey, I'm the first one to post on this one. Oh yeah. I rock! (Not really).
Anyway, moving on to commenting about this blog. It's true that people become zealous over a lot of things, some of them not so good. But for the most part over religious things. The example that just popped into my head was the Crusades. That can often be seen as overzealousness in action. Becoming zealous has its risks I guess you could say, but not if you are zealous over the right things.
When Christ died for us and rose again on the third day, many Christians say that the Law was made obsolete. That's true to a point, but that doesn't mean we can ignore God's commands completely in the Old Testament. We still shouldn't murder or steal or anything like that. Nor does being a Christian give us freedom to do whatever we like. Yet some of us live like that, it's a shame really.
Often people seem to want to see one thing and nothing else. The idea that Christ did not come to remove the law but give a tangible way to find righteousness seems to be looked over pretty often. People seem to just want to do what they wish and give up on the guide lines. The law was not meant to be a way of choosing who was in and out but a way to help shape people to the righteous beings they were meant to be. Perhaps the example of Jesus was meant to be our way of knowing that it is possible for us to follow these guide lines.
For some reason I never caught on that 10:9-11 is talking about future salvation. So is that what Paul is referring to when he talks about not being put to shame? I never really understood what he meant by that phrase but it would make sense if he was saying that those who believed would not be put to shame when it comes to judgment day because they will be saved.
I agree that people can easily become zealous for the wrong things and even overzealous for some good things. Religion is definitely one of those things people have been overzealous about in the past and still somewhat today...but what about 21st century Christianity in America? I feel like Paul would say we are very much lacking in zeal for God.
Amber, I also thought of the Crusades when thinking about how people have been overzealous for religion in history. I mean, it is pretty ridiculous when you become so zealous for your religion that you actually end up going against it.
Tim, nice comments about the law being given as a guide in righteousness. That is definitely something that more people need to realize rather than just throwing it out the window altogether.
I do not feel the Law is obsolete. I feel like it is fulfilled through Christ and by Him fulfilling the Law He enables us through the Holy Spirit to fulfill the Law as well. Before Christ to fulfill the law was impossible but by the power of the Holy Spirit and through the blood of the Lamb we now can. Jesus sums up the Law with two commands love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, body, mind and to love thy neighbor as thyself. This can be achieved I believe through the crisis of entire sanctification in which we make Christ Lord of our lives and receive the fullness of the Spirit which enables us to obey these commands.
Hey Amber,
I not sure you can become too zealous for the Lord. I think it is becoming zealous in the wrong way or for the wrong reasons that leads to sin. We should work for God with zeal but understand it is not by doings these things God accepts us; it is the love of God within us that propels us to do the works God has set out for us to do.
Hey Tim,
Amen brother. I believe Christ came not only to die for us, but to live out a life here on earth to be our great example in how we should live. And although He was God, human, and fully one; He was able though, being human, to fulfill the law. We to then who are human can fulfill the law by Christ enabling us through the Holy Spirit to do so as well.
Regarding that block of 10:9-13... The notion that Paul is referring to Jesus as God here is, I believe, right on the mark. Look at who is "Lord" or king of all: Jesus. Paul has also declared God as the same. The key is to look at the salvation issue. Jesus saves, plain and simple. Then Paul points to the Old Testament quotes of calling on the Lord. In the same breath, Paul has calling on Jesus (confess Jesus is Lord) for salvation and callling on the name of the YHWH for salvation. He points out God does not change and salvation has ever been found in Him and now revealed in Christ.
Amber... Thank you for bringing up the Crusades. Here is an example of the "bad type" of zeal, or overzealousness as we commonly define it. The Crusades were a direct violation of the commandment regarding the Name of God. People took the Holy Name and blatantly condoned sin in His Name. That type of "overzealousness" can be seen as occurring under one common denominator: putting the desires of man over and above the mandates of God. (Which is one classic definition of sin). We must always be careful that we conform our actions to God's Word and not the other way around.
I can definitely resonate with your “point of application” about zeal. I was, unknowingly, raised fundamentalist.
I was a 6 day creationist.
I was a detailed inerrantist.
I thought that if you believed in evolution then you could not be a Christian.
That was my faith.
My views have since changed quite a bit, but the important thing is that I refocused my religion. I focused more on the story of the Bible and the love of Christ. I have become (a little) more scholarly in my approach to Scripture and am becoming more zealous to share Christ’s gift. I have nothing to boast about but Christ alone.
(However, how many angels can dance on the head of a needle is still crucial to my faith……42)
Michael,
Nice bringing up the summation of the Law and the Prophets. We cannot say that the law is obsolete because if those things were obsolete, then our religion really does not amount to much.
Amber, again with the good Law comment. There is a difference in the whole moral law and the civil codes. The moral law applies (can apply, does apply, etc.) to all people. The codes such as the dietary laws were to create and forge an identity of a people. The whole idea of separation and holiness was built into the fabric of their culture with this. The moral Law transcends cultures and the Gospel transforms them (but rarely destroys them). That there was a difference in the two is evidenced in Jonah. What was the preaching to Ninevah? It was the message of repentance. Nothing was said about giving up bacon.
Tim,
I agree with the law being a guideline toward righteousness. It was not intended to be something that just restricted people from doing things they desired, but it was a route to freedom. A lot of people don't see it that way though, and it is a shame.
I love allusions to Christ's divinity in the text. It is amazing what we will discover if we only set our minds to it. But nonetheless, it does make us feel better when we can find allusions to our faith in minor passages that don't seem to be directly dealing with the issue we are finding proof for.
I appreciate the emphasis in these comments on the faith of believer and how this plays a role in the salvific process. It makes me feel as if I really do have a role after all this predestination stuff. And I must say that Shea Prisk is an excellent student.
Verses 9-11 are very encouraging to me. It is quite amazing that we serve a god who lays it out so clearly what is expected of us and what we are to believe. It is sad to think that there are people of faith who truly have no idea what to believe in regards to their god. On the other hand, I believe that this can cause laziness among Christians who simply confess that they believe in Christ with their mouths, but do not actually believe it in their hearts. Paul makes it very clear that not only are we to confess with our mouths, but to also have faith in our hearts. Christianity is more than a simple confession.
Going off of Tim and John's conversation, i often wonder how many of these misunderstandings (law as enslaving rather than freeing) is the byproduct of poor ministry? The obvious answer is yes. Of course, it makes me wonder what misconceptions I will cause in my ministry? What will be the cost of emphases (good things) I will try to make? What do you think intelligent Shea?
Shea, how true this is. We must indeed watch out for the laziness that comes when we assume or are given straight and simple answers. It is perhaps this dogmatism that often leads to the abuses within religion (e.g. violent religious disputes). I wonder what doctrine I will hold so dear that I will be willing to fight other Christians over? Shea, you are a wonderful student.
I like that Paul quotes the book of Joel in Romans 10:13 it makes a connection in my mind and allows me to consider whether Paul is equating Jesus with YHWH or if he is again blurring together like he did in Romand 9:5. More than debate whether he was or not i want to state that Paul is showing that he is not inventing new ideas or trying to convince the people of something new. He refers to Joel and YHWH telling the people that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." This too is fascinating, as to whether Paul was equating Jesus with YHWH i am not sure anybody have any thoughts?
Shea, i agree with Joel you are a wonderful student with great insight. My question to you is: becuase we as Christians can so easily grow lazy do you think that our constant disagreements over scriptural interpretation is God's way of keeping us from settling in on one belief thus not trying to exegete anymore? Or do you think God designed and inspired the scriptures in a way that they can only be read one way and interpreted one way so we all have the same laid out way of living? I also agree Christianity can be easily taken as a mouth religion instead of a heart relationship, it is a shame but that is why you are going into ministry right? :)
Joel, going off of your last comment i see your fear of misinterpretation in the church and yes it could very easily cause problems. The fear i have is Paul uses alot of metaphors and paradoxes that, by a early Christian crowd, may be taken the wrong way. Like in Galatians when he makes the paradox that through our freedom we become slaves. Of course he is talking about being freed with Christ we become slaves to one another but one could interpret it wrong and believe Christianity is more of an enslavement than a relationship.
well said Justin.
first off, this is timjim, i changed the name because i get confused when people call me tim.
joel, i understand the point toward allusions. it can be hard because we do not always have the answers we wish for in stone before us. yet the hints towards something can still spark us and give us hope
shea, i agree with the point of sadness towards those who do not understand. so many times people pity those who do not have faith and yet the ones who do have "faith" may not have a clue as to what they believe
Michael - Not that I think the law is obsolete or anything, but there are a lot of Christians in our world today who do believe that the law has become obsolete and we can do whatever we feel like we want to do. It creates an air of lawlessness that is hard to break from once it is formed. Such an attitude doesn't help us at all. Yes, Christ fulfilled the law, but that doesn't mean the Old Testament has become obsolete at all. Rather it was just fulfilled and explained better by Christ while he was here on earth.
Shea - I agree with you on the laziness part. I have often wondered if most of us who call ourselves Christians actually are or if we are just comfort Christians. What I mean by that is that we accept Christ as our Savior to get our "Get out of Hell Free Card", then we continue to live however we please. We say to ourselves that we will change as we get closer to our ways, we'll obey God's commandments then. That's now how its supposed to be. We're supposed to love God and obey his commands, and be committed to him wholly: body, soul and mind.
i've heard the argument about the equation of the word Lord in the greek here with the greek in the Septuagint translation of Joel 2:32 in N.T. Wright's book Simply Christian. I find this argument especially helpful, because like we see in for example chapter nine i can seem like Paul is making Jesus less than God when Paul is never really doing that. I find this argument to be especially helpful in my dialogue with Jehovah's Witnesses who have continually twisted scripture to mean something else in reference to Jesus as God.
timjim,
i think you are absolutely right. the law was meant to be a way to distinguish God's people and invite them into the way of God. it was never meant to divide people or make you feel like you better than that person over there because you follow the law and they don't.
amber,
i would be careful saying that the law is obsolete...it makes it sound like the old testament means nothing to our life our that what God has commanded doesn't matter anymore. i do like your comment on the crusades though...i agree that was a serious infraction of zeal for religious beliefs
Some general thoughts from Dr. Schenk’s post;
It seems that when Paul is referring to this idea of being zealous that he is referring to zeal for the wrong thing. I cannot help but think of the Inter -testamental time period and how there was much zeal among many of the Jews, especially among the Zelots. Paul might have himself in mind here in the passage, and be referring to himself as to what he used to be like, but maybe he is referring to the Jews and how they are currently or how they used to be as a people group. This then bring up the point made by Dr. Schenck about the righteousness that is accredited to the people according to their faith. It does seem to be corporate language here, so maybe this gives us insight into what Paul is talking about with being zealous and what he has observed.
Justin,
I think that you have some great points about the connection that Paul is making there. I am not personally sure if I would be able to say that he is equating Jesus with YHWH, but then again maybe he is because he is trying to show the Jews that Jesus is Lord. I have found it very insightful to examine the way that Paul is quoting scripture, and yet he changes it to work it into the context of what he is saying. That is some good exegesis for you.
Amber,
Congrats on being number one to post! But on a serious note, I think that you made some good comments. I think that you are right about how people can be too zealous, and thus maybe lose focus on what their true incentives even were. I know that with the example you gave, this would definitely be true. I agree that we must be Zealous for the right things and the right reasons. It seems to me that being even minded in maybe more desirable and trustworthy with that regard than being zealous. I also wanted to mention what I thought about the second comment that you made about the Law. Not that I have great insights or answers, but your response makes me wonder about the Jews that believe that the Law is still totally in tact and effective for them to worship God with, while at the same time only applies to us on a minimal standard. While I was in Jerusalem over the past summer, I had many Jews give me this explanation. What do you think?
In regards to the Jews relying on the law to being valid: what do they do about the laws requiring them to makes sacrifices?
A couple years ago, I got to go to a synagogue with a class and a rabbi spoke to us. I asked him what they do about sacrifices, and all he really said is they don't because there is not temple.
Anybody have insight into this? It makes me think that they do not rely on the law for their salvation if they are not making sacrifices.
A thought on Zeal:
Zeal has been misdirected in countless facets throughout history. Modern day terrorism is one example. I think too that zeal can be misdirected outside of the realm of religion. For example, I think that zeal for ones country can overshadow maybe what God intends for his kingdom. Or we can be so zealous for a certain economic theory that it messes with the way we follow Christ. Also, I see zeal getting skewed with social activists - they fight for a change, but do not make the change in themselves.
On another note: who wants to get zealous against Risk Management? How legit of a unifying protest would that be at IWU?
A thought I had on verse 13, "everyone whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
It is interesting to think that shortly after Pentecost the persecution of Christians began. They were persecuted because they took Jesus as their Lord. As they proclaimed Jesus as Lord, they became crushed and killed.
So it is easy to read Romans 10:9-13 and get all warm and fuzzy about God saving me/us, but for a Christian in the first century, they may have read this with different eyes. Certainly God is still saving them even through the persecution, but this deliverance is something we do not understand living in the United States. An early Christian would read this and see enormous implications for their life if they confessed “Jesus is Lord.” Implications that could get them killed.
Are we portraying these implications enough to new converts, or are we too scared that they won’t accept Jesus if they realize there could be a huge cost? Or are we just too far removed from this way of thinking to even begin to portray it?
I also think that the idea of having zeal for God is very interesting. It is definitely true that zeal for the wrong reasons has come up through out the history of the church. But I think that often to avoid this "zeal not in accordance with knowledge", we some times fall too far on the other side. In my own life, and probably in the lives of many Christians we tend to live without much zeal for God at all. This can be dangerous too if we start living complacent lives. I thnk we need to seek God and his righteousness and ask for a zeal that comes with the full knowledge of who He is.
Bobby - I think you made a very good point about how early Christians must have felt when reading these verses. They must have known that by accepting Christ they were also accepting a life of persecution. I think that verse 11 would have been great comfort to them. As they realized what would happen when confessing Christ as Lord, they are reminded that whoever believes on Him will not be disappointed.
Shea - I think you make a good point about people who just confess with their mouths. I think it is common for people to just confess faith with their mouths just to feel a part of things without truly believing in their hearts. They may want the benefits of faith, but none of the effects that faith in Christ will have on their lives. God doesn't just want our words, He wants all of us.
As far as 10:4 goes, it has always interested me to think about as well as begin to scratch the surface of understanding what it means that Christ fulfills the law, while still understanding that it is the law that points toward Christ. I hate listening to people who say that we can no longer live by moral laws but we must live by faith alone, relying on grace. Because, it is in fact the law that is one of God's means of redeeming people and pushing them towards righteousness; which i would contend is the chief goal of God throughout history - redeeming people and leading them to righteousness. I know that it sounds pretty basic, but this is what i was thinking.
With 10:13 and what others have said about it, i think this is more development of trinitarian thought within the very early church, beginning with very early writers and preachers like paul and peter. If the line is shady between the Christ and the Father, then it makes it more concievable for them to be one in the same. Even to include the spirit in that too is fascinating.
Bobby, that is an interesting point, looking at the context of the passage and the early persecution of the church. I totally agree. Like how can that passage even work for us because if we say "Jesus is Lord" with our mouths it is easy to just fake it, but of the first and second century christians it was even a death sentence in some circumstances. So what is it to believe? What is it to call on the name of God? Is this literal language or is it figurative pointing to the calling out from the heart?
I like the question that you pose Justin. It is somewhat difficult to answer, but it is my feeling that the Lord has blessed us with a text that can be interpreted in many different ways, none of which are necessarily wrong. If one person interprets a piece of Scripture one way, and another person the complete opposite, but both are in line with Christian thinking, who are we to say one is wrong?
In 10:9-11, I find it interesting that Paul states that you will be saved just by confessing. This seems to be a standalone statement. If you confess with your mouth, you will be saved, period. But if we compare this to the whole of Paul’s writings, we know that the faith of the one who is saved should show in his deeds. I guess that I am just kind of surprised that he says it like this in this passage without talking about works. It is a strong statement and without qualifiers and further definition of what a saved person looks like. I do like however the simplicity of this verse in seeking Christ’s salvation.
Justin, when you go on to say that it could cause problems, I truly could not agree more. I feel that often times Christians get too caught up in interpreting scripture in the "right" way and then actually take away from the meaning of what scripture is really all about. In the end we could end up hurting our ministry to other non-believers and really make Christianity look ridiculous- a bunch of lunatics arguing about words.
Justin, I second that. That is what I thought of when I read this, wondering if Paul was again burring those lines between Father and Son. Is he speaking to God in general, or is he referring to Jesus, which would be the same name for God? I think that this shows that God is still wanting to save His people showing His salvivic nature even in the old testament.
Shae, that is true. Where do we draw the line when it comes to arguing our scriptural interpretation? Where do we draw the line when defending what we believe? I dont think we are called to defend our own thoughts, we are just called to live like Christ. But what does that mean?
Romans 10:9-10 is a popular memory verse and one that I learned as a child. I remember thinking that saying "I believe in Jesus" out loud was all I needed to do to be saved. I now know I was missing the real meaning of this passage. I am curious why Paul specifically mentions the mouth and heart as playing a significant part of being saved. What is the significance of confessing verbally with ones mouth, and what exactly is meant by "heart"? Sometimes I question whether this is really all that is required for salvation. I feel like I try to make it so much more complicated in my mind. Praise God for being so gracious to us.
Joel Stone,
I completely agree with what you said about Romans 10:9-11. It seems like a very bold statement for Paul to make. I feel like the real depth of the verse may be overlooked by some and we may miss what is truly meant by confessing and believing.
Bobby,
That is some very good insight on 10:13. I think a lot of Christians in the U.S., including myself, cannot understand the persecution that some have faced and are facing as a result of their faith in Christ. It is tempting to ask God to make us happy and comfortable instead of asking God to bring glory to Himself through us, even if it results in our own suffering.
People have allowed false zealousness to repulse others. This is why Piper drives me nuts. I respect the Calvinist view, though I don’t accept it as my own. The doctrine of double predestination seems to be at the forefront of his intentions for writing books. I know this is not as heinous as the crusades, Amber. Though I don’t think the crusades were totally about doctrinal disputes.
I appreciate Doctor Schenck's comment that allegiance is not merely a confession of words. This shows the importance of living the gospel. But in my Bible, there are quotations: “Jesus is Lord.” Either way, I agree that we should take away with us the importance of total allegiance.
Good thoughts, Shea. Even in my great respect for liturgy, I still recognize the tendency I have to confess only with my mouth, but not with my heart.
TJ, I liked your comment about Jesus' being the example that we should intend to follow, because we have the Spirit.
It is surprising to me that Paul says that it is through faith in our hearts that we are justified and brought into righteousness. I like what Dr. Scheck mentions about confessing allegiance to the Lord, because it calls us into action. Not action just in words but in action. I feel that this also relates to the motivation in our hearts. While I do believe that simply by believing and having faith we might come into relationship and righteousness in him, I also believe that the motivation of our hearts needs action to accompany faith and believing. Not that in any way we can earn our righteousness, but as we grow we take on the heart of Christ. It seems like Paul is building up an argument for this because of how he leads into chapter twelve when we begin to see the application of what he is talking about here.
John M., so that's the question! I knew the answer was 42. I just didn't know what the question was...
Jesus being equated with YHWH is an unbelievable jump for the Jewish people. They've been taught their whole lives "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one God" and then Paul equates Jesus with YHWH. Can you imagine being alive during that time and hearing that everything you've been taught your whole life is not quite right? While we still believe in the oneness of God, a Jew at that time did not have a concept of the Trinity. Shoot man, that would be an epic claim against what the Jews believed. Of course you would reject that teaching.
Anton,
About zeal, I was thinking about Paul's zeal in the past, when he held the coats for the men who stoned Stephen. His zeal was more based upon knowledge then that it is now, I think. Maybe not more than when he was writing this, ok, but there was knowledge. There was knowledge of the Law that gave him zeal in the past. Maybe he isn't talking about himself.
And, i know that some of my zeal is fueled by the idea that I really don't know a thing about God as much as I would like to say that I do.
=)
Joel Stone:
Good call. Yes, he does make that distinction about works in the rest of his writings, but here it just seems too simple, doesn't it? I mean, all you have to do is confess with your mouth and believe in your heart? That doesn't seem that hard.. does it?
But then again, think about the things that you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart. They kind of govern the rest of your actions... don't they?
I don't know, I'm just saying this because I think it is really easy to say you're saved... but behaving that way is an entirely different kind of belief.
yeah.
Anthony, I agree and think that this would be a huge jump in their thinking. We know how much the Jewish people regarded Deuteronomy 6:4-9, and we see that practicing Jews continue to follow the instructions listed here. Jesus stated this as the most important commandment in Mark 12:29. Paul's progressiveness must have been met with a lot of questions as to the validity of what he was preaching, if this is truly what he intended by referring to the verse in Joel.
I think 10:2-3 relates directly to 9:31-33. The Jews were zealous to to have righteousness, but they thought that through observing the law they could merit it. This mentality is the "stumbling stone" that comes with the Law: that righteousness can be earned through the law instead of by faith in God's mercy and the righteousness of God. The funny thing is, I think that this stone still exists for Christians. We tend to stumble over works-righteousness instead of righteousness by grace through faith. We think that doing the right things all the time is the equivalent of righteousness. Maybe it is not.
Amber,
I don't think that the Crusades are a good example of overzealousness. The motivation, as I understand it, for the Crusades was a highly political one that had more to do with control of land than zeal for the Lord.
I really like your point over being zealous for the right things. I totally resonate. There should be balance and limitation to most everything in our lives except for loving God and loving people. Those should abound as much as we can help them to.
The law within Christianity is a pretty frustrating concept. I find a lot of people saying that there are a bunch of rules that we need to adhere to in order to be a good Christian. I think this is pretty much bogus. When the early church heard of new believers they sent them a letter telling them to avoid sexual immorality and to not eat the meat of strangled animals. This being the case, I think that most of the law (ceremonial, etc.) should not be enforced, but that the moral elements of the law show us what it means to love one another. It shows us what God hates and what he enjoys; through this we can know how to please and love God.
10:4
I agree that the Law’s purpose was to show us our inability to be righteous in our own power. God’s progressive revelation of Himself throughout history is perfect in that He did not give us everything at once but revealed just the right thing at the right time and in the right order.
10:9-11
There is an important distinction to be made in confessing Jesus as Lord. We are not just confessing Him with our mouths (like it sounds in English); we are genuinely pledging allegiance to Him as Lord. That would be a good word study.
Steve,
I appreciate how you view the moral law: “It shows us what God hates and what he enjoys; through this we can know how to please and love God.” I think you hit the nail on the head because the ultimate goal is to find out how to love God by pleasing Him. The ultimate goal is not to get every little detail of the law right or to follow it incessantly; it is to love God and love others.
John Miller,
Thanks for that mini-testimony. I can really resonate with that, and coming here to IWU has really deepened my faith and made me rethink my perspectives and worldviews.
The verses from this passage that stick out to me are verses 9-13. I think that these verses are empowering and a beautiful reminder of the assurance we can have as followers of Christ. I think this also gives good model of the inward/outward/upward type of lifestyle.
Inward – verse 10: for it is with your heart you believe and are justified
Outward – verse 10: it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved
Upward – verse 9: looking upward by confessing that “Jesus is Lord"
Why wouldn't Paul equate Jesus with YHWH? Paul is of Jewish background. Therefore, he would have known the difference in language between God and Lord. Paul would have been able to reread the prophetic passages and relate them to the life of Christ. Paul speaks of God and Jesus as one. When Paul is talking about the law and the fulfillment of it he is making those connections in order to shed light on what the purpose of the law was. In other words, Paul is making the prophetic connections in order to more light on what God's plan and purpose was through Jesus.
Paul earnestly desires his Jewish brothers and sisters to be saved. The issue is that they are zealous for God, they want Him but they do not have an understanding of Jesus. They are not enlightened. How are they to know about Jesus as Lord without someone coming and telling them? Paul asks, however, if the Jews shouldn't already know. The Scriptures have made it clear that Israel is contrary and disobedient. The nation will be jealous of people did not even ask for God and yet have found Him.
I think Paul makes it clear in this chapter the necessity of seeing Jesus as Lord. I am curious what connotations “confessing” has in his context 1st century Roman context. Are there other parallels here to Caesar in confessing and being saved? Although, it seems Paul is speaking to the Jews at this moment and might rather be, as was mentioned, referring to Old Testament concepts of salvation. Or perhaps because these are Roman Jews, both the new “Caesar” (Jesus) and the conception of the Kingdom on Earth (by the power of YHWH) ring true. God timed all this stuff out anyway didn't He? Only at this point in history could YHWH appeal to both Jews and Gentiles.
I really like what Schenck has to say about Romans 10:9-11. It’s really an interesting translation, too; the term “faithed” makes sense given the Greek, which uses a form of the verb pisteuo. Though often translated as “believe” to think of faith as a verb is a rather different way of looking at it, for it sees faith as an action more than as mere assent. It makes it sound like faith involves action (which it most certainly does!), and I think Paul probably would agree. This is not to say that faith is equivalent to works of Jewish Law and that it is merely a human work to attain righteousness, for faith is more of a gift from God than it is something we do on our own… but, nonetheless, it still involves action! This plays into the multiple meanings of faith found throughout Romans rather well, for it is both belief and faithfulness in action.
Shea- I couldn’t agree more, verses 9-11 are incredibly encouraging, especially given the fact that in verse nine the salvation is in the future tense. It really makes it sound rather like a promise; that those who do these two things will certainly be saved. And this salvation is one that comes from ourselves, but it something which we receive, and in that there is great comfort. Great insight!
Tim-
I think you make a good point in that the law was indeed intended to point people in the right direction; in a way, it acts as a guide for what we are to do and avoid doing. However, I don’t think I would go so far as to say that the law itself works to shape us, for apart from the Spirit working in us the law does nothing but heap condemnation on us. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the Law itself isn’t the power that brings us to righteousness; that power is nothing other than God Himself.
Steve, I really enjoyed reading what you had to say about the law and how adhering to it is a form of love, not just to attain the status of "Christian" but to show our love for God. I think by looking at Paul's writings here in Romans we begin to understand the fact that the basis of everything he is stating is a means in which we as followers of Christ can love him. Whether Jew or Gentile this should be our foundation.
I feel very uncomfortable making any concession towards the idea of the Law being obsolete after Christ. Jesus himself states that nothing from the Law will ever fade away. Paul himself states that the Law helps show him how unrighteous he truly is. The law today is an ethic for Christians to know and understand as "Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself." All the law is summed up in this command. The Law for Christians today is as much about horizontal living (living correctly with man) as it is about vertical living (honoring God). The two cannot be separated. The Law does not save us, but faith in God alone saves.
John Miller, I am in your same boat with being unknowingly raised as a fundamentalist. I have since being at IWU rediscovered the story of God I have found my purpose in Loving God and others. Feels good fulfilling the law without grain sacrifices and burnt sacrifices, eh?
JBrehm,
I don't disagree with the possibility of Paul equating Jesus with YHWH but I am not quickly swayed.
For Jesus to be Lord does not mean Jesus is the all powerful creator God. It was the Father who gave authority to Jesus and it is to the Father that Jesus pledges all honor and glory.
Theologically, it is totally cool to read Paul's writings as doing this because Christians have met together and decided, with the Holy Spirit working through them, that Jesus is of even the same substance as the Father.
This all causes me to wonder why we do exegesis studies at all... should we care so much about Paul's perspective and mind if we can hook up with the trajectory of God's revelation further down the road?
Man, continuing revelation then sounds like a Muslim thing. Wow, this stuff shouldn't keep me up at night.
Shea, I am in your same boat about fighting for a correct doctrine from this text. Call me a postmodern but the longer and more extensively I study the Scriptures I find myself not "falling off the log." These hotbutton issues do hold a danger of becoming dogmatic and therefore hurting our ministry quite often.
iwudabomb,
This is similar to my previous post, but I am curious about God's revelation of Himself and the trajectory that sends us on.
The Lord revealed Himself in Christ but Christ said that He couldn't wait for the Spirit to come who would lead us into all truth.
Through the hands of Christians we have seen this world redeemed back into that which it is fully created to be (Kingdom of God) and so see things further revealed than in the Early Church.
I mean, even the way our government works: Leaders being elected on the basis of how well they SERVE PEOPLE. Are we still seeing a revelation of God through the Holy Spirit's empowerment of Christians?
Or did the revelation stop in the Early Church and we are simply reaping the benefits?
I find 10:4 to be a fascinating verse. That Christ is the goal of the law is a statement of the intricate relationship between the Old and New Testaments; between Israel and the Church; between the old covenant and the new covenant; between Torah and Jesus. I agree with Schenck that interpreting this as meaning "the end of the law" is misleading and incongruent with Paul's understanding of the Jewish Law. The ancient rabbis taught that the goal of Torah was an incarnation of man and this is precisely what Paul seems to be getting at in this verse stating that Christ is not the fulfillment in the sense that the law is now obsolete but rather that Christ is the goal, the very apex of Law.
Amber,
I have to disagree with you that the Law being made obsolete is "true to a point." If we are speaking in the sense of the levitical cultus (namely, the obsoleteness of the law spoken of in Hebrews) then yes, I believe that the "law" or the sacrificial system is obsolete. However, as Gentiles we are not bound by the law anyway. Not a "yod" or a "tittle" will disappear from the Law.
Sharon
I find the discussion of salvation in a more futuristic tense very interesting. Often times we see salvation through very Western eyes and interpret it to mean a one time event that ultimately deems us "saved" rather than a future event that centers on our being saved from God's wrath.
I love looking at the last part of this. In verse 13 when it seems that Paul is straight saying that Jesus is YHWH. I think that this is just a really beautiful moment in the text. It makes me wonder what went through Paul's mind, and What went through the apostle's mind when if first and finally hit them tha this man whom they spent years with. Whom they ate with and laughed with and learned from was in fact YHWH. God of the Universe. The creator...What would that have felt like? That's the kind of musings that go through my head when I see verses like this where we can see a view of the old testament and the new and when we look at the Old through Jesus we can see him throughout. And we see that the huge powerful God that was in the OT is this same Jesus that came to earth and walked and died for us. It's just so incredible.
Larison I'm with you buddy on the Law. We don't throw it out. It is still Good. It just doesn't save, it never did. it was so that we would know sin and that we could know that we were forgiven. It was blood shed for man, not for God.
Oh John Miller how I love you. I was raised in such the same way. It's refreshing to look at zeal not for doctrines but for Christ. What do you say we go out and befriend some homosexuals and protest the war. Sounds like a good way to make some parents uncomfortable, and God pretty happy.
On the topic of zeal, Paul will readily recognize that Israel has a zeal for God but he also sees that it is zeal not according to knowledge. This is where so many religious people - even sincere Christians - go astray. They have plenty of zeal but little knowledge. Zeal for God, but not according to knowledge is a perfect description of Paul himself before his conversion. Saul of Tarsus was a notorious persecutor of Christians before Jesus confronted him on the road to Damascus. It's remarkable that Paul found something good to say about these Jewish people who persecuted him so mercilessly. "At least they have a zeal for God," Paul says. Their lack of knowledge is reflected in the fact that they are ignorant of God's righteousness, and want to establish their own righteousness.
In regards to Bobby Wrigley ’s post, “but this deliverance is something we do not understand living in the United States.” Not all regions of the United States is immune from this. Persecution has many degrees and forms. I was fired for bringing someone to the Lord and taking him to church with me on Sundays. This violated the company policy involving client personnel with staff personnel. My form of persecution involved financial concerns, which is a vital means of support. Yes I would agree that the in general the U.S. is immune to harsher punishments of persecution, compared with that of the first century. But persecution is alive and well in the U.S. quite more frequently than we imagine.
Hey Michael, in regard to your post, I like the way Jesus sums up the Law with two commands love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, body, and mind; and to love thy neighbor as thyself. Not too many people bring up the term ‘entire sanctification’ but I believe you are right in the matter. Through the crisis of entire sanctification in which we make Christ Lord of our lives. We receive the fullness of the Spirit which enables us to obey these commands.
Post a Comment