6.4 Predestination in Paul's Letters

This follows in the same vein as my post on Psalm 139.
_________________________
6.4.1 The Question
There is little denying that Paul used language of predestination in some of his letters. The system that Augustine and Calvin created maps to at least one side of Paul's language. The question is whether they have read that language in context or possibly ignored another aspect of his language. For example, is it possible that Paul uses both language of predestination and language that implies human freedom on some level? 

If so, one might argue that Augustine and Calvin have systematized Paul's theology in a way that has resolved unresolved tensions in Paul's thinking in only one direction. If Paul had language that supported both determinism and freedom of choice, did Augustine and Calvin systematized out of existence the choice dimension of his thinking? One might ask the same thing of those who have systematized Paul's teaching in the direction of freedom. Have they thereby underplayed Paul's language of election and predeterminism?

6.4.2 Paul's Earliest Letters
Language of predestination is not a major feature of Paul's earliest letters. Paul does tell the Thessalonians that he knew God had chosen them because of the power that accompanied his first ministry there (1 Thess. 1:4-5). But we should note that Paul does not apply this observation to individuals -- it is a collective election of the church at that location. 

Similarly, Paul does not say why God chose them. For example, Paul does not indicate that they played no role in that choosing. Could not the fact that God knew they would be receptive to the gospel have informed his choosing of them? In short, the passage gives us no information on the mechanism of God's choosing.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 indicates that God chose the Thessalonians to be the firstfruits to be saved. This is, again, a collective choosing, and the choice is about the order in which the gospel was preached. It is nothing like a statement of individual election.

Finally, Galatians 1:15-16 indicates that God had a plan for Paul that went back to the time before he was even born, perhaps echoing the imagery of Jeremiah's calling (Jer. 1:4-5). It is again important to note that Paul gives us no explanation of how this works. Calvin would interpret these comments in terms of unconditional election, with Paul's will playing no role whatsoever. However, one might easily suppose as well that God looked into the future and knew the choices Paul would make.

We might point equally to passages in Paul's earliest letters that seem to suggest some kind of "libertarian freedom," by which we mean a genuine choice for his audiences. 1 Corinthians 10:13 at least seems to suggest that the Corinthians had a choice as to whether they sinned or not when they were tempted. God provided a way of escape if they were willing. It was up to them.

2 Corinthians 9:7 indicates that the Corinthians have the freedom whether to give or not give. They were under "no compulsion." Galatians 5:13 at least sounds like it says that it is up to the Galatians as to whether they use their freedom in the Lord as an opportunity to serve each other or to gratify the sinful desires of their flesh.

However, Calvinists would simply say that we have the appearance of choice. We experience these events as moments of personal choice, but a determinism underlies it. William James promoted this option called "soft determinism" in his 1902 writing, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Philosophers sometimes call this perspective "compatibilism" because it aims to make determinism and freedom of will compatible.

Those who believe in libertarian freedom, on the other hand, might insist that James is making a distinction without a difference. Just because we experience a choice as free, it is not truly free if it is ultimately determined.

In the end, the point is once again that Paul does not work out these details. He uses language that certainly sounds like we have a genuine choice. But the Calvinist has potential explanations for that language. And the Arminian -- a school of Christian thought that believes we have a genuine choice -- has an explanation for determinist language too. [1] John Wesley (1703–1791) and the Wesleyan tradition followed Arminius in affirming genuine human freedom, especially in the context of what he called "prevenient grace" -- an empowerment by God to make such choices.

6.4.3 Romans 9-11
The locus classicus for predestination in Paul's letters is of course Romans 9. John Calvin and modern Calvinists consider this passage ground zero for understanding Paul's deterministic theology. It is the lens through which the rest of Paul's writings are read on this topic.

A few contextual notes are in order, however. The context of Romans 9 is clearly the question of God's inclusion of non-Jews, "Gentiles," into his plan of salvation. Although one can read the words of the chapter in terms of individual predestination, that is not really the point. The background is that most of Israel at that time had not accepted Jesus as their Messiah, but many Gentiles had. 

It prompted a critique. How could Jesus truly be the Messiah when most of Israel rejected him? And how did it make sense that so many Gentiles had? These are the questions that stand in the background of Paul's excursus in Romans 9-11.

Paul's answer is what we might call a remnant theology. Not all Israel, he insists, is actually Israel (Rom. 9:7). God has a plan. In that plan, God will harden the hearts of most of Israel while "grafting" the Gentiles into the people of God (11:8, 25). Then God will bring the rest of Israel back in as well (11:26).

Accordingly, election in this part of Romans is the election of groups rather than individuals. One might respond that, in order to elect a remnant, one must choose individuals within the group. That may be logically true, but it is not part of Paul's rhetoric. When Paul talks about God's election of Jacob over Esau, he is thinking about groups that God had chosen (9:10-13).

As with Paul's earlier letters, we find both language of predestination and libertarian freedom in Romans 9-11. If one only reads 9:14-24, one will come away with a strong sense of unconditional election. "I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion." We get a stark picture of God creating some "vessels" -- humans -- just so that he can show his glory as he destroys them (9:22).

Yet, when we get to Romans 11, we do not find individuals whose destiny is fixed. Paul talks about how Gentile believers who might turn their back on God's kindness can be cut back out of the tree of the people of God (11:21-22). Meanwhile, the Jewish branches that God has cut out can be grafted back in (11:24).

This indeterminacy in relation to who is currently in or out fits far better with a libertarian view of freedom of will than with a predestination that goes back before the creation. Calvinism resolves this tension by suggesting that it is just an appearance of freedom, with the final state predetermined. Arminianism might suggest that God's predeterminism is based on his foreknowledge or that Romans 9 is more rhetorical than literal.

The first suggestion might find its basis in Romans 8:29, which says "those whom he foreknew he also prearranged to be conformed to the image of his Son in order that he (Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brothers [and sisters]." However, what seems to be predetermined here is the plan rather than individual predestination. That is to say, the plan is for those who are resurrected to be transformed into the likeness of Christ's resurrection, as 1 Corinthians 15:49 indicates. The first thus is not about individual election.

The second option seems more likely. Given that Romans 11 indicates the possibility for the elect to stop being the elect and the non-elect to become the elect, we should probably take Romans 9 as somewhat rhetorical. "What if," in other words (9:22). The point is that God is in charge and can do whatever he wants. God's plan is to let the Gentiles in by faith. Unbelieving Israel needs to deal with it.

What right has the clay to say to the potter, "What are you doing?" (9:21). So unbelieving Israel has no right to say to God, "Why are you letting the Gentiles be saved by faith without keeping the Law as we must?" God is God. God is sovereign. If God wants to save the Gentiles by faith, that is his prerogative.

6.4.4 Ephesians 1
Some of the most concentrated language of predestination language is found in Ephesians 1:

God chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him, in love having prearranged us for adoption through Jesus Christ according to the purpose of his will (1:4-5).

He made known to us the mystery of his will... which he purposed in him (Jesus) as a plan for the fulness of time... in him we received an inheritance, having been prearranged according to the purpose of the one who brings about everything according to the council of his will (1:9-11).

However, we note that these verses are not explicitly about individual predestination. All the referents are plural (e.g., "us"). Further, it is the plan that is predetermined. They are predestined to be holy. That is, everyone who is in Christ must be holy. It is part of the deal. Ephesians 1:10 explicitly means that it is the plan that is prearranged, a plan that results in the audience receiving an inheritance.

In the end, it turns out that Paul's language of predestination falls far short of the work that John Calvin and other Calvinists think it does. Yes, he does use language of predestination, but it focuses on groups and God's overall plan rather than the arrangement of individuals for (or not for) salvation. 

At the same time, he assumes choice as the primary mechanism of justification. After all, the very essence of faith is to choose to trust in God through Christ. It is to give one's allegiance to Jesus as Lord. This choice can be explained as a mere manifestation of underlying forces of predestination, but Paul never says anything of this sort.

[1] Arminianism is named after Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), who modified the dominant Calvinism of his day to allow for libertarian freedom.

Pensée 5.4: Checks and balances are crucial in an ideal government.

Previous posts and prospective posts in this series are linked at the bottom.
__________________________
1. In the lead up to the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and a man named John Jay penned the Federalist Papers. The collection is important to get a sense of the thinking that stood behind the Constitution as it stands. 

A key principle in those papers is the separation of powers among the branches of government. Madison put it this way: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." However, since neither of these are the case, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” [1]

Madison rightly understood human nature. Left without any boundaries, we will plow down others who stand in the way of our selfish ambition. If lying, stealing, killing will advance our own greed or thirst for pleasure, humans will do these things unless some significant boundary stands in the way.

Lord Acton put it this way: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." By "great men," he means those who have the drive, the resources, the intellect, the skill, and the ability to sway the public such that they can gain power. But this drive can easily lead them to overrun, oppress, and eliminate those who stand in their way. History is the story of these men.

2. Madison and others were essentially drawing on the thinking of Montesquieu. As early as 1748 he had written, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive." [3]

This "separation of powers" aims to create checks and balances between the ambitions of differing individuals such that a greater good can emerge that is to everyone's advantage. The executive branch is meant to capture the efficiencies of a monarchy and efficient decision making. The legislative branch brings the collective wisdom of the nation to bear in the creation of laws. This brings in the benefits of an aristocracy.

In modern times, a Congress or Parliament is elected by the people, thus bringing in the advantages of a democracy. If one of the core functions of government is to protect the rights of the individual and aim for the greater good, then a system where the people elects its representatives is optimal because they would ideally vote in their best interests.

Finally, the judicial branch of government is meant to protect the principles of the Constitution. If the Constitution is set up properly, it will encase in fundamental law the rights of the individual as well as checks and balances against any one branch of government.

3. The United States system was the first full scale attempt to fully put Montesquieu's insights into practice in a government. Since then, parliamentary systems have played out these principles in slightly different ways. The executive is chosen from within the legislative branch, and he or she can be removed much more easily. Such leaders do not have a fixed term but can be removed at any time by a vote of no confidence.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of parliamentary systems is that the legislative branch usually requires a coalition of several parties. In the United States, the two party system regularly results in leaders that are no one's first choice. Smaller parties tend to work against the general will by dividing the majority sentiment and allowing a less desired candidate to win.

The Electoral College is an artifact of a time in US history when the will of the people was not trusted and a desire for the elite to be able to pre-empt them was kept in place. In recent decades, however, it has effectively undermined the will of the majority with increasing frequency. In one possible future, one might anticipate a constitutional amendment removing it in the next decade.

4. At present, the ideal checks and balances of the US system are dysfunctional, and it is unclear what the long term result will be. One of the first actions of the current administration was to dismantle internal watch dog elements of government -- checks on its ethics. Inspectors General were dismissed. The long-standing tradition since Watergate of the Department of Justice operating independently of the President has seemingly been abandoned. [4] 

The legislative and judicial branches have largely become rubber stamps of executive will. The legislative branch does nothing when its budgets are (illegally) not distributed as passed. Congress passes legislation it knows goes against the will of the people it represents for fear of primary challenges. The Supreme Court reverses decade and century long precedent and largely enables what many would argue is executive overreach. 

If the system holds, these things will no doubt be righted. However, it is a legitimate question as to whether the system will hold. It is at least possible that the US is in transition to another form of government. We will see.

Meanwhile, the Constitution seems now regularly violated. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military against the civilian population. This is now happening at an increasing rate. Rights relating to arrest warrants, habeas corpus, and probable cause are now regularly being violated. An unsupervised and unregulated military force under the control of the executive branch has been given unprecedented funding by Congress. This should be quite alarming.

Ultimately, all of these things can take place because a sizeable enough portion of the American people knowingly or unknowingly supports them -- or at least are willing to look the other way. Similarly, these blocks of support are distributed in ways that facilitate the isolation of opposition.

A rule or law is only as powerful as the ability to enforce it. Similarly, "might makes right" in a fallen world. We can say that God will dispense justice in the afterlife or coming kingdom. But in the meantime, those who have the power to do what they want will do what they want.

[1] Federalist Paper #51.

[2] In a letter to Mandell Creighton in 1887.

[3] The Spirit of the Laws.

[4] Claims that this is no different from previous administrations do not seem to hold up to scrutiny. 
__________________________

1.1 We can be epistemologically certain of almost nothing.
1.2 The world outside me exists.
1.3 I exist.
1.4 Logic and math seem absolutely reliable.
1.5 Our situation requires some pragmatism.
1.6 Kant's distinction is useful.
1.7 The scientific method is useful.
1.8 The scientific method has clear limits.
1.9 Assumptions are inevitable in reasoning.
1.10 Reasoning is inevitable in thinking.
1.11 Faith can be reasonable and unreasonable.

2.1 Belief in a creator seems reasonable.

5.1 Anarchy and communism are unworkable forms of governance.
5.2 Monarchies and theocracies are unreliable. 
5.3 There are two core principles of governance.

Explanatory Notes -- Romans 1:1-15

These Explanatory Notes go along with my more informal storytelling about Romans 1:1-15 on Sunday.
______________________
The Prescript
^1:1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, having been set apart for the gospel of God, ²which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.

Letters in the ancient world usually followed a certain form. Their “prescript” – the opening part of the letter – usually began with a very brief: “Sender to Recipient, greetings.” Paul’s letters are thus somewhat unique in the way that he used this opening part of the letter to highlight key truths about himself (and the audience) that were relevant to what he was about to write about.

He starts by describing himself as a servant of Messiah Jesus. If he has recently written Philippians, that is the other place he started this way. He does refer to himself as a servant of Christ within the letters of 1 Corinthians and Galatians. Although I have not used the word slave here, we should remember that the term doulos had a stronger connotation than servant does in English. Paul belongs to God and is obligated to do God’s bidding. He does not belong to himself.

The fact that “Christ” comes before “Jesus” probably implies that Paul was thinking specifically of Jesus as king. Paul is a servant of King Jesus, the Anointed One of Israel, the Messiah.

He is the “herald” or “apostle” of Jesus the king. An apostle was someone sent with a message from someone else. Paul was sent into the world with a message from the king. First of all, that message was that Jesus had risen from the dead. As an apostle, Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1). There are no more apostles of this sort anymore. Paul was the very last (1 Cor. 15:8). Jesus has not appeared to anyone in the same way since.

This word of Jesus’ resurrection was good news. It was a “gospel.” A gospel was good news of an extraordinary sort. The gospel that Jesus preached was the coming arrival of the kingdom of God (e.g., Mark 1:15). By the time of Paul writing, some twenty-five years later, more details had been filled in. The Jesus movement now knew that Jesus’ death and resurrection were a key part of that coming kingdom – Jesus was in fact the King in that kingdom! Here is the truth that ties these things together. When Jesus rose from the dead, he ascended to the right hand of God. There, God seated Jesus next to him, enthroning him as king.

This wasn’t a last-minute decision by God. God had hidden this plan in the words of the Old Testament Scriptures. More than any other passage, the earliest Christians read Psalm 110:1 in this light. “The LORD (Yahweh) said to my Lord (the Messiah), sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

³concerning his Son, who came from the seed of David according to the flesh ⁴and appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness from the resurrection of the dead – our Lord Jesus Christ.

These two verses form a little snippet of poetry, Hebrew style. Hebrew did not rhyme sounds in its poetry but thought. In “synonymous parallelism,” you said something. Then you said something similar or related. In this case, the poetic snippet presents two different ways in which Jesus was the Messiah: according to the flesh and according to the Spirit.

Paul certainly could have “gone poetic” on the spot. But there is at least one feature of these two lines that is curious. Rather than refer to the Holy Spirit as usual, he uses the phrase “Spirit of holiness,” which is unique here in the New Testament. However, it was not unique within Judaism. It appears both in the Old Testament in Hebrew (e.g., Ps. 51:11) and in other places like the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 1QS 9.3).

These observations lead us to think that Paul is quoting something here, an early Christian poem or creed. Given the unique way of referring to the Holy Spirit, it was likely first composed in Aramaic. Quite possibly, it is an artifact of the worship of the Jerusalem church.

Ambrosiaster, who wrote in the late 300s, indicated that the churches at Rome had a “Jewish bent.” Raymond Brown and John Meier have wondered if this comment alludes to a more Jerusalem oriented form of early Christianity. That makes sense since Paul did not found the church. It was likely founded by individuals returning to Rome from Jerusalem or traveling there in the normal course of things.

What I am getting at is that it would be rhetorically effective to quote something out of Jerusalem to a church whose primary contact with Christianity was in Jerusalem.

There are two parts to the creed. The first recognizes Jesus’ human qualifications to be Messiah. He is a descendant of David in terms of his humanity – “according to the flesh.” (Note that “flesh” has no negative connotation here.) Here is very early testimony from Paul that Jesus had a Davidic lineage, an important verification of the Gospel tradition in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

The second part is what would distinguish the early Christian understanding from mainstream Jewish thought. Jesus’ resurrection was understood to be part of his enthronement as cosmic Messiah. Those Jews who were looking for a Messiah expected him to be an anointed human. They did not expect him to die, let alone rise again.

Jesus’ death and resurrection were thus unexpected. But once Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was quickly interpreted in the light of Psalm 110:1. He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven where he was enthroned at God’s right hand as Son of God in power. God “begat” him as his Son (Ps. 2:7).

Was Jesus not Son of God before this point? We can perhaps think of him as an heir apparent before that point. He is Son but he has not yet taken the throne. He is not yet Son of God in power. This is an appointment he receives after his resurrection and ascension as he sits at the right hand of God (his “session”).

It is at this point that we most meaningfully begin to call him “Lord.” Acts 2:36 proclaims that Jesus’ resurrection means that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. The parallelism of Romans 10:9 equates calling Jesus Lord with believing that God raised him from the dead. The hymn of Philippians 2:9-11 similarly speaks of God giving Jesus the name “Lord” as God super-exalts him after his death.

The earliest Christology thus was not an incarnation Christology but a resurrection Christology. The earliest focus of Jesus’ Lordship, royal Sonship, and his identity as Christ found its locus in the resurrection.

⁵through whom we received grace and apostleship leading to the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name, ⁶among whom are you also called of Jesus Christ.
Although most interpreters of Romans currently picture a mixed audience of Jew and Gentile Christian at Rome, the rhetoric of Romans itself seems far more focused on a Gentile audience. The Gentiles are Paul’s specific calling as apostle to the Gentiles (e.g., Rom. 15:16; Gal. 2:8).

Gentiles were thus the focus of his apostleship, powered by the grace of God. Grace of course is God’s unearned favor. There are a few misconceptions of what grace was in the ancient world. For example, you could solicit it. Sometimes grace is pictured as something that God irresistibly initiates with no involvement from us at all. This is not how grace was understood at the time. Similarly, grace could be cut off if the recipient responded in a completely inappropriate way. The core idea is that such favor is unearned. The other ideas are later add ons.

The phrase “obedience of faith” indicates that faith responds. It acts in obedience. It gives its allegiance. It is not passive in the Calvinist sense of irresistible grace. It participates in the grace.

The audiences in Rome are “among” these Gentiles. And they are also called like the other Gentiles to whom Paul has ministered. Paul was called to be an apostle. The Romans have also received a call from God to become part of the people of God.

⁷To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be holy. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This verse ends the prescript of the letter. The first six verses have expanded on the sender, Paul. Now in one verse Paul addresses his recipients and gives his characteristic greeting.

There were almost certainly multiple house churches in the city of Rome. This is certainly the case if Romans 16 was part of the letter sent to them. But even if not, Romans 16 gives us a sense of how many assemblies might be present in a large city like Rome. Some of the Roman churches may have been tenement churches. We have later evidence of churches in Ostia where individuals living next to each other took down the wall separating their houses in order to have a larger space for worship.

Paul indicates that they are beloved of God. This is of course true of all people and all believers. But although God loves us all, God loves us all as we are uniquely. They are also beloved as the churches of Rome.

They are called to believe and become part of the people of God. And they are called to be holy. They are called to be “saints.” The word saints means, “holy ones.” To be holy is to be set apart as belonging to God. And belonging to God implies a certain moral identity too – a life that does not let sin reign (e.g., Rom. 6:14).

The standard letter greeting was a single word, chairein – literally, “to rejoice.” However, from his earliest letters, Paul expanded this to “grace and peace.” The word grace (charis) is related to “greetings,” although giving it a theological twist that corresponded to one of Paul’s signature themes. The word peace corresponded to the Hebrew shalom. Paul’s greeting was thus a mirror of his mission to unite Jewish and Gentile believer into one body of Christ. It brought together a Greek and Hebrew greeting.

This grace and peace came from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Larry Hurtado has called this pairing a kind of “binitarianism.” However, the pair for Paul reflected God and his Messiah. God our Father is the One who is all in all (cf. Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Cor. 15:28). Jesus is his viceroy, his anointed king, the Son of God. He is Lord, enthroned in the heavens. He is the one who authenticates our reconciliation to God, which takes place “in Jesus’ name.”

The Thanksgiving
⁸First, I am thanking my God through Jesus Christ about you all because your faith is proclaimed in the whole world.
As we just mentioned, we can pray to God now through Jesus Messiah, for his death and resurrection has made it possible for us to be reconciled to God. He is the one who vouches for us, who testifies that we are in right standing again. Paul thanks God the Father through Jesus Christ.

The faith of the believers at Rome was apparently renowned through the whole world. Paul would have heard a good deal about their origins and story from Priscilla and Aquila when they first met at Corinth. That would have been some six or seven years previous. No doubt the couple would have stayed somewhat in touch with the happenings of the city even at a distance.

The Roman churches were a success story of the faith.

⁹For God is my witness, whom I worship with my spirit in the gospel of his Son as I am constantly making mention of you ¹⁰always in my prayers, asking if now somehow, I will succeed in the will of God to come to you.
The thanksgiving section of the letter normally followed the prescript. In it, it was customary in Paul’s letters to give thanks to God for the recipients in some way. Although these were normally features of Paul’s letters, we can assume that he meant what he said. He did pray for them regularly.

He prayed for them within the framework of his understanding of the good news. He prayed for them as he worshiped God the Father in his spirit. He worshiped God with thankfulness for the good news that Jesus was king. Although he did not plan to spend a long time with the Roman church, he believed that they had a role to play in Paul’s mission.

¹¹For I long to see you if I might impart some spiritual gift to you in order to strengthen you. ¹²And that is, to be mutually encouraged with you through both your faith and mine among one another.
Paul anticipated that a mutual edification would take place during his visit. It would be a spiritual gift exchange. Paul thought that God would use him to enrich their faith. And Paul believed that they would enrich his faith as well. This is the way the body of Christ works. We all have spiritual gifts that are meant to build each other up.

¹³Now I do not want you to be unaware, brothers [and sisters] that I often planned to come to you and I was prevented until now in order that I might have some fruit also among you just as also among the other Gentiles.
Paul has worked tirelessly spreading the good news in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. But he has apparently had Rome in the back of his mind all along. It was on his evangelistic bucket list. Yet he understood that God first wanted him to make sure that the gospel had permeated Asia, Macedonia, and Greece first. That task was now complete (Rom. 15:23).

1:14 implies that the audience is primarily Gentile. Paul is the apostle to non-Jews. He has had great fruit among the Gentiles of the east. Now he wants to have fruit among the Gentiles at Rome. Verse 14 clearly implies that Paul sees the audience as primarily non-Jew.

¹⁴Both to Greeks and barbarians, both to the wise and the foolish I am a debtor ¹⁵so the purpose for me is also to proclaim the good news to you at Rome.
The way that Paul expands on his target audience reinforces that the audience is non-Jewish. “Greeks and barbarians” refer to subcategories of Gentiles. These two groups align with stereotypes of the wise (Greeks) and the foolish (barbarians). This is the way many thought – there are the civilized Greeks and then there is everyone else.

It is time. Now is the time to present the good news to Rome too, even though his immediate audience has already believed. Paul thinks he will travel there freely after his visit to Jerusalem. Acts tells us it will not play out exactly that way. Still, he will see Rome soon enough.