Study of Romans

[job 1:21]

From: https://torahclass.com/

Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 1, Introduction
Today we embark on a study of the New Testament Book of Romans. We're going to have
quite the dialogue about this exquisite work of the Apostle Sha'ul (Paul) because it has more
to do with shaping the Christian faith as we know it than any other book in the Bible. Therefore
if not properly interpreted it has the potential to lead followers of Christ down some paths that
were never intended.
I think if a survey was taken among Christians not only would the Book of Romans probably be
the most widely read, but we would find that more commentaries have been written on
Romans than any other Bible book. So why if I'm so greatly aware of that would I offer yet
another commentary and teaching on Romans? There are a number of worthy commentaries
available on Romans written by excellent scholars and brilliant people. Frankly, that reality was
a personal dilemma and it is why it took much urging and encouragement from family and
friends to convince me to go ahead and teach Romans even though I was so unsure as to
what more I could possibly offer you that wasn't already on the book shelves.
What probably most influenced me to turn the page from my skepticism to a determination to
teach this book had much to do with a few provocative words written in the introduction to
James D.G. Dunn's highly academic treatise on the Book of Romans. There he says this:
"The dialogue (present in the book of Romans), of course, arises out of the fact that this
apostle to the Gentiles is precisely Paul the "Hebrew of Hebrews" and zealous
Pharisee...now converted, but still sharing many of his earlier concerns. The suggestion
that in his conversion Paul totally abandoned all that constituted his previous identity
and made a quantum leap into a wholly different pattern of religion is unnecessary and
unjustified. More serious still, it cuts itself off from the possibility of reaching a proper
exegesis of Romans and condemns its interpretation of Paul to confusion and
contradiction. For as will soon become apparent in the exegesis, Paul is debating not
with an alien system but with himself and his own past; the weft of his faith in Christ
interweaves with the warp of his Jewishness".
Professor Dunn is expressing a fairly recent turn in the mindset of New Testament scholarship
that is often labeled as "the new perspective". And the new perspective is entirely about Paul
and his Epistles. The champion of this new perspective on Paul and his writings is E.P.
Sanders, a highly renowned Bible scholar, someone I've spoken to you about in other lessons.
While the new perspective is anything but universally accepted, thanks to Sanders and others
like Dunn it has entered the world of mainstream Christian scholarship because Sanders and
Dunn are at the headwaters of the 21st century evangelical Christian stream of New Testament
thought and study. So what is this new perspective? Basically it is asserting that Paul was a full
fledged Jew, remained a full-fledged Jew in every way after his turning to Christ, and so it
logically follows that if we are to correctly interpret and understand Paul then we must do so
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
within the boundaries of his Jewish religion, mindset, upbringing, education, and life context. In
short: Paul was a Jew who only knew life experiences as a Jew; he was not a gentile who
experienced a gentile life nor at some point did he come to identify with gentiles.
To Believers who are disposed to accept the Hebraic Roots of Christianity worldview (the
correct worldview of the Bible in my opinion) this is not much of a leap; but to the majority of
New Testament scholars, Bible expositors and those Pastors and lay Christians who rely on
their works, this new perspective comes dangerously close to heresy.
However it is one thing for a Bible scholar to make this well-founded observation about Paul's
Jewishness, and even to admit that it fully aligns with what is literally stated in the New
Testament about him....and also how Paul describes himself....but it is quite another to then
seriously explore what this could actually mean when it comes to the effect it might have on
cherished and embedded Christian doctrines. Their concern over those effects on long
standing Christian doctrine is quite real because almost all Church doctrines are based on the
sayings of Paul. So if it turns out that for 19 centuries institutional Christianity has not correctly
understood what Paul meant because his words have a different meaning within the Jewish
societal context in which they were written versus the gentile societal context in which those
words have been studied and used to establish a systematic theology of the Church, it opens
up a Christian Pandora's Box of all sorts of challenges and possibly inconvenient if not
embarrassing discoveries. So this is the point at which even open-minded commentary writers
find themselves at the end of a promising road to new discoveries in the Bible because they
are unwilling to pursue it; they will journey no further down this path of a new perspective on
Paul because they are well aware that to do so risks careers, livelihoods, and valued academic
and religious associations that they have worked lifetimes to gain. As one who has read the
works of E.P. Sanders and James Dunn, I'm sorry to say that they, too, are reluctant to go
further....at least for now. Some of that concern no doubt comes from knowing that if their
deepest suspicions of where this road leads to were to be realized it could be most disruptive
to the inner workings of the institutional Church as we know it today; in ways that aren't
predictable.
Do not think for a moment that I am overdramatizing this crucial matter of how one is to
characterize Paul, the author of Romans, and therefore how one must interpret Paul. Have you
ever considered what it would mean to Baptist, or Methodist, or Calvary Chapel, or any number
of evangelical Christian denominations if suddenly the leading and most trusted Bible
academics admitted that the Law of Moses was NOT abolished? Or that mankind does NOT
face a choice of salvation methods between law (the old way for Jews) or grace (the new way
for gentiles)? Or that God has not abandoned His original people, the Jews, and replaced them
with His new people, gentile Christians? How about if it turns out Sabbath keeping is still an
ongoing commandment of God, as well as keeping His holy appointed times as ordained in the
Bible? What we are dealing with are some of the most foundational issues that God's Word
sets forth; issues that our early Church Fathers (all gentiles, of course) decided upon, declared
them as doctrines, and these doctrines have generally been followed and accepted as
unassailable by the Christian community ever since (Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox).
What I'm preparing you for, then, is an all out re-examination on the meaning of the Book of
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
Romans. Or better, an in-depth cross examination of what so many acclaimed and lettered
scholars have said about the Book of Romans, and have faced little opposition or push-back
until now. What we are going to do is to blast through the institutional blockades that warn "go
no farther" when acknowledging Paul's Jewishness. Blockades that have been erected on a
road that represents the troubling nuances presented by the so-called new perspective on
Paul. Blockades that do nothing but what Dunn readily admits "condemns the interpretation
of Paul to confusion and contradiction".
Clearly it is a denomination's particular interpretation of Paul that gives each denomination its
uniqueness. But how can that be if we are all reading the same words from the same Apostle
from the same New Testament? How can the doctrines of various denominations vary so
greatly from one another if we have but a single source of reference that we all look to? The
answer is again as Dunn stated: when the Hebrew context and Jewish reality of who Paul is, is
removed, what remains is confusion and contradiction. And for centuries Paul has been
accused by insiders and outsiders of the Christian faith of confusion and contradiction in his
several Epistles. Thus each denomination has cherry picked statements of Paul that suits their
agenda and belief, and ignores others of Paul's statements that seem contradictory, and it is
this set of Paul's statements that has formed the basis of their particular brand of Christianity.
So what does all of this mean for us and our study of Romans? It means that we're going to
do our best to choose truth over tradition. We're going to go where the Scriptures lead even
when it troubles us and we don't like it. We're going to venture where angels fear to tread and
we're going to open up a few cans of worms and some will no doubt escape. And we're going
to delve deep into who Paul actually was, and the Jewish cultural terms in which he, of course,
spoke, thought, and wrote. All along the way, no matter how challenging or uncomfortable this
may get, rest assured that the one constant will be that Yeshua is the Messiah; He is the Son
of God and He is God. And other than by Him and His sacrifice on the cross, there is no way
for anyone to be delivered from sin. But it also means we are going to have to learn about the
one thing that is missing from every commentary written on the New Testament; whether that
commentary is on Paul's letters or on the Gospels. And that missing thing is the context of
Jewish society in the 1st century A.D.; what is called the 2nd Temple period. It was a Jewish
society that was based from birth to death on Jewish Law: Halakhah.
If you have studied the Book of Acts with me you will be much more prepared for Romans than
if you haven't. However I will take the time to revisit some of the teaching I presented in Acts
especially about Jewish Law and what it means and how it worked, adding some new
information to what I've already given to you. This is not to teach you Judaism; it is to teach
you about a society that operated strictly within Judaism. I think between the books of Acts and
Romans you will have been given enough of a foundation to read the remainder of Paul's
letters in a different and more enlightening (and less confusing) way. So what we are going to
learn is not terribly hard, but there will be a lot of information, much of it new to you. We will go
through Romans carefully and verse by verse. At the same time I want to be careful not to bog
us down too much that we lose the flow and purpose of this wonderful work. The main value of
Romans for a Believer is as a source of inspiration, theological instruction, and practical
application that must not be lost or buried under mountains of detail. Yet without the essential
background and preparation we will do no better than what any other of the many
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
commentaries on Romans has accomplished and that is to provide incomplete information
based on a gentile rather than Biblical Hebrew worldview that has sometimes led to erroneous
conclusions. I'm not speaking about theological nuances that interest only college professors;
I'm speaking about the basics of our faith.
The first thing to know about Romans is that it is no different than any other book of the Bible in
the respect that it is but one part of a much larger whole. Romans is not a Bible unto itself nor
is it a self-contained systematic theology that Paul created. Romans is only truly intelligible
when we have the rest of the Bible to provide the foundation and texture for what Paul has to
say. And (I can't say this strongly enough) we must always evaluate what Paul is teaching in
light of what Christ taught, and Paul's thoughts must also uphold what the Tanakh, the Old
Testament, taught; especially the words of the Prophets. If Paul in anyway refutes Christ or the
Prophets then we have but a mere man, Paul, providing little more than an error-filled personal
theology that only has value as interesting Jewish literature from that era and is anything but
divinely inspired.
It is not uncommon for me to quote Yeshua from the Gospels, explain the application and the
principles it exposes only to later have some one approach me and say "well, yes, but Paul
said...." Folks let me speak plainly: Paul and Christ are in no way on equal footing. If Paul and
Christ seem to disagree then the fault is with Paul. We can't have a Gospel of Christ but then
turn around and say that Paul has the power to override it, or remake it, with his own inspired
thoughts. And although the average Church go-er doesn't realize it, inside the hallowed halls
of our Christian institutions, long ago doctrinal decisions were made that pitted Paul against
Christ with the winner pre-determined to be Paul. And this is because there were ways to spin
Paul's statements that made him appear to agree with the gentile Church authorities. On the
other hand if I truly thought that Paul disagreed on any theological point of consequence over
and against Yeshua, we wouldn't be studying his most famous letter: the Book of Romans.
Rather, I'd be telling you to avoid it.
What we're going to see in Romans is Paul working out a very sticky cultural and theological
problem; the participation of gentiles within the early community of Jewish Believers that as of
that time still operated as a sect of Judaism. In fact so much of Sha'ul's dialogue is about, or is
aimed directly towards, gentile Believers that some commentators think that the Book of
Romans was written strictly to and for gentiles. And this belief, popular in the early gentile␂dominated Church, is what propelled the viewpoint that the Book of Romans ought to be the
primary source of doctrine for the new religion called Christianity; a religion offered only to
gentiles. To this day the bulk of Christian commentators (again, all gentile of course) refer to
the Book of Romans as Hellenistic literature. Hellenism refers to the lifestyle and culture
practiced by the gentile Greeks and Romans; this was the dominant and desired culture of the
Roman Empire. By thinking of the Book of Romans as Hellenistic literature then we necessarily
discard the Jewishness of its author, the Jewishness of its context, the Jewishness of its
theology, and the Jewishness of its meaning and message. In truth the Book of Romans is
thoroughly Jewish literature that even employs rather standard debate and defense principles
and terminology used by the Sages and Rabbis in the Talmud. Yes, the oldest extant
manuscripts of this book are written in Greek; but this should not be troubling. Greek was the
most universally spoken language in the Roman Empire. Paul was a Diaspora Jew whose first
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
language was Greek, the Jews (believing and not) in Rome (to whom the letter was written)
would have spoken Greek. But nevertheless all the history, theology, Scripture passages, and
thought patterns that Paul was transmitting were purely Hebrew in origin. It is only that these
Hebrew thoughts were necessarily being transmitted in the Greek language.
Let's remember who Paul was. Although a Diaspora Jew born in Tarsus of Cilicia, he identified
with mainstream Judaism (let's call it Rabbinic Judaism to give it a clearer picture). I say that
because the ordinary common Jews of the holy land and those of the Diaspora can't really be
called adherents to Rabbinic Judaism; that connection occurs mainly with those who fancied
being religious experts (like the Pharisees). The common folks would not have identified
themselves with any specific Jewish party. Thus we don't find ordinary Jews saying that they
are Pharisees. In fact Paul was part of a specific strand of Rabbinic Judaism that was
espoused by, and taught by, the highly acclaimed teacher Gamaliel. Paul expressly came to
live in Jerusalem in order to be taught by Gamaliel. The Talmud makes it clear that Gamaliel
only took students who had exceptional aptitude and devotion, and who showed promise such
that one day they could become rabbis. We don't have to conjecture in any way about Paul in
this regard; he calls himself a Pharisee, and his training at Gamaliel's school is a recorded
fact. When his training was complete he didn't graduate as a novice or an intern; but rather as
one having mastered the philosophy and nuances of this particular strand of Judaism. Paul
was a rabbi through and through.
I'm going to make an analogy now in order to make a point that I've touched on before and I
hope you can give me all your focus for a few moments; it will be valuable to you. Although in
Paul's schooling studying the Biblical Torah and the Prophets was certainly part of his training,
in reality what was taught were the theological views of Gamaliel about the Torah and the
Prophets. Further this particular strand of Rabbinical Judaism that Gamaliel followed operated
within a set of doctrines that we commonly call Jewish Law. In Hebrew this is called Halakhah.
These Jewish laws were NOT the same thing as the Torah Law (the Law of Moses) called in
Hebrew mitzvot. Rather these Jewish laws were essentially manmade rulings and doctrines
(Yeshua called them Traditions of the Elders) purported to accurately reflect the true
interpretation of the Law of Moses and the Prophets. These rulings and doctrines established a
system of behaviors and customs and theological expectations that those who adhered to the
Gamaliel rabbinic philosophy (those like Paul) believed in and followed scrupulously.
For centuries (although much more so in modern times), training centers for the future leaders
of Christianity have operated the same way as these ancient rabbinical schools. We usually
call these Christian training centers seminaries. However each strand of Christianity (called a
denomination) has its own peculiar set of doctrines and so each has its own designated school
to teach their doctrines. So what happens at a seminary? While the Bible is certainly taught,
the larger emphasis is placed on the doctrines and customs and theological expectations of the
particular denomination that operates the seminary because those doctrines are purportedly
derived from the Bible and define what that denomination believes that the Bible says about
any number of subjects. So when a student signs up to attend a certain seminary he or she
has already made a conscious decision about which strand of Christianity that they have faith
in and intend to follow. The rulings and doctrines they are taught at seminary establish that
particular denomination's system of behaviors and customs and theological expectations that
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
those students are not only to follow but are, as graduates, expected to lead others to follow.
In both the cases of Judaism and Christianity while the Bible is highly venerated and taught at
their schools, it is given second place to the doctrines and customs that are taught. Let me say
it this way: the Bible is viewed through the lens of that denomination's doctrines and not the
other way around. So although the student might not be fully conscious of it, what they wind up
gaining is the greatest knowledge of, and devotion to, the ways that a board of religious
scholars and elders long ago decided are the right ways. In Christianity these ways are called
doctrines; in Judaism they are called Halakhot (plural of halakhah). Once again: are these
"ways" taught in the religious schools the same as the Bible? Are they Scripture? No. But they
are said to capture the correct essence and meaning of the Bible. This is why I regularly say
that the Christian Church is no more nor less Bible based than Judaism. The Church is
doctrine based just as Judaism is Halakhah based. Paul's theology revolved around
the Halakhah of the Pharisees; in fact it was the Halakhah of a specific brand of Pharisees as
championed by Gamaliel (and it did not always agree with the Halakhah of the other brands of
Pharisees, which, like with Christianity, there are numerous brands).
Thus when Paul thinks, speaks, writes and instructs he does so with the underlying foundation
of the Halakhah he learned at the feet of Gamaliel. But since meeting his Messiah on the road
to Damascus, Paul (somewhere, somehow) began assimilating a new Halakhah; the
Halakhah taught by Yeshua of Nazareth. Remember: Halakhah is but a certain group's
interpretation of the Bible. So Paul was adopting Yeshua's interpretation of the Bible that
would become intertwined with his established Halakhah taught by Gamaliel. And much of
what Yeshua teaches as His Halakhah generally fits with the Halakhah of the Pharisees,
although some (obviously) does not.
But Paul's dilemma was this: Yeshua told him that he was to be the emissary of this
new Halakhah to the gentiles. And the core of Christ's Halakhah was the Gospel. The
problem is that there was no school to teach this because Yeshua was now in Heaven, and
because Messianic Judaism was far too young and embattled to have formed schools. There
was no precedent in Jewish history for offering salvation to gentiles based on faith in the
covenants God made with the Hebrews. So Paul had to think it through to come to some
conclusions and to establish solutions and rulings to go by. In other words, from Paul's
perspective, he (as a rabbi) was establishing Messianic Halakhah; Halakhah that included the
advent of Messiah Yeshua and all that entailed. And that thinking involved much debate and
processing of information; and he didn't necessarily agree with James, Jesus' brother, who
headed up The Way in Jerusalem. For one thing, James wasn't a trained rabbi; he was merely
a country boy who happened to be the brother of Yeshua. On the other hand Paul thought like
a rabbi, because he was a brilliant formally trained rabbi at one of the two most prestigious
rabbinical schools in Jerusalem. As James Dunn points out, Paul didn't somehow give up all
that he was and all that he had learned as a Jewish rabbi to start a new gentile based religion;
rather he sought to assimilate the new revelations about Messiah Yeshua into all that he was
and all that he knew. Thus when Paul makes a point in Romans (and in his other letters) he
does so in the style, protocol and thought processes of a rabbi.
The Hebraic Roots Bible commentators Shulam and LeCornu have researched and cross
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
referenced some of the terminology that Paul likes to use in his letters with what is used by
rabbis in their arguments and debates as they appear in the Talmud, and they found some
expected similarities. For those of you who might not know, the Talmud is essentially a large
volume of Jewish writings containing the religious rulings, traditions, and customs of Judaism.
But it operated in a unique way. Rabbis whose thoughts were included in the Talmud used
certain standard phrases when commenting on certain matters of Halakhah (Jewish Law) that
indicated agreement or disagreement with the ruling of another earlier rabbi. Those who study
the Talmud perfectly understand that the insertion of these key phrases helps the reader to
know the salient matter under discussion and what point is being made by the rabbi. That is,
the Talmud operates on certain literary conventions and rules unique to the Hebrews, and
especially to rabbis, and Jewish students are taught their significance. For instance: one of
Paul's favorite phrases is "what shall we then say?" This is not unique to Paul; rather it is
standard rabbinic terminology used in the Talmud to introduce a matter for debate. Later in the
discussion the conclusion (the religious ruling) on this matter that an earlier rabbi had decided
is quoted, and then this later rabbi refutes it because he thinks the ruling is wrong. So after the
words "what shall we then say?" will come a discussion of the particular matter that is under
examination. Evidence is produced usually in the form of Scripture verses. Sooner or later a
conclusion (that is, a ruling that rabbi so and so had made about the matter) is given, but then
it will be discredited by the rabbi who is now commenting on it. The phrase used to indicate
that the later rabbi disagrees with the conclusion of the former rabbi is "God forbid" or
"Heaven forbid" or sometimes "may it never be". So the entire argument begins with "what
shall we then say?" and it ends with "God forbid" (or its equivalent).
So not surprisingly in the Book of Romans we find a passionate discussion on a matter of
extreme importance to Paul beginning at verse 30 of chapter 9. Because Paul is a rabbi and
this discussion (or argument) is a matter of arriving at a proper ruling (establishing the correct
Halakhah) as concerns gentile participation in the covenants given to Israel then naturally Paul
begins his debate as any trained rabbi would:
Romans 9:30-10:2 CJB
30 So, what are we to say? This: that Gentiles, even though they were not striving for
righteousness, have obtained righteousness; but it is a righteousness grounded in
trusting!
31 However, Isra'el, even though they kept pursuing a Torah that offers righteousness,
did not reach what the Torah offers.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness as being grounded in trusting but
as if it were grounded in doing legalistic works. They stumbled over the stone that
makes people stumble.
33 As the Tanakh puts it, "Look, I am laying in Tziyon a stone that will make people
stumble, a rock that will trip them up. But he who rests his trust on it will not be
humiliated."
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
CJB Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart's deepest desire and my prayer to God for Isra'el is
for their salvation;
2
for I can testify to their zeal for God. But it is not based on correct understanding;
The next several verses, right on through Romans chapter 10 and on into Romans 11 is but
the body of the discussion about whether or not gentiles ought to be able to participate in
Israel's covenants with God and what effect this might have on Israel. A number of OT
Scriptures are quoted to bolster Paul's position, along with some of his comments on those
Scriptures, until we finally arrive at Romans 11:11. And there we read:
Romans 11:11 CJB 11 "In that case, I say, isn't it that they (Israel) have stumbled with
the result that they have permanently fallen away?" Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it
is by means of their stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to
provoke them to jealousy.....
So essentially Romans 9:30 to 11:11 is a unit; we have the issue presented and then the
debate that follows Romans 9:30. Essentially Paul is having this debate with himself; he sets
up the straw man and argues with him. The beginning of this unit is indicated with the phrase
"what shall we then say?" This is the standard rabbinical signal that at some point a
conclusion or ruling is going to be made, and then the person leading this discussion (Paul) is
going to indicate that he strongly disagrees with the conclusion about what ought to be decided
by saying "Heaven forbid". The erroneous conclusion that Paul is battling against (with
himself) is that if Israel has indeed stumbled, and now God has included gentiles, does it mean
that Israel has permanently fallen away from God? Paul's answer to this erroneous
conclusion? Heaven forbid! Then in the next sentence he states what he considers to be the
right ruling (the correct Halakhah), which is that by means of Israel stumbling deliverance has
come to the Gentiles, but all this is with the hope that all Israel will be saved.
Most gentile New Testament commentators who have no idea of 2nd Temple Judaism or
Jewish culture (and certainly have no working knowledge of the Talmud) look at the erroneous
conclusion in Romans 11 about Israel having permanently fallen away and say "See! Paul has
just admitted that Israel has fallen away from God forever. And Paul is dismayed by this terrible
outcome and so he cries out in agony for his fellow Jews: Heaven Forbid!" Nothing could be
further from reality as I have just demonstrated to you. But if one is ignorant of how Jewish
society and culture and religion operated in New Testament times, how could one possibly
come to the correct conclusions about what these Bible characters and writers meant by what
they said?
My point is this: we need to read Paul's letters through the eyes of a rabbi in the 1st century
A.D. and that is no easy task; there are some things we have to be open to learning in order to
do that. When Paul wrote he realized that he was handcuffed by the fact that many who will
read his letters are gentiles who have little means to truly understand what he is telling them
because they have no understanding of Jewish culture or Judaism, or the Hebrew Bible. So he
tries his best to use terms that gentiles might understand better; terms that may not be an
exact fit to what he is trying to communicate, but terms that gentiles with a low level, or no
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 1 - Introduction
level, of Biblical knowledge can better understand.
But this brings up another important matter. Who, then, but a Jew in Paul's day could explain
to gentiles what the Hebrew Scriptures (the Bible, the OT) meant? Who but a Jew could
expound upon what Paul meant in his letters, and then explain it to gentiles? This is why Paul
was firmly synagogue-based in his evangelism. He needed Believing Jews in the synagogues
of foreign lands to be the representatives of the faith; Believing Jews who had a heart for
gentiles being included. I would go so far as to say that Paul counted on, depended upon,
Believing Jews to interpret his letters to Believing (or even seeking) gentiles. For by the end of
Paul's century when gentiles began to dominate the Jesus movement and then quickly moved
to sever all Jewishness from it in order to make it a new gentile religion called Christianity, the
message of the several inspired Jewish writers of the Bible suffered from distortion; accidental
and intentional. It would not be until early in the 3rd century A.D. that the New Testament was
ordained into existence. By then, anti-Semitism was a basic foundational doctrine of the
Church so there was little hope that these New Testament writings, written by Jews, would be
properly interpreted and applied by gentiles. But today, as demonstrated by the recent "new
perspective" on Paul that so far has been adopted by a few of our most prestigious modern
Bible scholars, we are seeing a change of attitude. Perhaps we are living in the era in which
the Spirit is moving across the face of this planet, in the souls of Believers, to bring a better
understanding of the Word of God to His worshippers. I have no other way to explain the
sudden eruption of the Hebrew Roots movement.
This is the challenge that we face as 21st century Believers when reading Paul's Epistles and
none more so than the Book of Romans. Since followers of Christ rely so heavily on the Book
of Romans it is imperative that we get it right; and it is clear that anti-Jewish prejudices have
for centuries tainted the teachings of Bible scholars and Bible translations. The good news is
that because of the lateness of our era as the time of Messiah's return approaches, we are
seeing a movement of Believers towards an openness to rediscovering the Bible in its Hebrew
context and towards looking to Jews to help unravel the true meaning of Holy Scripture. So I
think that while what I intend to teach you may presently not be well accepted within the
institutional Church, more and more Believers will see the truth of it and grab hold as the days
go by. Why do I think this? Because it was prophesied 2500 years ago and I see it happening
with my own eyes.
Zechariah 8:23 CJB 23 ADONAI-Tzva'ot says, 'When that time comes, ten men will take
hold- speaking all the languages of the nations- will grab hold of the cloak of a Jew and
say, "We want to go with you, because we have heard that God is with you."'"
Next time we'll conclude our introduction and get started on the first chapter of the Book of
Romans.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 2, Intro continued and Chapter 1
We'll continue today with our introduction (I prefer to think of it as our preparation) for the Book
of Romans.
Last time we talked a great deal about Paul and that in order to understand what he means by
what he says we necessarily have to understand his Jewish rabbinical mindset. This
understanding of Paul as fully Jewish in every way before, during, and after his acceptance of
Yeshua as the long awaited Jewish Messiah, is the key to unlocking Paul's difficult words and
theology in all of his Epistles; and none more so than in Romans. The bad news is that since
early in the 2nd century A.D., Paul has been characterized as having become more gentile than
Jew and that the underlying premise of his theology is that Jewishness ought to be abandoned
for those who wanted to join Christianity. The good news is that a different worldview of Paul
has recently emerged from some highly respected, top-of-the-food-chain, Bible academics.
This new worldview goes by the informal title "the new perspective". The new perspective
goes against the basic understanding of Paul as a conflicted Jew, or as Jew who "converted"
and became a gentile Christian even if he maintained an outward appearance as a Jew so that
he could continue to live and walk among the Jewish community. Rather the new perspective
acknowledges his full-fledged Jewishness; a Jewishness he never abandoned nor
compromised.
My stance is that the new perspective on Paul is a welcomed breath of fresh air, is on the right
track, and has the potential to revolutionize the Christian faith. Because this new perspective
offers what is a radical departure from 19 centuries of Christian thought and characterization of
Paul, those who champion it (beginning with E.P. Sanders) are only willing to make some
guarded philosophical statements about it and to delve lightly into a few technical Hebrew
terms and a bit of Jewish history to follow up on its impact. They do not seem willing to
challenge traditional gentile Christian thinking with what is obviously Jewish cultural terms and
expressions that Paul uses often, which do not match with what is typically taught by the
Church as his meaning. I have little doubt that the reason for their reluctance to follow this road
to where it will logically lead is because Sanders and others see it as possibly too disruptive to
the accepted doctrines and theology of the institutional Church and therefore a danger to their
personal careers.
But we shall pursue this line of thinking to its fullest, because while it is new and troubling to
our many Church denominations, it is fundamental to the Hebrew Roots of Christianity and
thus to the teaching and beliefs of Seed of Abraham Torah Class.
I'm not going to take the time to review what we discussed in the first part of our introduction
to Romans. If you missed it, I urge you to go back to the first lesson on Romans on your own
or you will not have some much needed context for what is coming. So let's gets some basics
out of the way before we open up our Bibles to Romans chapter 1.
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
There is little opposition among Bible scholars to the fact that it was Paul who wrote the Book
of Romans. He claims that he did, and what he discusses and how he discusses matters is
typical Paul. In fact in chapter 16 he says that he is writing this letter to the Romans from
Gaius's house, a place where the local Believers' congregation meets. If this is the same
Gaius that he baptized and that we read about in 1 Corinthians 1 (and it is likely that it is), then
it means that Paul is writing his letter to the Romans from Corinth. His itinerary and timeline as
it appears in Acts allows for this interpretation.
Paul had the stated intention of traveling to Spain. Rome, then, would be a logical place to stop
and stay for awhile on his way to Spain. Very likely this letter was written towards the end of
his 3rd missionary journey, when he was planning on getting back to Jerusalem in time for the
Shavuot Festival. So with good confidence we can say that the Book of Romans was written in
57 or 58 A.D., probably leaning towards the earlier date. What is important to know is that he
wrote the letter to the Romans a few years before he was taken, as a prisoner, to Rome where
he apparently met his death. So don't mistakenly think that the Book of Romans is the result of
his time in Rome that we read about in the final chapter of Acts. The order of our New
Testament sort of creates that false impression because the Book of Romans immediately
follows Acts in the New Testament; Acts is where we hear about his journey to Rome. What
this means is that Yeshua had come and gone about 25 years earlier, and so the Jesus
Movement had had around a quarter century to spread; turns out it was wildly successful.
So what did Paul hope to accomplish by writing this extensive letter to the Believing community
in Rome? A letter that, for its day, was abnormally long. That is the subject of widely varying
opinions. If one is from the rather standard Evangelical worldview, then Paul's purpose was to
use this letter to create a new Christian systematic theology. Fortunately, mainstream Bible
scholars who see validity in the new perspective on Paul are having the courage to at least
start to pour cold water on this long held Christian doctrine that Romans is systematic
theology. In his highly acclaimed commentary on Romans, Douglas J. Moo, a teacher at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, says this: "It is not a systematic theology but a letter, written
in specific circumstances and with specific purposes. The message of Romans is,
indeed, timeless; but to understand its message aright, we must appreciate the specific
context out of which Romans was written".
That context is what we are going to develop over the next several months as we study the
book; it is too complex to reduce to a couple of stock bumper-sticker phrases. However the
message of Romans therefore explains the purpose of Romans. And when it comes to the
message the viewpoints are also wide ranging; but first and foremost in modern Christianity it
is, as I have just said, Paul establishing a Christian systematic theology primarily for the benefit
of gentiles. As much as I disagree with that, I must also admit that I have no rigid view on a
single definable purpose or message for the book; I think Paul had several issues he was
addressing that were directly aimed at the Roman Believers. However by now Paul had gained
much experience in dealing with gentiles and in bringing gentile Believers into the fold. But
because his preferred base of operations (wherever he went to evangelize) was a synagogue
this meant he also dealt with Jews and in bringing Jewish Believers into the fold. As Paul had
learned the hard way, this dynamic of including gentiles in a Jewish messianic faith opened up
a religious can of worms regarding the touchy relationship between Jewish and gentile
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
Believers; a touchy relationship that has barely changed over the 2 millennia since the days of
Paul. So, as my friend Joseph Shulam aptly puts it: "The book of Romans presents us with
a textual picture of certain prevalent and controversial theological debates within
Second Temple Jewish thought". If we approach the Book of Romans understanding this
underlying circumstance then we'll be far more able to decipher what Paul intends and what
he is dealing with.
Because I know that many of you may not have studied the Book of Acts with me as a sort of
prerequisite for studying Romans, then a term such as "Second Temple Jewish thought" might
sound a bit high-brow and confusing. The term is simply referring to the Biblical time period
when, after the Babylonian exile of the Jews, the Temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt. The first
Temple was built by Solomon in the late 900's B.C. and stood until the Babylonians destroyed
it around 587 B.C. The second Temple then is what Ezra and Nehemiah built as former Jewish
captives set free by the Persians some 70 years after the Babylonians had conquered them.
So the Second Temple Period actually begins as early as about 500 B.C. and continues on
until the Romans destroyed it in 70 A.D.
That said, what concerns us is that small portion of the long Second Temple Period that begins
a little before the birth of Christ and continues throughout the New Testament time. As you can
imagine is the case with most any culture, many changes occurred within Jewish society and
religion over the nearly 600 year time period from Israel's release from captivity in Babylon to
when the second Temple was destroyed. What matters in our study is how Judaism was
taught, known and practiced by Jewish society from about the year 10 B.C. to about 70 A.D.,
because Judaism was the basis of Jewish society. That was especially so in the Holy Land, but
it also extended to all the places in foreign lands where 95% of all living Jews resided. Judaism
was less stringent and not quite as dominant in the Diaspora; but nonetheless Judaism still
formed the foundation for Jewish culture in the Diaspora. That is because unlike modern
Christianity, which is routinely compartmentalized and separated away from the non-religious
part of our lives, Judaism defined every detail of every aspect of Jewish life, 24 hours a day,
every day of the year, from birth to death. If you were a Jew in New Testament times there was
no compartmentalizing and no days off from Judaism.
Paul was a Jew; others verified that he was a Jew (such as Luke and Peter), and he was a
Rabbi, having graduated from Gamaliel's Rabbinical school. In fact he belonged to one of the
strictest sects of Judaism, the Pharisees. This is something that he readily admitted to, and
stated for the record in Acts 26 that he remained a Pharisee; this statement was made some
years after writing the letter to the Romans. In fact in Acts 24, as he stood before Governor
Felix, he plainly said that he also remained committed to the Law (something that was
mandatory if one was to maintain their Jewishness).
So from the 30,000 foot view I see the Book of Romans as Paul wrestling within himself, and
by and between the gentile Believers versus the Jewish Believers in Yeshua, over the place of
gentiles within the community of Believers as well their place in the Kingdom of Heaven. He is
caught between 2 worlds that on the surface have little, if any, common ground. He was
thoroughly a rabbinical Jew who had lived his entire life based upon Jewish Law, Halakhah;
but at the same time the risen Yeshua had instructed Paul to be His emissary to take the
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
Gospel to the gentile world in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Since Paul was the
designated Apostle to the gentiles, then it seems that Christ left it up to him to figure out how to
establish principles and rules that would adapt a Hebrew Gospel to a gentile culture, or
perhaps vice versa. No doubt this forced Paul to carefully examine something that had become
hazy within Judaism over the last few centuries, and was intertwined within his life: what part of
Judaism was actually Holy Scripture and what part was Tradition? Where are the boundaries?
Which rules are the non-negotiables? What should be seen as the core issues and what can
be seen as side issues? What is mandatory and what is optional? Can there be different rules
(even different theologies) for Jews versus gentles if the two groups that have been historic
enemies have any hope of living and worshipping side by side as brothers and sisters in
Christ?
Oh yes; we know from the Bible and other sources that while Paul could legitimately claim his
office as Apostle to the gentiles (Yeshua, Himself, had appointed Paul to the office as recorded
in Acts chapter 9), there were other Jewish Believers who took it upon themselves to
proselytize gentiles for Christ (in Acts 18 we read of one particular independent Jewish
evangelist named Apollos). In fact, the awkward position that Paul immediately finds himself in
as he is penning the opening to his letter to the Romans is that he must admit that he is NOT
the founder of the Believing community in Rome; he's never even been to Rome. Someone
else (probably a few others) had some time ago established the Believing community there. So
is Paul "sheep stealing" by now jumping in and insisting that the Believers of Rome follow his
teaching and rulings? Paul's implication in the Book of Romans is unmistakable: he holds
himself up as the final authority over the congregation in Rome regardless of what those who
first brought the Gospel to Rome may have taught. But so far as the Believers of Rome are
concerned, by whose decree is Paul the final authority? At the moment James, brother of
Jesus, was still the recognized leader of The Way in Jerusalem, the acknowledged
headquarters of the movement. Paul's answer to this question is the truth: Messiah Yeshua
appointed him. But will anyone believe him? Even more, does being the Apostle to the gentiles
elevate Paul's status such that all gentile Believers are to consider Paul as their leader,
instead of James? Might this split the Jesus movement into gentiles and Jews with gentiles
following Paul and Jews following James? This was the ambiguous and tense situation that
Paul was facing, and it is why he goes into such depth in his letter and covers an array of
issues. Some of his letter is to introduce himself; some is to explain his office as an Apostle
and why they should submit to him; and some is to instruct Rome's Believers in what Paul
sees as important theological issues that define their faith, their relationship to God, and the
inherently problematic relationship between the Jews and gentiles who form the Believing
community.
But who better to do this seemingly impossible task than Paul? He could speak, read, and
write Greek and Hebrew. He was a Diaspora Jew so he had much more tolerance and
familiarity with gentiles than his Holy Land Jewish countrymen. He was a stellar rabbinical
student of Gamaliel and thus held great knowledge of the Torah, the Prophets, and Jewish
Law (Halakhah). He had served the Jewish High Court, the Sanhedrin. And his Choleric
personality allowed him to lead instinctively and to not shy away from confrontation. When we
understand the totality of who Paul was as a person that is the beginning of understanding why
he says what he says, and how he goes about saying it. As I emphasized in the first lesson for
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
Romans, Paul naturally debated and answered questions in a way that is quite typical of rabbis
and is familiar in the Jewish Talmud. But if a gentile Christian commentator has no
understanding of this protocol (and none I am aware of do) then what Paul says can be, and
regularly is, misconstrued.
With this background on Paul and the backdrop of his era and his circumstances, let's open
the New Testament to Romans chapter 1 and get started.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 1 all
The opening words are: From Paul. I know our CJB say Sha'ul, but that is not correct. In
Greek his name is Paulos or Paulus. All throughout the Book of Romans he calls himself
Paulos (we change that to Paul in English); but never is his Hebrew name Sha'ul (or Saul)
used.
But it's the next few words where it gets interesting; we're going to go slow for awhile
because we need to define some terms to not only understand what is happening here but also
to set the proper tone for this entire letter. I hope this will also enable me to make a rather
significant point about interpreting the Book of Romans and why in our introduction I
characterized what we would be doing as cross-examining this work of Paul.
Paul begins by calling himself a slave of the Messiah Yeshua. Some English versions have
changed the term slave to bond-servant. Bond-servant is a mistranslation; it is often the
preferred term, however, because of the modern-day, Western gentile world's abhorrence to
the institution of slavery. But it must be stated that the word chosen in Greek, doulos, slave,
was also a hot button word and highly derogatory in ancient Roman society. Being a slave in
the Hellenistic world of the Roman Empire was a most shameful thing and for Paul to call
himself a slave immediately lowered his status in the eyes of gentiles, even though he says
that he was a slave to his god. Obviously Paul's intent is not to lower his status as his
immediate goal is to establish his authority, so this means we must cross-examine this term in
the Hebrew cultural context to get the correct sense of it.
So right out of the gate we see the Jewish Paul explaining and communicating in Jewish
thought pattern, but he is confined to having to use the Greek language to do it since his letter
recipients were Greek speakers. Paul is thinking in Hebrew societal and theological terms, but
having to use the best available Greek words to translate. And as any translator will tell you,
this can be a difficult task as there aren't always precise parallel words between languages
and cultures, so often the meaning gets a bit skewed. In Hebrew society a "slave" was a title
or status that was actually honorable and admirable when that person was described as being
a slave of YHWH God. The Hebrew word for slave is eved; it meant both servant and slave
because they were seen as essentially the same thing. Moses was called a slave of YHWH in
Joshua 14:7, the Prophet Elijah was called a slave of YHWH in 2 Kings 10:10, and David was
regularly called a slave of God. This was, in Hebrew thought, high praise. There many more
examples of this in Scripture.
Westerners spontaneously recoil from the term slave (less so from servant) because of our
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
historical moral tug of war with the institution of slavery, which more often than not amounted
to the enslavement and mistreatment of another and different race of people from us that, for
our convenience and conscience, we declared were inferior. Servants, however, were seen as
an honorable and valuable institution of the lower classes serving the upper classes in typical
European aristocracy. So the older the English Bible, the more we'll see the word servant
inserted where the word ought to be slave. The point is that while it appears to the gentile
Christian mind that Paul is deeply humbling himself by using the denigrating designation
"slave" (denigrating to a Westerner), in reality in the Biblical Hebrew society of his day being a
slave of God was a position of special honor that he was ascribing to himself. It would be
somewhat like saying I'm a Priest of God. That is why Paul immediately follows up the "slave
of Yeshua" label (an especially honorable title) by adding the equally honorable, but different,
title that he is also an emissary (an apostle) because God has set him apart for a special
purpose. Let me be clear: to the average gentile Bible reader the 1st verse of Romans 1 looks
to be Paul humbling himself; he's not. He's actually claiming that he holds a high position of
great authority due to his special association with God.
Let me also point out that surely Paul expected this letter to be received by a Jewish Believer
in Rome who would read and explain it to the gentile Believers. Otherwise if a gentile had
received it and read it by himself, Paul would have been seen as a major turn off to the Roman
gentile Believers because he characterized himself as a slave. Yet as we move forward in our
study we will see that he obviously sought to impress the Believers' community of Rome with
his letter, such that they would accept his authority and spiritual leadership.
Let's talk for a bit about what the term Apostle means. Apostle is an English word; in Greek
the word is apostolos and interestingly in the Roman world of Paul's day it applied to sending
out merchant ships and military expeditions. So once again it is critical that we understand this
Greek term in its Hebrew sense as opposed to its Roman sense. Apostolos is an attempt to
translate the concept behind the Hebrew term shaliach into Greek, although shaliach and
apostolos aren't precise synonyms (a typical translation problem). Shaliach carries the
concept of agency in it; that is, a 3rd party is empowered to perform business on behalf of the
person sending him. So the agent is given the power of his employer who sends him in his
stead; the agent is thus to be viewed by those he is dealing with as the equal of his employer
in whatever narrow or wide area of authority he has been given.
So an Apostle in the Hebrew/Jewish world carried as much authority as the one who sent him;
he wasn't merely a glorified messenger. This is why Christ would say to some of his original
12 apostles (12 shaliach actually):
John 14:12-13 CJB 12 Yes, indeed! I tell you that whoever trusts in me will also do the
works I do! Indeed, he will do greater ones, because I am going to the Father.
13 In fact, whatever you ask for in my name, I will do; so that the Father may be glorified
in the Son.
Before Yeshua leaves and departs this earth He is empowering his original 12 as His agents
(His shaliach). And as agents they carry their master's power and authority as Yeshua makes
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
clear to them. Paul is Yeshua's agent to the gentiles and so carries Yeshua's full power and
authority on earth. Paul clearly understands this and the Jewish readers of his letter would as
well because they would understand his lofty position within a Jewish cultural context. But
Paul's gentile readers in the Roman cultural context would not think of his position as
particularly lofty; they would see him more as a regular apostolos (a glorified messenger who is
sent by his master) who merely carries out his master's orders but has not been given the
degree of autonomous authority that an agent receives.
Paul is an agent of Yeshua, not merely a messenger of Yeshua. I hope you are already
starting to get what I'm aiming to show you. In the Book of Romans the culturally Jewish Paul
is going to converse in rabbinical Hebrew thought patterns throughout. Yes, his thoughts will
largely have to do with gentiles. And yes, if a Roman gentile unversed in Jewish culture read
this letter on his own and tried to carry it out as he understood it from a Roman cultural
viewpoint it would be different from how Paul intended it. This is what has happened with the
Christian Church in general when it comes to reading and understanding Paul's letters over
the centuries; and it is why the Bible commentator James D.G. Dunn felt compelled to say that
if Christians insist on continuing to perceive Paul, and interpret Paul, in any other than in his
true, real, rabbinical Jewish self, it "condemns the interpretation of Paul to confusion and
contradiction".
So already we've turned the first verse of Romans upside down from its traditional Christian
understanding by recognizing Paul's Jewishness. Paul is not humbling himself; he is making a
case for his readers to accept his God-given authority. This is because Paul sees himself as
the 13th Apostle. The terms apostle and disciple are not synonymous. A disciple is a follower;
any follower. An Apostle, as we've seen, is an agent for the master. The first 12 Disciples of
Christ were also considered Apostles. Why 12 original Apostles? One for each of the 12 tribes
of Israel. So why did Yeshua add a 13th Apostle some years later, in the person of Paul?
Because in actuality there weren't 12 tribes of Israel, there were 13. When we look at the list
of 12 tribes, Levi is not included. Levi is not counted among the other tribes because of their
special position as Yehoveh's priests. But, at the same time, indeed they are a tribe produced
by Jacob and they are a tribe of Israel.
It is interesting to me that the 13th tribe of Israel is counted as priests, and Paul as the 13th
Apostle makes the connection that Believers are to be counted as priests; not physical priests
that add to or replace the Levite priests, but rather priests in the spiritual sense. As Rabbi
Baruch likes to point out, numbers in the Bible matter.
Next, our thoroughly Jewish Paul says that the origination of the Gospel, the Good News of
Messiah Yeshua that he is bringing to gentiles, is taken from the holy writings; the Hebrew
Scriptures and specifically the Prophets. Let me remind you that as of this time we are 150
years away from having a Christian New Testament ordained into existence. So whatever talk
we hear from Paul about scriptures and holy writings refers to the only holy writings that
existed in Paul's day: what we call the Old Testament. Some of the Gospel accounts about
Christ and some of Paul's letters would indeed start circulating among Believing
congregations even by the time of the Book of Romans. But to call them holy writ or the New
Testament is reading something back into the Bible that wouldn't exist until well over a century
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
later. To be clear: Paul says that the Gospel is an Old Testament concept. But the point that he
is making to gentiles is that it was a HEBREW religious concept taken from the HEBREW holy
book.
In verse 3 Paul explains that this Good News (evangelion in Greek) is directly about, and tied
to, God's Son. Now the term God's son or son of God was used in Hebrew culture in a
number of settings. Sometimes it referred to Israel as a whole, other times to the kings of
Israel, even at times to angels. Thus it would take some additional definition by Paul to better
explain who this Son of God is that he speaking about and what, exactly, that means. So the
next attribute of who the Good News is about is that he is descended from King David
physically. So this person is spiritually tied to God, and physically tied to King David. These two
attributes are essential to the expected Messiah of Israel. But what positively identified this
person who is the subject of the Good News as Yeshua of Nazareth is that He was resurrected
from the dead. Then Paul adds yet another attribute to this person at the center of the Good
News; the Gospel: this person is also Lord. It is one thing to be the Messiah who liberates
Israel from their oppressors; it is another to be Israel's Lord because it adds the attribute of
divinity to the Messiah. Who would understand such a thing? Gentiles (even if they are
Believers)? Heavens no; only Jews would understand even the thrust of Paul's assertion
whether they agreed with it or not, because a Messiah and his nature are uniquely Hebrew
concepts.
Verse 5 has Paul explaining that Yeshua is the mediator of this Good News. Thus it is from
Yeshua that grace and authority have been given to Paul of being the Apostle (or better,
shaliach, agent) to the gentiles. Then in verse 6 Paul extends that authority to include the
gentiles of Rome. Let's be clear about what is happening here. I said in the first part of my
message today that Paul finds himself in an awkward position vis a vis the congregation of
Rome. He did not establish any of the Believing congregations in Rome. He did not hand pick
and install the elders nor did he establish the doctrines they should observe. In fact he has
never even been to Italy, let alone Rome. But his goal is to convince the Believers of Rome to
accept him as their ultimate earthly religious authority; especially the gentiles but clearly the
Jewish Believers, too. Now watch Paul's impeccable logic at work. Point 1: it was Yeshua that
appointed Paul as the 13th Apostle. Point 2: this 13th Apostle was to act as Yeshua's agent to
the gentiles. Point 3: it was this same Yeshua who called (elected) the gentile Believers of
Rome to the faith. Point 4: therefore since points 1, 2 and 3 are true, then it is follows that the
gentiles of Rome must be subject to Paul's Apostleship.
Paul is playing hardball. Yet, what he says is true. He is right. But around 4 years later when
Paul finally does get to Rome, it is as a prisoner. And when he finally meets the leadership of
the Rome Jewish community, we read this exchange in Acts chapter 28:
Acts 28:20-22 CJB
20 This is why I (Paul) have asked to see you and speak with you, for it is because of the
hope of Isra'el that I have this chain around me."
21 They said to him, "We have not received any letters about you from Y'hudah, and
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 2 - Intro continued and Ch. 1
none of the brothers who have come from there has reported or said anything bad
about you.
22 But we do think it would be appropriate to hear your views from you, yourself; for all
we know about this sect is that people everywhere speak against it."
While it is my speculation, it would seem that Paul's effort to be accepted as the long-distance
authority over the Believers in Rome didn't take hold. Although the implication from the Book
of Acts is that these Jews Paul met with were probably not Believers, it is not possible that they
had no dealings at all with the Believing community of Jews and gentiles in the same city.
What we also see in this excerpt from Acts 28 is that the Jews of Rome of course looked to
Judea (specifically meaning Jerusalem) as their religious authority, as they tell Paul they've
heard nothing bad about him from Judea. So since he is here they want to hear directly from
Paul. There is no hint that these Jews knew anything about any letter Paul had sent to the
Romans about 4 years earlier.
But interestingly what we find as the Book of Acts comes to a close is that some of these Jews
who came to meet with Paul believed Him and so accepted Yeshua as their Messiah. And, so,
Paul has accomplished something of great importance to him and to the Lord; he has
established a community of Believers in Rome with him as its unquestionable head. What of
the community of Believers that Paul addressed his letter to the Romans to some 4 years
earlier? We don't know; there is no mention of them in Acts 28 and no specific mention of
them in other New Testament books. But clearly Paul teaching and leading this new Believer's
community that he personally established even as a prisoner must have survived and thrived
as did all the other ones that he had personally established in Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus,
and so on. This is because within just a couple of more years, the unstable Nero will begin a
vicious campaign of persecution against Believers in Rome in order to try to draw attention
away from himself as the one who started a fire that burned a huge portion of Rome to the
ground, and instead blame it on the Believers.
Now that we've concluded the preamble to the letter to the Romans, next time we'll move to
verse 7 and the body of the letter.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 3, Chapter 1 cont.
The subject matter of the Book of Romans necessarily lends itself to much interpretation,
application, and preaching. We won't be shying away from any of it, so here we go.
Last week we dealt with the opening words of Romans chapter 1 because how one interprets it
sets Paul's tone for the entire letter. The first 6 verses behave as a sort of preamble. And let
us remember that while in Christendom the rather lofty term Epistles is used of the books that
Paul wrote, in common speech each of these books is but a letter written and sent to either a
person or a specific congregation in a specific city, and each is meant to address certain
issues pertinent to that person or group. There is no universal agreement among Bible
scholars on how many New Testament books were actually written by Paul; the number is as
few as 8 and varies up to as many as 13. However Paul is universally agreed as the author of
the Book of Romans. This letter is to Believers in the city of Rome; not Rome in the sense of
the entire Roman Empire, and so not "Romans" in the sense of all citizens of the Empire.
Paul's preamble contains some important information that applies to our faith. This information
has been historically misconstrued and we dealt with that in depth in our previous lesson. As a
reminder: there were two terms or phrases that together define the opening tone. Those terms
were "slave of Messiah Yeshua" and "Apostle". Unlike what it might seem at first glance, the
phrase "slave of Messiah Yeshua" is not meant to indicate exceptional humility or even self␂effacing. Rather in Hebrew thought pattern those words indicate a high honor; a position of
high status. Second, the term Apostle (an English word) comes from the Greek word
apostolos. Apostolos more or less indicates someone who has been sent with instructions to
carry out an assignment. In Roman society this word was used in the realm of the military and
in commercial shipping. However its use misses the mark on the concept that the Jewish Paul
was trying to get across. The term Paul would have preferred to use was shaliach (a Hebrew
word). However there is no direct equivalent to shaliach in Greek, so he chose the best
approximation the Greek language offered: apostolos. Shaliach carries more weight and
authority than apostolos. A shaliach is an agent who carries all the power and authority of his
master. A shaliach has a great deal of personal choice and autonomy (acknowledging, of
course, that whatever he does he does on behalf of, and in the name of, his Master). In
Christian thinking an Apostle is more or less an authoritative messenger; but the original 12
Apostles, and Paul as the 13th Apostle, were far more than mere messengers. This is why they
were able to do miracles, and it is why the Apostles expected Believers to obey them.
Paul begins his letter by telling the Believers of the congregations in Rome that they were
obligated to consider him as their ultimate earthly authority. He says this is so on the grounds
that since Yeshua personally appointed Paul as His shaliach to the gentiles, and since
Yeshua also called (or elected) those gentiles in Rome to faith as Believers, then it follows that
regardless that it was NOT Paul who established these Believing congregations in Rome, they
should, nonetheless, subject themselves to his authority.
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
Bottom line: Paul was not being humble; rather he was being insistent and authoritative, and
he had every reason to believe that he was right in being so.
Let's continue by starting at verse 7. We'll re-read most of chapter 1 beginning there.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 1:7 – end
The words of verse 7 are basically the way Paul starts most of his letters. It is a customary
greeting and it states to whom the letter is intended. Although without doubt this letter
addresses mostly the gentile Believers of Rome, it also includes the Jewish Believers. So
when Paul says "to all in Rome whom God loves, who have been called by Yeshua and set
apart for him", it is referring to all Believers in the city of Rome, Jew and gentile.
Notice something important at the end of verse 7; Paul refers separately to God the Father and
to Yeshua the Messiah. Paul sees the Father and Yeshua as two distinct entities. Or perhaps
as two identifiable parts of a whole. Thus for Christians who believe that essentially the
essence of the Father has been rolled into the essence of the Son (Christ), and thus the Father
has either retreated from the scene or is no longer relevant, that is certainly not how Paul sees
it. Some in Christianity make this claim of irrelevance of the Father in modern times because of
Yeshua's statement in John 14 that if "you've seen me you've seen the Father". They are
wrong. Rather it is that just as Paul is an agent of Yeshua, but still is subordinate to Him, so we
find Christ pronounce that while He has been given all authority on earth and in heaven, He is
still effectively an agent of God and thus subordinate to His Father. I don't want to get hung up
here on a controversial theological issue of the substance and nature of God. However just
know that Paul's theology does not allow for the Father and the Son to be the same person or
for one to have abdicated his position. Both exist, both are relevant, and both have their own
attributes and functions. There is a definite hierarchy with the Father at the top.
Now one other important item. The CJB doesn't do a good job with verse 7 as it leaves out a
word; the word is hagios. Typically hagios is translated into English as "saints'. So here is this
verse in the much more literal KJV.
KJV Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you
and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
"Beloved of God" and "saints" are essentially synonyms and they are Old Testament terms
used of God's chosen people, the Hebrews. So Paul is extending the use of those terms to
Believers, Jew and gentile. The reason I point that out is that it is often erroneously claimed in
Christianity that "saints" is a more or less a new and exclusive term coined for New Testament
Believers in Christ.
In verse 8 thanksgiving is Paul's priority (as it should be for all of us in all of our prayers). What
is Paul thanking God for? It is for the living reality of the trust exhibited by some Jews and
gentiles in Rome to accept Yeshua as Messiah. But what ought to draw our attention is where
Paul says "I thank my God through Messiah Yeshua". This word through (dia in Greek) is
there in all extant Greek manuscripts of the Book of Romans and I am yet to find an English
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
translation that leaves it out. I'm sure Paul didn't mean to create a heated doctrinal argument
by inserting that word "through", but he did.
If he means what he said (and I see no reason to believe otherwise), then he envisions Christ
as an intermediary between God and Man. Now while some Jews today claim that such a
concept as there being a heavenly intermediary is a show-stopper, in fact in the non-Biblical
but authoritative Jewish writings of Enoch and Tobit, and a few other ancient Jewish sources,
2
nd Temple Judaism believed that archangels were intermediaries between Man and God. And
perhaps if "intermediary" isn't the perfect English word to use, then maybe "intercessor"
helps to define what is meant. We could spend significant time on this theological issue, but I
don't want to get parked here. What is unambiguous as it appears in ALL NT versions is that
Paul is rendering thanksgiving NOT to Yeshua, but rather to the Father THROUGH Yeshua
(with Yeshua providing the understood mediating role that many Jews in the 2nd Temple era
took for granted). So the issue that Judaism would have had with Paul is not the concept of
there being an intermediary; but rather who or what fulfilled that role? And Paul says that it is
Jesus Christ who is the intermediary (at least He is from now on).
As an application then, to whom do we direct our prayers? The Father or to the Son? Are we to
pray to Yeshua or are we to pray to the Father? Or does it make any difference? Yeshua knew
with His advent that this was already an issue among His disciples, so rather than leave them
hanging He told them (and us) exactly how we should pray. I'll use the King James Version
because it is by far the most familiar to Christians.
Matthew 6:9-13 KJV
9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Just as Yeshua instructed us in the previous chapter of Matthew (chapter 5) that He did NOT
abolish the Law, here in Matthew 6 He instructs us to pray to the Father. Pretty definitive. So it
is as Paul said: we pray to and deal with the Father; but we do it through the agency of
Yeshua. How that all happens and is processed in the Heavenlies I don't know. But the
protocol and what our mindset about it is to be is clear. The Father remains not only relevant,
but supreme; nothing has changed. And why would it? The Father has always had a Son,
since eternity past. It is only that at a point in temporal history His Son, Yeshua, became flesh
and appeared on earth.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
Paul tells the Believers in the city of Rome that not only is he aware of them, but that they are
important to him such that he prays for them. Remembering that Paul is a Pharisee, then when
he says that he regularly remembers them "in his prayers", what he is referring to is the
standard 3 times per day prayers that the most pious of Jews (the Pharisees) followed as a
tradition. I'll repeat what I'm about to tell you at regular intervals because it is the Rosetta
Stone for what we are studying: Paul thinks like a Jew, and behaves like a Jew, because he is
a Jew. When we read his writings, we need to see them from his Jewish viewpoint. Thus when
he writes his letters (his Epistles) he unconsciously does so from a Jewish perspective. Why?
Because he is not a gentile, even though he has some familiarity with gentiles. More, as he
has stated plainly, he is a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee of Pharisees; he is among the
most pious and most strict of Jews. He said this many years after becoming a Believer and an
Apostle. His zealous and highly educated Jewishness is the underlying context atop which he
has layered the meaning and impact of the arrival of the Messiah. It is the context upon which
he understands what a Messiah is, what a Messiah does, and how people are to relate to the
Messiah. Paul's Pharisee training under Gamaliel is also his underlying context upon which he
builds an understanding of who Messiah is in relation to God. And, Paul believes that Yeshua,
as Messiah, is the Son of God who sits at the Father's right hand (he got this from Daniel).
This is not the Tom Bradford perspective; it is what Paul says. And very recently this is also the
so-called new perspective on Paul that has been adopted by many eminent Bible scholars
such as E.P. Sanders, Douglas Moo and James D.G. Dunn.
This won't be the last time I say these things to you because I know firsthand how difficult it
can be to let go of the Christian doctrines we've been taught most of our lives in exchange for
the Scriptural truth. We unconsciously read the Bible through the lens of gentile Western
Christianity as formed and defined by our early Church Fathers. They were right about much of
it; but wrong about some critical areas that their anti-Jewish bias blinded them to. And it has
fallen to us, in this present generation, to try to right these wrongs so that we can see God for
who He really is, His plan of redemption for what it really is, His Jewish people for who they are
to Him, and where we (as His followers) fit in to all that. Why is this revelation happening now,
in our day? I think it is a sure sign that Messiah is getting ready for His return, and the Holy
Spirit is preparing us.
At the end of verse 10 Paul expresses his desire to come to Rome to visit this congregation.
He indeed will, in about 4 years, go to Rome; but it will be in chains and there is no evidence
that he ever had contact with those to whom he was writing this letter. He follows this up by
explaining why he's so eager to come to Rome; he wants to impart some spiritual gift that may
encourage and strengthen them. I've read many comments about exactly what Paul has in
mind here but I think it is a general comment that comes from a Jewish mindset of his day and
that Paul fully expects that no matter which congregation he visits he will, through God's
grace, impart a spiritual gift at God's discretion because he is, after all, Yeshua's Apostle to
the gentiles.
This concept of spiritual gifts is not a New Testament concept. The Essene community at
Qumran believed in spiritual gifts and wrote about it. When I compare what I read in the Dead
Sea Scrolls with certain words and terms used by both Yeshua and Paul, it is clear there was
close contact between them. I'm in no way saying that Paul or Yeshua were Essenes. At the
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
same time, Essene theology is very close to New Testament theology and clearly Yeshua and
Paul were familiar with it. Listen to this short excerpt from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls called
1QS.
And these are the ways of these Spirits in the world. It is of the Spirit of truth to
enlighten the heart of man, and to level him in the ways of true righteousness......and to it
belongs the Spirit of humility and forbearance, of abundant mercy and eternal
goodness......and almighty wisdom with faith in all the works of God and trust in His
abundant grace......and the spirit of knowledge in every design and zeal for just
ordinances.......Such are the councils of the Spirit to the sons of truth in the world.....The
fountain of righteousness, the reservoir of power, and the dwelling place of glory but
God has given them an everlasting possession to those who He has chosen. He has
granted them a share in the lot of the Saints....
To our ears this sounds like it could have come straight out of the New Testament. It is full of
truths and principles and terms that, for centuries, have been said to exist only in the New
Testament. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed all that. So Paul had
something rather culturally familiar in mind when he spoke about imparting spiritual gifts to the
Believers in Rome and it would have fallen along the lines of what I just read to you.
Interestingly in verse 12 we find Paul backtracking a bit on what he just said. Rather than
defining the spiritual gifts as something rather ethereal that he will bestow upon them he now
says that what he meant to say was that there would be mutual encouragement from what they
give to each other. There have been a number of theories as to what Paul was backtracking
from. The one that makes the most sense to me is that he realized that gentiles would have
had no understanding of what he means by spiritual gifts (such a thing is only known within
Jewish society). So he sort of redefines his term "spiritual gifts" as meaning a gift of mutual
encouragement that Believers ought to give one another.
Paul proceeds to explain why he hasn't shown up in Rome. He says that he has wanted to
come for some time, but circumstances have conspired to prevent it. Anyone with Paul's
aspirations would of course want to establish a congregation in the capital of the known world:
Rome. But because unforeseen conditions arose to prevent Paul from going, other evangelists
went and established the Believing congregations. This meant that they would have also
planted their doctrines and their understanding of Yeshua. Paul wanted in. As he says, he was
hoping to come and to have some fruit in their congregation, just as he has fruit in so many
other congregations where gentiles are a part. Translation: I'd like to have a role in your
congregation so that my efforts and teaching would directly produce some good and righteous
outcomes.
Let's never forget that as inspired a man of God as Paul was, he was just a man. Paul felt
much ownership for the gentile congregations that were established. He was used to selecting
the leadership and laying down the rules and regulations, and it was his doctrinal viewpoints
that were adopted. The truth is, what little reward on earth that he would ever get for his hard
word and dedication was that he would see good fruit come from it. He didn't want Rome to be
the exception, especially when (outside of Jerusalem) it was the most important and influential
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
place on earth at this time.
In verse 14 Paul continues his explanation by essentially saying, "Sorry but I've been very
busy". And because he had begun his letter by describing himself in the lofty term "slave of
Messiah Yeshua", he continues this thought by saying that he has an obligation (to Yeshua) to
go to both civilized Greeks and uncivilized barbarians. In our CJB where it says "uncivilized
people", that is incorrect. The Greek says barbarians. Barbarians were first and foremost
people who didn't speak Greek. Non-Greek speakers were considered less civilized according
to the worldview of the Roman Empire. Together Greeks and barbarians constituted the
gentiles of the world. Paul then adds that he is also to bring the Gospel to both the educated
and uneducated. So every gentile, regardless of language or intelligence or status, is entitled
to hear the Gospel and he intends to see to it that it happens. He concludes that thought by
saying that therefore he is also eager to proclaim the Good News to citizens of Rome. In other
words, they certainly fall within the definition of the people he is obligated to evangelize.
Clearly verses 16 and 17 are the powerful theme of the entire letter. The principle emphasis is
on the saving power of the Gospel. But the "why" of it is also briefly explained; that is, why is
the Gospel able to save? The answer is that the Gospel manifests God's righteousness.
These verses (and what follows) are so dense with theological principles that are the heart and
soul of our faith that we'll take as much time as needed to flesh them out.
Paul begins with the strange statement that he is "not ashamed" of the Gospel. What does
that mean? Very likely it is a Jewish expression. First, understand that there is a difference
between being shamed, and being ashamed. Being shamed is a social condition. Middle
Eastern societies were shame and honor societies. That is, perhaps the supreme societal goal
of all the people was to be living in a state of honor. The worst thing that could happen was to
be shamed and thus have the social status of "shame" assigned to you. Shame was so
serious of a societal status that there was literally no limit on how far one would go to regain
their honor; it often involved killing the person who brought shame upon you.
Ashamed, far from being a social status, is a psychological condition. It involves guilt, the
deepest sense of regret, and feeling very badly about yourself for having done something, or
somehow being associated with something, which society says is socially unacceptable. Being
ashamed does not change your societal status, and one cannot do something to solve being
ashamed since indeed it is a state of mind and not a state of your actual status among your
community. In a shame and honor society, being in a state of shame means that people will
shun you; you have lost your place in the community.
So Paul is not talking about being ashamed of the Gospel in the sense of shame and honor; it
has nothing to do with social status. Many language experts believe that this was a well known
expression in Paul's day, even if it has been lost to history, because one would have to ask
why anyone might feel a sense of deep regret or guilt (be ashamed) over the Gospel
message? It doesn't fit. Rather, very likely it is a negative way of communicating that one has
the fullest confidence in the Gospel, or perhaps only to confess or declare the Gospel. It is not
uncommon in English to use the negative to express something positive. For instance: I was
not unimpressed means I was impressed. I was not disappointed means I was pleased. So I
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
maintain that Paul was using a negative (not ashamed) to express a positive (I have
confidence in) as merely a figure of speech or a manner of speaking in his day.
The next clause in verse 16 is not expressed well in the CJB. A more literal translation is: for it
is the power of God to everyone who believes. What does this mean? To Paul "the power
of God" is a mysterious, but real, force that has the ability to bring about a strong, transforming
effect on human beings. This is not the only place that he uses the term "the power of God" or
"God's power" or "power" in relation to God.
1Corinthians 1:18 CJB 18 For the message about the execution-stake is nonsense to
those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved it is the
power of God.
1Corinthians 2:3-5 CJB 3
Also I myself was with you as somebody weak, nervous and
shaking all over from fear; 4
and neither the delivery nor the content of my message
relied on compelling words of "wisdom" but on a demonstration of the power of the
Spirit, 5
so that your trust might not rest on human wisdom but on God's power.
2Corinthians 6:6-7 CJB 6
We commend ourselves by our purity, knowledge, patience
and kindness; by the Ruach HaKodesh; by genuineness of love 7
and truthfulness of
speech; and by God's power.
Paul uses this "power of God" concept in several more places as well. Even more this same
force, this "Power of God", is a continuing divine force that sustains the new and better life that
it creates.
So the saving nature of the Gospel is a transformative force that only God wields. But the main
point is that it is from God the Father. One can trust in Christ for salvation; but the actual force
that brings about salvation is the Father's. The idea that God's word has actual power to
transform and save is an Old Testament idea and one of the most obvious references has to
be in Psalm 107. There we find this:
Psalm 107:19-20 CJB 19 In their trouble they cried to ADONAI, and he rescued them
from their distress; 20 he sent his word and healed them, he delivered them from
destruction.
There is a change, however, in Paul's idea of the concept of salvation as it refers to Christ and
to His Believers. In the Old Testament, saving or delivering was about being rescued from an
actual situation. There was danger, but the person was rescued from that danger. There was a
probability of death, but the person was rescued from that deadly circumstance. In the context
of the Gospel salvation is a spiritual matter. In fact, its immediate effects may be minimal from
an earthly perspective. One can be in a dire situation, receive salvation in the forgiveness of
sins, but yet one's physical life might not be delivered. In fact Paul tends to see the primary
importance of salvation as a delivery from a future judgment of God that occurs in the End
Times. So while one can be "saved" immediately, its most important effect (being spared from
eternal death) will not come until later.
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
There is another interesting, and I think nearly lost, aspect of salvation that regards the person
who is being saved. While it is long held Christian doctrine that "trust" in Yeshua as Savior is
the requirement to obtain salvation, that is not exactly what Paul says. Here the CJB gets it
correct as opposed to most other English translations that say, "salvation to everyone who
believes". The Greek verb used is in the present tense; so this means that we have a
continuing action. One must continue, persistently, to keep on trusting or believing. The
doctrine of Eternal Security, once saved always saved, essentially says that one can believe
briefly, and then it simply doesn't matter from that time forward. If I believed for awhile, but
now I fell away and stopped believing, I'm still saved because "once saved, always saved".
That is not what Paul says; he says that salvation continues only so long as we continue
trusting. If our trust ends, our salvation ends.
I have heard all manner of theological apology for the once saved always saved doctrine and it
usually revolves around a severe twisting of God's Word and instead injecting a personal
opinion. The most common rebuttal is that once a person is saved, they would never recant
their salvation at any time, ever, for any reason either because 1) they have lost the freedom to
make such a choice, or 2) if they do recant (they renounce Christ) then they never actually
believed in the first place; they were just pretenders. And why is that? In a circular argument it
is because it is not possible for a person who believed to stop believing. Nowhere in the
Scriptures is that idea supported, but in many places the opposite is said. Here is a very small
sampling.
Matthew 7:21-23 CJB 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants. 22 On that Day,
many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel
demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in your name?' 23 Then I will
tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of
lawlessness!'
Hebrews 6:4-6 CJB 4
For when people have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly
gift, become sharers in the Ruach HaKodesh, 5
and tasted the goodness of God's Word
and the powers of the 'olam haba- 6
and then have fallen away- it is impossible to renew
them so that they turn from their sin, as long as for themselves they keep executing the
Son of God on the stake all over again and keep holding him up to public contempt.
James 5:19-20 CJB 19 My brothers, if one of you wanders from the truth, and someone
causes him to return, 20 you should know that whoever turns a sinner from his
wandering path will save him from death and cover many sins.
2Peter 2:20-22 CJB
20 Indeed, if they have once escaped the pollutions of the world
through knowing our Lord and Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah, and then have again
become entangled and defeated by them, their latter condition has become worse than
their former. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the Way of
righteousness than, fully knowing, to turn from the holy command delivered to them. 22
What has happened to them accords with the true proverb, "A dog returns to its own
vomit." Yes, "The pig washed itself, only to wallow in the mud!"
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 3 - Chapter 1 cont.
The Bible never contemplates the idea of pretenders. It never considers that all one has to do
is trust momentarily and then wander away and never trust again but still remain eternally
secure. Rather, one must continue to trust and believe.
Paul ends verse 16 by saying "to the Jew especially, but equally to the gentile". Clearly Paul
says the Gospel is God's Power of Salvation for both Jews and gentiles. This means that the
supposed Two Covenant Theology, whereby there are two routes to salvation, is nonsense.
The Two Covenant concept is that the Jews are saved by following the Laws of Moses (the
Mosaic Covenant) and gentiles are saved by following the New Covenant (the Covenant in
Christ). That concept is utterly put to shame right here. The Gospel of Yeshua is for both Jew
and gentile; there is no other option. But the other thing that we must see is that in the words
"to the Jew especially" reflects a heavenly priority. Jews had, and continue to have, a priority
over gentiles when it comes to salvation. The people of Israel are the bearers of the promise
contained in the Abrahamic covenant that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.
Gentiles (the nations) are a recipient of that blessing; but it happens THROUGH Israel.
Please also notice that Israel was also Christ's priority. He took his message to Jews, not to
gentiles. That duty would fall, in time, to his Apostles. In a famous story when Yeshua went to
the northern coastal region of Sidon and Tzor, gentile territory, a gentile woman approached
him and here was the exchange.
Matthew 15:21-24 CJB 21 Yeshua left that place and went off to the region of Tzor and
Tzidon. 22 A woman from Kena'an who was living there came to him, pleading, "Sir, have
pity on me. Son of David! My daughter is cruelly held under the power of demons!" 23
But Yeshua did not say a word to her. Then his talmidim came to him and urged him,
"Send her away, because she is following us and keeps pestering us with her crying." 24
He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Isra'el."
Yet after the woman begged and pleaded, Yeshua relented and healed the woman's
daughter. Immediately Yeshua left and went back to the Galilee. The meaning is obvious. The
Jews have priority. But, for gentiles who have faith in Him, Yeshua will save them, too, is
asked. How ironic that for 1900 years Christianity has switched up God's priority and made it
"to the Gentiles especially", but NOT to the Jews.
We'll continue this next week and deal with a most serious matter that is perhaps the
dominant issue of our time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 4, Chapter 1 continued 2
While we won't spend as long in every chapter, chapter 1 of Romans has so many important
terms and God-principles in it that it is necessary to go slow and to carefully clarify these terms
and flesh out these principles. Then we'll have a far better basis for understanding what God,
through Paul, is telling us.
We are going to spend most of this lesson looking at but one word: righteous. I have so much
to say to you today about that term and what it means that we won't review last week's lesson
except to say that verses 16 and 17 outline the theme not just for chapter 1 but for the entire
Book of Romans. What Paul says in those 2 verses essentially defines his basic understanding
of his Messianic faith and especially so when it comes to the role of the word righteous or
righteousness. While several of the terms he uses to express his faith understanding are
commonly used in Christianity, I think if I asked most of you to explain them I would get silence
or a startled look. I don't fault you for that; most Bible scholars glide right by those terms
without bothering to define them either. And those scholars who do define those terms don't
necessarily agree with one another. So this is my way of saying to you that this is another of
those worms that we're going to allow to crawl out from our can of worms before we carefully
close the lid back.....for the time being.
Open your Bibles to Romans 1 and we're going to read verses 16 and 17.
Romans 1:16-17 CJB 16 For I am not ashamed of the Good News, since it is God's
powerful means of bringing salvation to everyone who keeps on trusting, to the Jew
especially, but equally to the Gentile.
17 For in it is revealed how God makes people righteous in his sight; and from
beginning to end it is through trust- as the Tanakh puts it, "But the person who is
righteous will live his life by trust."
There's that word "righteous" that we'll focus on today. Let me begin by saying that as fond
as I am of the CJB, in verse 17 too much liberty has been taken with the original Greek and it
has created a poor translation that leads us off in the wrong direction. I'll give you a much
better translation shortly but first let's take a short detour. Although I've discussed Bible
versions and translations with you before, it probably makes sense for me to say it again: there
is no such thing as the one best, most accurate, Bible version. And the main reason I say this
is because any version we read in English is more than a translation; it is necessarily a
redaction due to the translation process. A translator's job is to make the meaning of the
Scriptures in their original language understandable to English speakers (or in whatever
language they are translating in to). Therefore they must make choices about what English
words to use and often those choices consciously or unconsciously reflect personal theological
viewpoints, biases, and cultural norms. I'm sorry, but in the end if you want obtain the most
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
accurate possible Bible version, you have to use the original language manuscripts. Of course
very few people are true language scholars; it is a full time vocation preceded by many years
of University preparation. But there are some wonderful Bible programs that allow people with
only limited Hebrew or Greek knowledge to learn the nuances of those words so that they can
compare them against the many English and other Bible translations to try to reach the best
possible interpretation.
I field a never ending stream of requests from folks to advise them of the "best" Bible or one
that is a direct word for word, literal translation. And I'm here to tell you that such a thing would
sound so odd in English that it would be near to impossible to make sense of it. The
grammatical structures of Hebrew, Greek and English are quite different from one another.
Many words in Greek and Hebrew don't have precise, one to one, English equivalents. But
even more, as concerns the New Testament, behind those Greek words are the Hebrew
thought patterns of their Hebrew authors who were attempting to express themselves about
their Hebrew religion. But because (as in Paul's case) the writers were usually sending their
letters to Greek speakers in the Diaspora, they couldn't use their Hebrew language to express
themselves or the recipients wouldn't be able to read it.
As one who has been privileged to travel extensively internationally, I can tell you that even if
someone in another country is able to speak English well enough, many of the words and
terms we use in our Western vocabulary mean something different to them. And that is
because the terms and words we use have a direct relationship to our particular culture. Merely
speaking a foreign language in no way assumes any understanding whatsoever of the
societies in which that is their native language. Just because I might be able to speak Spanish
doesn't mean I have any understanding of Mexican culture or the cultures of Puerto Rico,
Spain or Argentina. One of the best examples of this that I delight in retelling is that several
years ago I purchased a riding toy for one of my grandchildren. It of course required assembly
and was made (where else?) in China. So the English assembly instructions were written by
English speaking Chinese. Everything was going along well until I read the following
instruction: "Insert bolt through the wheel hub, and tighten the nut until it is happy". Happy?
How am I supposed to know when the nut is happy? In English the term happy is reserved as
an expression of emotion. But apparently in Chinese culture it carries a little different meaning
and can be extended to inanimate objects; it more means to make something (or perhaps
someone) right or functioning in harmony.
So the reason for the existence of the scores of different Bible versions, in English alone, has
to do with what choices a particular Bible translator or board of Bible editors made about how
to define certain Greek and Hebrew words. Since almost all translators are beholden to one
denomination or another, they will quite naturally use words that best uphold their theological
beliefs (even if they might be atheists). The CJB is no different. So why do I use it? Because it
reads so well when spoken out loud and because it inserts some words and names in Hebrew
to constantly remind us that the Bible is a Hebrew document from Genesis to Revelation.
Although a helpful tool, the CJB is not the greatest study Bible. The best solution for most
students of God's Word is to use a variety of Bibles, with the CJB as just one of them. On
paper, one of the better technical translations is the KJV. But the problem with it is that it uses
an antiquated dialect of English that was spoken 500 years ago and so many of the English
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
words used in the KJV had a very different meaning then than it does for us who use modern
English. There is one translation that I encourage people to avoid: the NIV. It is clearly an
agenda driven Bible that will add or delete words and phrases and portions of verses to assure
that its particular humanistic worldview is put forward.
So, with that, what is the better and more accurate translation of Romans 1:17 than the CJB?
We find it in the English Standard Version (and it is spoken essentially this same way in many
other familiar English versions):
ESV Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as
it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
Remember how our CJB translated this verse: 17 For in it is revealed how God makes
people righteous in his sight;
Did you hear the substantial difference between the two? The ESV speaks of the
righteousness of God. The CJB speaks of the righteousness of people. I know where the CJB
is trying to go with this approach but it is not true enough to the original language and so it
muddles the picture on a matter of extreme importance to Believers.
There is probably no word that means fundamentally more to Judaism and to Christianity than
righteous. And if we don't know how God intends for us to understand that term, then we have
a major hole in the understanding of our faith and in our relationship with Him. So: what is the
righteousness of God? What does that mean? What is God's righteousness? But even before
we answer that, what does righteous mean in a generic sense? I'll tell you upfront that the
answer to that question, not surprisingly, is found in the Torah. In fact the best explanation of
the critical term righteous can be found in the Book of Exodus. I'll tell you a bit more about that
momentarily. But first, in order to come to an informed and useful understanding of what
righteous and righteousness mean in our Bibles, we need a very brief lesson in Greek and
Hebrew.
With apologies to true language scholars (whom I admire beyond words), I'm going to explain
this in easier terms that non-language scholars can understand. As we find it in the New
Testament, the English word "righteous" (and its variations such as righteousness) is a
translation of the Greek word dikaioo. Dikaioo has a few variations as well, such as dikaios,
dikaiosyne, and there is a couple more. But they all have the same basic root meaning.
English translators say that in English the root meaning is righteous. However how did the
Greek word dikaioo get chosen for this passage? In our case it seems that Paul chose it. My
contention is that without fail Paul is always expressing Hebrew thought patterns in his writings
so we need to understand what this word meant in Hebrew society. So in this particular case of
verse 17, is there a way to prove my contention?
Fortunately, more than 250 years before Christ was born, the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, (what
we call the Old Testament) was translated into Greek; that translation is called the Septuagint.
We know from a very ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas that this translation project
took place in Alexandria, Egypt, where there was an enormous Jewish population of almost 1
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
million. And the letter tells us that some of the Jerusalem Temple's finest scholarly priests
were sent to Alexandria to both supply Hebrew Bible scrolls for the effort and to participate in
the translation process so that it would remain as true as possible to the original intent
(understanding that there will always be imperfections and some loss of precision in
translations). Therefore, when we compare the word for word Greek of the Septuagint to the
word for word Hebrew Bible, we should be able to see exactly which Greek word those ancient
Hebrew scholars chose to translate any particular Hebrew word. And when we do that, and we
find that same Greek word from the Septuagint used in a similar context in the New Testament
(also written in Greek), we have ourselves a kind of Biblical Rosetta Stone; a voice from the
past telling us what the ancients meant to convey from a Hebrew language and cultural
viewpoint and how to carry it across to an entirely different language and culture. Or, in another
sense, we have a means to find out from an Old Testament Hebrew perspective what the New
Testament writer is attempting to convey to us.
What we find is that the Greek word dikaioo was the word chosen by the original
writers/translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew term tzedek. Therefore if we want
to truly know what dikaioo (righteous) means in the New Testament, we need to study the
Hebrew word tzedek in the Old Testament. That way we will understand what the Hebrew Paul
had in mind in his native Hebrew thought pattern. I hope you are following me because it is
critical for Believers to explore the proper and intended meaning of the term "righteous".
The first thing to understand is that righteousness (tzedek) as it applies to God (God's
righteousness) is quite different from how it applies to humans (my righteousness or your
righteousness). As it applies to humans it is fairly straightforward. Righteous (tzedek) can
indicate a person who is "right" with God. That is, righteous is our desired status before the
Lord. Or it can also mean DOING what is right; it describes a proper action or behavior. Thus
the word righteous also has a direct connection to the concept of covenant. A covenant is a
document (oral or written) in which two parties agree to do certain things, and to behave in
certain agreed to ways. Therefore from a covenant perspective, DOING what is right in the
Hebrew worldview means to DO what God says to do. And where does God tell us what to do
and not to do? The Covenant of Moses (the Law). Righteous can also mean right in an ethical
sense (right versus wrong, fair versus unfair, as we deal with our fellow man), and it can mean
right in the sense of a person being in general conformity with God's known standards and
rules.
In Hebrew culture there was an everyday term for a person who was considered to be very
pious because they carefully followed the terms of God's Covenant with Israel: The Law of
Moses. This person was called a Tzadik (a righteous one). Notice how tzadik and tzedek
come from the same root. So all of this comes into play when ascertaining what Paul was
envisioning when he used the term dikaioo: righteous.
Conversely, the term unrighteous is only ever used in the Bible to speak of a human and never
of God. And usually it means to convey the idea of a person being unethical.
Righteousness as concerns God is more complex. A couple of well known places where
dikaioo (righteous) is used in the Septuagint as it applies to God sheds some light on how we
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
are to understand what God's righteousness is. In Psalm 51:14 David says in a
prayer, "Deliver me from those who seek my blood, O God, the God of my salvation; my
tongue will rejoice in your righteousness". In Isaiah 46:13 we hear this: "I bring near my
righteousness, and my salvation will not delay". So righteousness used in these two
instances (and there are several other similar instances) makes salvation and righteousness
parallel terms; that's a key understanding so let me say it again. As it concerns God, salvation
and righteousness are parallel terms. So in one sense God's personal righteousness is His
saving intervention for the sake of those who worship Him. And those who worship Him are (in
Biblical terms) always His covenant people. So now we see this organic connection develop
between salvation, righteousness, and covenant; at least we see it in Hebrew thought.
However, as you are probably starting to see, it doesn't always translate over to Greek
thought or English speaking cultures and so we lose an important understanding of some
important faith principles.
Psalm 31 gives us a slightly different aspect of God's righteousness. In verse 1 we read: "in
your righteousness deliver me and lead me out". So here God's righteousness seems to
indicate God's faithfulness to the promises He has made to His people that He will be their
deliverer from trouble and danger.
Another interesting aspect of God's righteousness is highlighted in Psalm 50. In verse 6 we
see: "The heavens declare His righteousness, for God himself is judge". Following this
verse the subject of Psalm 50 continues and it is that Israel has gone astray and she is being
called to repent or face God's wrath. So we see here that God's righteousness is wrapped up
in His justice of which He is the supreme judge. He will show mercy and deliver those who are
faithful to His covenant with Israel, but He will punish and even reject those who aren't. God is
the sole judge of this determination.
So then what does Paul mean by "God's righteousness" or the "righteousness of God" in
verse 17? He means it in 3 senses: 1) as a divine attribute of God such that He will always do
right and be just. Or 2), a description of God's activity of establishing right within humans and
punishing those who are wrong. Or 3), speaking of God's process of moving those humans
who are in a position of wrong before Him into a position of being right before Him (Christians
would call this "being saved"). I see God's righteousness as embodying all three of these
attributes.
The common point of intersection in all of these various aspects of righteousness is salvation.
So the bottom line is this: in Paul's theology God's righteousness is His saving will towards
His people. Anywhere and everywhere in Holy Scripture that we see the term God's
righteousness or the righteousness of God, it means His saving will towards His people. In
order that we not get bogged down here, I want you to know that there is more to it and it can
be found in Exodus 21. We have not discussed the important aspect of God's justice in
relation to God's righteousness, which is a pretty serious study all in itself. But if you want to
understand this in a much more complete way, go online to study the Torah Class lesson for
Exodus chapter 21. There justice and righteousness are discussed and how they relate to one
another.
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
But let's take this a step further. When we look at verses 16 and 17, we see four key phrases
or terms used: 1) The Gospel. 2) The power of God. 3) Salvation. And 4) God's righteousness.
To Paul, and in Hebrew thought, these terms are roughly equivalent. The power of God refers
to salvation. The power of God is an actual force even though it is invisible (like magnetism or
gravity), not simply an ideal. Salvation happens by the power of God; that is, salvation happens
by a divine force. God's righteousness expresses His will to save. And the essence of the
Gospel is contained and manifested only in the power of God. We're not going to delve any
deeper into the nuances of each of these terms for now. For the time being it is enough to
understand as we go forward in our study of Romans that to Paul the terms Gospel, power of
God, salvation, and God's righteousness are tightly interconnected. They are terms that are
not quite, but almost, interchangeable.
The final words of verse 17 are: "the righteous will live by faith". This is a phrase taken from
Habakkuk 2:4. Various English translations have slightly different ways of expressing what
Paul said. The KJV has a more literal translation of this verse from Habakkuk and it reads:
KJV Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just
shall live by his faith.
Notice that in the CJB where we have the words "the righteous will live by faith"; but in the
KJV of Habakkuk the words are: "the just shall live by his faith". Since Habakkuk is part of
the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and written in Hebrew, then we see that the Hebrew
word used is Tzadik; and this more literally means "righteous one". We discussed this term a
few minutes ago, and it is a commonly used Hebrew term that refers to especially righteous
and zealous Jews who are known to follow the Law of Moses scrupulously. So naturally, even
though this verse is given to us in Greek in Roman 1:17, nonetheless since it is a direct quote
from the Old Testament we know exactly what Paul meant. He was picturing a Tzadik; a
person who diligently followed the Law of Moses. Thus we should properly have it read: "And
the righteous one shall live by his faith".
Notice something else: Habakkuk was a Prophet and a contemporary of Jeremiah. He lived
and prophesied before the Babylonian Exile of 600 B.C. So Paul's thought that the righteous
ones (the Tzadikim) live by faith (implying faith in the God of Israel) is in no way a New
Testament invention. Even more, Habakkuk was essentially quoting Genesis:
CJB Genesis 15:6 He (Avram) believed in ADONAI, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.
So the same exact strand of Hebrew thought that began with Abraham, picked up and re␂phrased by Habakkuk, is now directly brought forward to Paul's day in the Book of Romans as
Paul explains the Believers relationship with God and especially as it concerns Christ. And we
need to understand it in Romans in its original Old Testament Hebrew terms and not try to
redefine it for a Greek or gentile Christian viewpoint.
Let's move on. Paul now begins to flesh out this question: if the Gospel of Yeshua is the
Power of God for salvation for those who believe and have faith, then what of those who do
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
NOT accept the Gospel? The short answer? They receive God's wrath. God's wrath is not far
from a taboo subject in many congregations. The rationale is that Jesus can't be both love and
wrath at the same time. Therefore since "God is love", and since we are supposedly all New
Testament Believers with Jesus as our new God, then divine wrath must be a thing of the past.
The Old Testament God was full of wrath; but the New Testament God is only love. Paul
makes a liar of that absurd position in verse 18.
Let me say this as well; Paul is expressing that the same Gospel and the same Power of God
that saves ALSO produces God's wrath from heaven for the unrighteous. Why is that?
Because the Gospel is just. How can anything be considered just if a) there is no distinction
between, and definition of, wrong behavior versus right behavior and b) if there is no
consequence for wrong behavior or blessing for right behavior? Where does the definition of
right and wrong come from? Where is it written so that we can know what it is? In the Torah;
the Law of Moses specifically.
CJB 1 John 3:4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah- indeed, sin is violation
of Torah.
Or, as the KJV puts it:
KJV 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law.
Notice that the Apostle John's New Testament definition of sin (violating the Law of Moses) is
precisely the same as the Old Testament definition of sin. Christ pays the price for our wrong
behavior; He has no need to pay anything for our right behavior. So once again the tight
connection between the Gospel and the Covenant of Moses is made by both Paul and John.
READ ROMANS 1:18 - 20
Notice in Romans 1:18 that "suppressing the truth" is one of those wrong behaviors that the
ungodly and the unrighteous do. What is the truth? God's Word is the truth. God's covenants,
and God's Gospel are truth. As much as I'm for Israel and the Jewish people, the sad reality
is that mainstream Judaism is exactly who this verse is pointing a finger towards: those who
suppress the truth. It is virtually a crime with possible jail time involved for telling the truth of the
Gospel in Israel. If you are a Believing Jew who wants to immigrate to Israel, every effort will
be made by the Israeli government to prevent you from coming UNLESS you will renounce the
Gospel in front of a Rabbi who will certify it.
So that we don't lose the forest because of the trees remember that Paul is writing this letter to
Roman Believers in the city of Rome. Many are gentiles, but many more are Jews. And he is
telling them that the Jews of Rome who refuse to believe and who make being a Jewish
Believer difficult are making themselves the targets of God's wrath. Why is this important?
Because Judaism taught that simply having a Jewish heritage was enough to be in good stead
with God.
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
Paul also says that if you don't know who God is, it's because you don't want to. God has
shown you who He is in the awesomeness of His creation; and in some ways that itself ought
to suffice. So don't blame God if you receive His wrath; blame yourself. Understand; there is
no evidence of atheism in these times. As a matter of fact it seems that, historically, atheism is
a new phenomenon that began in Europe in the 1700s as a result of the Enlightenment
philosophers. So when we read in verse 19 that God has made Himself known to everyone, it
doesn't mean that people in the Bible days were making a decision as to whether there was
such a thing as a god. The issue for them was: who is God?
Let me make something plain: anyone who argues against Creation as a product of the God of
the Bible; a universe and everything that exists, seen and unseen that is a Creation that is little
more than an expression of God's will; then that person has taken hold of a deception that will
leave them deceived about almost every thing else that involves God. When I hear of a
Christian who says that they do not accept the Creation story; that Creation was not of God but
rather was something from the natural realm, I have serious concerns about their claim of
salvation. If God says that the prime evidence of Him is His Creation, and you don't believe in
a divine Creation, then you are rejecting the prime evidence of God. How that can possibly co␂exist with salvation I can't fathom. If to you Creation is not the truth, why would you believe the
Gospel? I say you can't; rather you have deceived yourself to believe that you are saved.
Even more, Paul says that in reality God's existence IS evident to everyone including the
unrighteous. So what a denier is doing is actively working at not believing in God because the
evidence is so clear and powerful that it takes real effort NOT to believe. As a young person, I
scoffed at this statement of Paul; but the older I get the more I see the absolute truth of it.
Paul continues his argument against any excuse for non-Believers in verse 20 and continues
to base it on the reality of Creation itself. Let me paraphrase: Paul says that although the
power of God is invisible, the result of what that power wrought (the Universe) can be easily
seen. No reasonable person can believe that the Universe just "happened" without there
being something or someone who made it happen. Thus what we can see as we step outside
and look all around us, is all the proof that anyone needs to know that God exists and what
many of His qualities are. Listen to the beginning of a beautiful Psalm of David.
Psalm 19:1-7 CJB
CJB Psalm 19:1 For the leader. A psalm of David:
2
The heavens declare the glory of God, the dome of the sky speaks the work of his
hands.
3
Every day it utters speech, every night it reveals knowledge.
4
Without speech, without a word, without their voices being heard,
5
their line goes out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In
them he places a tent for the sun,
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 4 - Chapter 1, 2nd cont.
6
which comes out like a bridegroom from the bridal chamber, with delight like an
athlete to run his race.
7
It rises at one side of the sky, circles around to the other side, and nothing escapes its
heat.
The Creation is God's truth every bit as much as God's Word is God's truth. To deny one is
to deny the other. But equally important to grasp is that the Biblical truth is not merely
something to which our intellects agree. Rather it is something that we are to have faith in and
we are to obey. From God's perspective sin is a denial, a rejection, or a rebellion against the
divine truth.
There's so much more that needs to be said as we continue with Romans chapter 1 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 5, chapter 1 conclusion
We have spent an inordinate amount of time in chapter 1 of Romans, but today we'll conclude
it. In some ways today might be the most emotionally and culturally challenging of the several
lessons we've had on this chapter because Paul, never one to mince words, deals head-on
with sin and especially with sexual perversion. And I believe that sexual perversion and sexual
immorality is the single most serious and dominant issue of our time. And this is because while
terrorism is a danger to life and limb, sexual immorality is a danger to our souls and to our
eternal futures. It is an issue that has not just divided the world and our nation; it has divided
and deeply damaged the Church. In an astounding turn away from God and His
commandments, some of the longest standing and most recognized Christian denominations
have recently split over the issue of sexual immorality.
I want to begin by quoting a portion of a Psalm that is quite poignant and pertinent to our
lesson today.
Psalm 50:16-23 CJB
16 But to the wicked God says: "What right do you have to proclaim my laws or take my
covenant on your lips, 17 when you so hate to receive instruction and fling my words
behind you?
18 When you see a thief, you join up with him, you throw in your lot with adulterers,
19 you give your mouth free rein for evil and harness your tongue to deceit;
20 you sit and speak against your kinsman, you slander your own mother's son.
21 When you do such things, should I stay silent? You may have thought I was just like
you; but I will rebuke and indict you to your face.
22 Consider this, you who forget God, or I will tear you to pieces, with no one to save
you.
23 "Whoever offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice honors me; and to him who goes the
right way I will show the salvation of God."
What right, this Psalm asks, does anyone have to depend on God's covenants, when we hate
to receive God's instructions and "flings (God's) words behind you'? Let me say that in
modern terms: you say you have been saved in the name of Jesus Christ, but you don't want
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
to obey God's laws or comply with the truth of the Bible. It is the person who does right that
God says He will guide to salvation. How do we know what right is if we shun God's Word,
and turn our backs on His Torah where right and wrong are clearly defined in as many as 600
case examples of human activity?
In a sense what we are about to hear Paul say is a Jewish Midrash, or a sermon if you like, on
this Psalm. He probably had this passage of Scripture in mind when he penned this portion of
the Book of Romans.
Open your Bibles to Romans chapter 1.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 1:18 – end
Let me give you Paul's bottom line to this portion of Romans chapter 1: it is that the man who
rebels against God, and denies his dependence upon God and His commandments, inevitably
becomes subject to a process of moral degeneration. Often this moral degeneration is not
something that the man realizes is happening. And equally as often it is because his or her
degenerative condition looks to be healthy and fully in tune with self-satisfied local society and
a government that believes that it is the source of moral truth. In other words, all looks fine and
well to the degenerating man because everybody else is doing the same thing and looks the
same way.
Please also notice that Paul is not speaking only to gentiles or only to Jews; rather it is a
general statement that relates to all humanity in general, and yet since his letter is specifically
to the Believers in Rome apparently some of them may be caught up in this moral
degeneration. So he is not picking out any particular group to rail against; this applies to
everyone (especially the Believing community) in light of the Gospel message.
And in another sense, what we see is that in verse 18 when Paul speaks of God's anger
against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, later towards the end of this chapter
Paul defines what godlessness and wickedness looks like and that people have no one else to
blame for their degenerative moral condition than themselves. Many decades ago a comedian
named Flip Wilson often used a famous line in his skits: "the Devil made me do it". And while it
was always funny, it seems that many Christians indeed believe that their own bad behavior or
the wickedness of others is the result of Satan's activity in their lives. Paul makes no such
claim, and neither does the Bible in general. The Devil may tempt, but he does not have the
power to coerce action. Humans willingly do evil. And so this entire section of Romans chapter
1 places the responsibility for godlessness and wickedness not upon Satan, but rather directly
upon the shoulders of each sinner.
Although we lightly touched on it last time, I want to repeat that from Paul's viewpoint no one
can plead that they did not know they were rebelling against God because what needs to be
known about God that they might do right in His eyes is revealed in God's Creation. Let me
say that using a different term. God's attributes are revealed in nature (assuming we
understand that nature is everything that is visible and tangible and that is the result of God's
Creative force). There has been much debate over just what Paul means by this and whether
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
such a thought is even reasonable. After all, how can some isolated tribe in the middle of the
Amazon jungle be expected to know God? But without doubt this not some new doctrine that
Paul has come up with; Judaism in general in his day believed the same way because it was a
basic tenet of the Hebrew Bible. Some refer to this as natural law, and that is an appropriate
label. A good example of this is found in Psalm 19.
Psalm 19:1-5 CJB
CJB Psalm 19:1 For the leader. A psalm of David:
2
The heavens declare the glory of God, the dome of the sky speaks the work of his
hands.
3
Every day it utters speech, every night it reveals knowledge.
4
Without speech, without a word, without their voices being heard,
5
their line goes out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world.
So God has acted in way that only He could in order to disclose Himself; and this disclosure is
the Creation. In fact the Creation....the earth, the sky, the Universe, and humanity..... Nature...so
closely resembles God's attributes that it is possible to say that Creation is like a shadow of
God passing by. Are we not told in Genesis 1:27 that God made mankind in His image? Man is
of God's Creation, and so we are an image (a shadow) of Him. But the shadow itself is not the
Creator; the shadow is merely the result of the existence and presence of the Creator. A
shadow can never generate itself and cannot exist by itself. A shadow has no life of itself;
whatever life it seems to have is actually contained in the creator of the shadow. And because
this is true, God had to breathe life from Himself into the human shadow, Adam, after He
formed him.
Therefore Paul can say with confidence that all humans have an innate understanding not only
of God's existence but of His basic attributes because they can be seen in nature itself. How
often I look into the night sky and stand awestruck at the infinite nature of it, and at the
variation and extent of the black ether and those millions of pinpoints of light. Even more often
I'll pause to gaze out of my office window at the glorious blue of the water, and the stunning
greens of the plants and trees, and wonder at how beautiful it is and yet can a creation be
more beautiful and magnificent than its Creator? Never! And yet, ironically, when humanity
depends solely upon taking our cues from nature as concerns God we get bad results. We are
supposed to worship and glorify God. Instead we can wind up worshipping the created
things...things such as nature.... instead of the Creator. Essentially humans, because of our evil
inclinations that began in the Garden of Eden with the fall of Adam and Eve, are wired to reject
a true knowledge of God and turn instead to gods of our own making. This is the human
dilemma and the only cure for it is the Gospel of Christ.
But then verse 21 explains that it is the refusal of humans to recognize God for who He is and
to worship Him as such that leads to them becoming futile in their thinking and having their
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
hearts darkened.
We need to be aware that when Paul speaks of "knowing God" from nature that he means it in
a very limited sense. From nature people can have an awareness of God but never establish a
personal relationship with Him. Instead of seeking God and acknowledging God "as God",
humanity instead tends to turn to idols; items of our own creation. In Greek thought to "know
God" more meant to apprehend and perceive Him as He really is; it is a desire for intellectual
knowledge. But in Hebrew thought to "know God" more means to actively acknowledge Him
by worshipping and glorifying Him in a personal way. Thus we see the shining evidence of
Paul's Hebrew thought patterns especially apparent in his explanation of what knowing God
amounts to and how it ought to manifest itself among humans as praise and worship. So those
who think that knowing God is primarily an intellectual exercise have actually become futile in
their thinking; even though they are so enamored with what they believe are their wise
thoughts, in fact they are fools. The result of their foolishness is that they become self␂deceived and begin to exchange the authentic for the fake. In all their supposed wisdom they
choose to give glory to other human beings, or to birds, animals and reptiles. And usually this
is done using images....idols....of humans, birds, animals and reptiles.
This idea of the wicked exchanging the worshipping of the true God for worshipping
fakes......images of created things....... is a frequent Old Testament subject. An example is Psalm
106 when the subject is the Golden Calf created by the Israelites during their exodus from
Egypt:
Psalm 106:19-20 CJB
19 In Horev they fashioned a calf, they worshipped a cast metal image.
20 Thus they exchanged their Glory for the image of an ox that eats grass!
So to sum it up: Paul is saying that a human who refuses to acknowledge the God of Israel as
the true God and Creator does so because they choose to do so. They do it from their own
wickedness, and they have utterly no excuse for it because despite what they might say or do,
they innately know of the true God. While atheism was not known until barely 300 years ago, in
fact while atheists swear up and down that they don't worship any god at all, the fact that they
celebrate themselves as the highest being in existence, the most superior of all living things,
belies the truth that they are worshipping themselves. That they don't want anyone else
displaying any evidence of God is because it pricks their conscience when they see it and they
prefer to stay safely ensconced in their make-believe, self-made world. The religion of atheism
is a worship of self. Even more, our so-called brilliant scientists who insist that the creation of
the Universe and of life was spontaneous and self-produced are in modern times the fulfillment
of Paul's words about those "claiming to be wise, they have become fools". While Paul would
never have imagined of people who don't believe in gods and in the spirit world (no such
people existed in his day), in fact the application couldn't be more spot on.
But now we enter that portion of Romans chapter 1 that has been all but rejected by some
denominations, Pastors, and a large and growing number of congregation members. It is that
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
portion that I believe is perhaps the most important, dangerous and bedeviling of the modern
era. The portion that deals with homosexuality and other forms of sexual perversion and
severely denounces it. But before we deal with that, verse 24 says something important and
controversial.
First, verse 24 explains that the reason that as some point God will turn people over to their
sins. He does this because they have no excuse. Everything from verses 18 – 23 has set the
stage for verse 24. Second, we have to face what it means by "God has given them up".
Some English versions say abandoned, others say turned them over, and yet others say
delivered them. These all translate the Greek word paradidomi and each one of these English
translations fits well with the literal meaning of this word, so there is no need to quibble. What
is being said is that God abandoned people to their moral degeneration and wickedness as a
result of their intentional rejection of Him. But what does abandon or hand over mean? Does
God just sort of let go and allow whatever is going to happen to happen (a rather passive
action)? Or is He more active in the process? When we look in the Old Testament to where
this same term "handed over" is used we find that often it speaks of Israel when they are in
rebellion, and it is not simply that God suddenly merely turns his back on Israel and stops
blessing them, but rather hat He also gives them a nudge towards their enemies and their
deserved punishment. It is like a judge who convicts a criminal and then hands him over to the
jailor for incarceration.
What has God given these wicked people who reject Him over to? What is their earthly
punishment? It is to be turned over to the morally depraved lusts of their hearts. Remember:
when the term heart is used in Holy Scripture, it is referring to the seat of intellect, the human
mind (which during the entire Biblical era was believed to occur in the heart organ). What Paul
is expressing here is a well understood Jewish principle from 2nd Temple Judaism. It is that a
man must serve either His Creator or serve his own evil inclination. That is, a human will
always choose either to serve and obey God, or to serve and obey our self. There is no 3rd way
and no middle ground. Yeshua accepted and taught this same principle that both the
Pharisees and the Essenes agreed upon:
CJB Matthew 6:24 No one can be a slave to two masters; for he will either hate the first
and love the second, or scorn the second and be loyal to the first. You can't be a slave
to both God and money.
The Rabbis taught that either your heart controls you, or you control your heart. That is your
heart either brings you under subjection, or you bring your heart under subjection with the idea
being that when your heart (your mind) controls you, then God cannot. Why did the Rabbis say
that a righteous person must bring their hearts into subjection? Because in Holy Scripture God
taught them that:
CJB Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than anything else and mortally sick.
Who can fathom it?
In the Jewish Midrash called Genesis Rabbah 34 we read this commentary about Genesis
8:21: "AND THE LORD SAID TO HIS HEART (Gen. 8:21)." The wicked stand in subjection
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
to their hearts (their passions and lusts). Thus it says (in God's Word that) THE FOOL HAS
SAID IN HIS HEART (Ps. 14:1), AND ESAU SAID IN HIS HEART (Gen. 27:41), AND
JEROBOAM SAID IN HIS HEART (1Kings 12:26), NOW HAMAN SAID IN HIS HEART (Est.
6:6). But the righteous have their hearts under their control. Hence it is written: NOW
HANNAH, SHE SPOKE AT HER HEART (1Sam. 1:13), AND DAVID SAID TO HIS HEART
(1Sam.27:1), BUT DANIEL PURPOSED TO HIS HEART (Dan. 1:8), AND THE LORD SAID
TO HIS HEART (Gen.34:10).
So we must never listen to our heart and let our heart control us; rather we must bring our
hearts (our minds) under subjection. Subjection to what? To our regenerated mind that has
been healed by God's Word, God's truth, and God's light. The Bible warns against listening
to our heart time and time again. And yet Christians, especially, often talk about how they
follow their hearts or that their heart is telling them to do something and they think this is a
good thing. The Holy Scriptures tell us the opposite.
The final words of verse 24 speak of the shameful misuse of each other's bodies. Obviously
this is speaking of sexual perversion; but the next few verses make it clear that the particular
sexual perversion that Paul is addressing is homosexuality. It is not my intention to make the
bulk of this lesson about the details and evils of homosexuality; the Bible itself ought to be
sufficient enough to address it. That non-Believers enjoy and advocate for homosexuality and
other sexually immoral outrages should not be surprising to us. They have no relationship with
God, and therefore no moral compass or Holy Spirit to guide them. But what about professed
Believers?
So what I do want to address is the ever increasing bent of the Christian Church to accept
homosexuality as a good and acceptable alternative lifestyle. We have a number of Church
denominations and Jewish sects who now ordain * ministers; other denominations have
decided to perform * marriages. I don't want to just throw that out there without specifics.
The Conservative Jewish Movement, the Reform Jewish Movement, the Episcopal Church, the
Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the United Church of Christ
have all made it Church or synagogue law to accept homosexuality as normal and good. They
all ordain * leaders and perform same-sex marriages.
The common refrain from these Churches and synagogues is that either the Bible is silent on
the subject of homosexuality, or that such a prohibition no longer applies as it was only meant
for ancient times (even if the prohibition is presented in the New Testament like here in
Romans 1). The other primary argument is that because God is love, love trumps everything;
so if love is involved sexual relations in any form (including among the same sex) it is good and
Jesus heartily approves of it and condemns those who speak against it as unrepentant bigots.
Here is a recent statement made by one of the leaders of the Christian LGBT movement,
Jimmy Creech, a 30 year United Methodist pastor. While he certainly doesn't speak for all *
people who also claim Christianity, he speaks for a large group.
How do I view God's position on "homosexuality?" I believe *, * and bisexual
people to be a part of God's wondrous creation, created to be just who they are, and
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
completely loved and treasured by God. I believe God does not intend for any one to be
alone but to live in companionship. And I believe God expects healthy loving
relationships to include sexual love. The Bible doesn't say this, of course. But neither
does it deny it. I believe this to be true not only because of the Bible's emphasis on the
goodness of God's creation and the supreme value of love, but because of the greater
understanding of human nature that we have available to us today. I do not believe that
God intends us to live in the small world of ancient biblical culture, but rather in God's
larger evolving world informed by science, reason and experience.
The other argument that passes for truth in our time is that this bent against homosexuality is
only a modern one and that what the Bible meant to ancient people in this Romans passage
and in at least 5 other passages in the Old and New Testaments that are frequently quoted as
anti-*, actually have nothing to do with homosexual behavior.
To that end I'd like to quote to you a passage from a commentary on the Book of Romans
written by the early Church Father Severian of Gabala about 400 A.D. This regards the specific
passage of Romans 1:27 that reads like this:
CJB Romans 1:27 and likewise the men, giving up natural relations with the opposite
sex, burn with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with other men
and receiving in their own persons the penalty appropriate to their perversion.
Severian says this: Paul did not say this lightly, but because he had heard that there was
a homosexual community at Rome.
In the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament, homosexuality was not only common it was
fully accepted, even highly regarded. We get the modern term * from the notorious
reputations of the homosexual women of the Isle of Lesbos. So as Severian says, Paul wasn't
writing to the Romans about this because the thought just came to his mind. As the center of
the Roman Empire, the city of Rome was ground-zero for sexual immorality and especially
homosexuality. Rome's emperors were noted for it, and Nero turned it into an art form using
the bodies of young boys. So Paul was addressing a specific problem that Believers in Rome
were facing (this was his protocol for all of his letters that we today call Epistles).
Another early Church Father, Chrysostom, who lived at the same time as Severian, says this
as taken from his famous Homilies on Romans: This is clear proof of the ultimate degree of
corruption, when both sexes are abandoned........Notice how deliberate Paul measures his
words. For he does not say that they were enamored of one another but that they were
consumed with lust for one another...........The normal desire for sexual intercourse united
the sexes to one another, but by taking this away and turning it into something else, the
devil divided the sexes from each other and forced what was one to become two, in
opposition to the laws of God......The devil was bent on destroying the human race......Paul
goes straight to the source of sexual evil: ungodliness which comes from twisted
teaching, and lawlessness which is its reward.
So, first of all, the comments of these 2 Early Church Fathers is proof that the claim that it is
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
only fairly recently that the Church began to say that homosexuality was wrong and to suggest
that the Bible does not speak against it is simply a lie. But second I think that the last sentence
that I read to you from Chrysostom nails it: the real source of sexual evil is ungodliness which
comes from twisted teaching and lawlessness.
What concerns me is not only that entire denominations have given in to the LGBT movement,
but other denominations are teetering, or at least finding ways to be very tolerant of Gays and
Transgenders. Pope Francis has recently issued an open apology to Gays and Transgenders
for not inviting them into the Catholic Church and more fully embracing them and their sexual
choices. How could the leader of the Catholic Church declare such a thing? By twisting God's
Word and by being disobedient to God's laws (by being lawless).
What these passages in Romans chapter 1 tell us is that when people move far enough away
from God (and I don't know exactly where that line is) He will turn them over to their sin. And
he tells us that idolatry and sexual perversion go hand in glove. So in verse 28 Paul more or
less repeats the previous few verses, using a little different terms to make his point. And the
point that jumps out is that those who do not find God worth knowing will be given up to their
worthless ways of thinking. And it is God's intention that the result will be doing the following
laundry list of wrong things (vices). In a sense, the punishment is that God ceases restraining
the individual from committing all manner of sexual perversion and becoming even more
wicked by doing this list of vices.
I will tell you that many Bible commentators have a very difficult time with this section of
Romans because they don't like what it implies. They worry that this will sound too harsh and
turn off Seekers. They worry that this puts a * in their thoughts that the New Testament
God, Jesus, is supposed to be strictly a God of love and mercy but this certainly doesn't sound
very compassionate or tolerant. They worry that it sounds too judgmental and too permanent.
But folks, it says what it says; there's no candy coating it.
Verse 32 states that all these vices listed make the sinner worthy of death. Understand that
from the Jewish perspective this not only means capital punishment but it means eternal
separation from God. For under the Law of Moses, which Paul still upholds, that is what it
means. The Law is that if you have committed a sin that can be atoned for, then an animal
sacrifice will do. But if you commit a sin that cannot be atoned for by an animal sacrifice, then
no atonement of any kind whatsoever is possible. Your eternal fate is sealed; you die an
unrighteous death and * is your eternal home. Now that Yeshua has come and gone Paul
certainly understands that a person's sins can be forgiven by faith and trust in Yeshua. But
that is not the point or the subject, here.
Make no mistake; there is not a hint in Paul's statement that a person could live the lifestyle of
any of these vices and then simultaneously legitimately claim trust in Yeshua. In fact what Paul
has described is a person with a reprobate mind who has chosen NOT to know God, and as a
result God has given them over to sexual perversion as well as these other sins. So this
modern day thought in some Christian circles that a person can enthusiastically live a
homosexual lifestyle at the same time claiming Christianity is simply self-deception.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 5 - Chapter 1 conclusion
Matthew 7:21-23 CJB
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, only
those who do what my Father in heaven wants.
22 On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name?
Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in your name?'
23 Then I will tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers
of lawlessness!'
Verse 32 also makes a simple claim that we need to not overlook. It is that people who do all
these wrongs that Paul has spoken about know they are doing wrong. They don't have to be
told that sexual perversion is wrong; nature itself tells us. They don't have to be told that
slander, dishonesty, or planning evil schemes is wrong; knowing this is built into our DNA as
humans created by a Creator God. Murderers don't murder because they don't know murder
is wrong. Thieves don't steal because they think stealing is right. Adulterers don't practice
adultery because they think it's good. And homosexuals don't practice same-sex sexual
relations because they believe it is God's will for them. They do these things because they
want to do them; because they listen to their hearts and want to fulfill their fleshly desires. They
rationalize their wrong behavior because they have willfully exchanged truth for a lie, says
Paul.
Paul ends this section of Romans by saying something else that has troubled theologians to no
end. He says that to applaud others who do these heinous deeds is no different than doing
them yourself. So in the case of sexual perversion, if you are not a * or Transgender but
you applaud and cheer them on in their destructive sin, you are counted as alongside them. I
have read some pretty tortured attempts to make these few words out to be something else
entirely; but they are not convincing.
While I must say that it is not an easy principle to understand why a person who only applauds
and cheers others to do wrong is as guilty as the one who does the wrong, there is no other
way to understand this saying of Paul. So as Believers it leaves us with only one option: accept
it and understand that it is true even if it is a difficult truth especially in modern Western society
and so our minds are uncomfortable with it. It is not up to us to put God's Word on trial; it is for
us to learn from it, believe it, and obey it.
Next week we'll begin Romans chapter 2.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 6, Chapter 2
In Bible study, context is everything. So before we open Chapter 2 of Romans, let me say
something that I should have said (a few times, probably) about Chapter 1. Chapter 1 was
primarily (but not exclusively) speaking to gentiles. It was speaking mostly to people who were
not familiar with Hebrew culture and thus things like sexual perversion, which was generally
accepted as normal in the gentile world (even though it was traditionally rejected by the Jewish
world), were being addressed by Paul. Remember that this letter was meant for the Believing
congregations of Rome; this wasn't an open letter to the citizens of Rome. These Believing
congregations of Rome were a mix of Jews and gentiles. So the serious sins that Paul was so
strenuously and sternly teaching against were not hypothetical, he saw them as a threat to the
Believing community of Rome. Apparently he had received word that some Believers living in
Rome were directly involved to some degree or another in these sinful behaviors and he
responded with what we know today as the Book of Romans.
How could Believers engage in such sins and think it alright? It is a fact of life that we all view
the world through the lens of our culture. Customs and habits that are accepted as long-held
norms are rarely re-examined to see if they are right or good in God's eyes. For example: in
France it is customary for women to go topless at the beach. Of course this is utterly shocking
and unacceptable to most of the rest of the world, and in most places it could lead to arrest for
public nudity. In Islamic nations it would bring the death penalty. But the vast majority of these
same French women who go topless at the beach would never think to do so anywhere else.
And, if they are church goers, they would dress modestly for a Sunday service and the
congregation would find nothing incongruent or hypocritical with their faith if the day before at
the beach they were spotted wearing nothing more than a tiny bikini bottom.
In Rome in Paul's day sexual immorality (and homosexuality in specific) was so rampant that
the average gentile Roman thought nothing of it. And so average gentile Believers didn't factor
that into their faith because it was embedded in their culture. Thus in Chapter 1 Paul was
addressing primarily the gentile Believers of the city of Rome as it applied to sexual perversion,
although not everything he said applied only to gentile cultural norms.
Chapter 2 switches gears on us, and it primarily addresses the Believing Jews of the city of
Rome. I'll repeat that the Book of Romans is addressed NOT to Roman citizens of the Roman
Empire in general; but rather it is to the Believers of the City of Rome. Certainly its principles
can be applied as universal. But as was Paul's custom, all of his letters dealt with specific
issues that he perceived as needing to be addressed by the specific congregation he was
writing to. The unusually long length of the letter to the Romans tells us that Paul had a lot to
say to the Roman congregation probably because he thought there were many issues that
needed to addressed. However this also had at least as much to do with the fact that he had
never been to Rome, and the Believing congregations there had been founded by others and
so he wasn't the one that had selected their leadership or instilled what he felt was proper
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
doctrine. Thus he was trying to do so from far away with this letter.
Let's read Romans chapter 2 together.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 2 all
In Chapter 2 Paul uses a well recognized literary style prevalent in his era called diatribe (the
author of the Book of James also uses diatribe). In diatribe a straw man is created; that is, an
imaginary dialogue with an opponent, or perhaps a student, is set forth. A line of argument is
presented and then emphatic rejections of possible disagreements with that line of argument
are incorporated and forcefully responded to. Diatribes are usually frank and passionate, with
no room for tolerance or compromise. In other words Paul is not talking to, or debating with,
any particular individual because he doesn't seem to know any of the Believers in Rome (Paul
doesn't refer to any congregation member by name). Rather he is sort of creating some
conversation partners and then rebuking them for their beliefs or behavior.
The bottom line to Romans chapter 2 is that Paul says that Jews sin, too, and simply being
Jews doesn't give them a "pass" in God's eyes. Therefore they are going to face judgment
just as do gentiles. Let me repeat something critical for our understanding so that we
understand exactly who his conversation partners are: Paul assumes he is speaking to Jewish
and gentile Believers in his letter to the Romans.
Verse 1 accuses the Believing Jews of Rome of "passing judgment" on the behavior of the
Believing gentiles of Rome. And he says when they do this they are essentially passing
judgment on themselves because they commit the same sins. The argument is really about
why God's wrath should fall on all people without exception. In Chapter 1 Paul explained that
gentiles have no excuse for their sin because natural law (what can be seen from Creation
itself and what is known innately within all mankind) sets down the basic commandments of
God for all people, and especially for the vast majority of people who have no knowledge of the
Torah. But as concerns Jews (the primary subjects of Chapter 2) Paul explains that they also
have no excuse for their sin because not only do they have the natural law they also have
God's Torah but they violate it. Paul backs up this line of thought in verse 2 by saying that
God's judgment lands impartially on all humans who do wrong things.
Let me caution you right now; those of you who have been taught (and perhaps continue to
insist) that works have nothing to do with your redeemed life are in for a shock because we are
going to do what we always do and let Holy Scripture speak for itself and not try to twist it or
find a way around it. This entire chapter is much about works and deeds and their pivotal role
in how God will judge you, me, and everyone. I'll say this again and again during this lesson:
Paul is speaking ONLY to Believers (his letter is not addressed to the general public of Rome,
nor is his diatribe against pagans or non-Believers). Nowhere is he warning non-Believers.
Rather he is speaking to both gentile and Jewish Believers and making clear exactly what the
Apostle John plainly speaks in 1John 3:
1John 3:4 CJB 4
Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah- indeed, sin is
violation of Torah.
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
Paul is telling us that sin is sin in the sense that it doesn't vary individual to individual, and it
doesn't vary based on whether one is a Jew or gentile. Further there is only one divine Law
even if God has given it to humanity in a couple of different forms. The natural law is one form,
and the Law of Moses is the other form; even so the requirements of the natural law are no
different from the requirements of the Law of Moses; they express the same ideals and
principles of God. The difference between them is that the natural law is more general and it is
not written down, while the Law of Moses is much more nuanced and specific and it is written
down. Think of it like this: a Kindergartener or 1st grader is taught to read in only the most basic
fashion. They learn a few words using the simplest words to form into extremely limited
sentences about things that a 5 or 6 year old can relate to in their children's world. But in the
adult world reading consists of a large vocabulary, using many difficult words, and sentences
are complex and full of nuances and variations. Yet the words and the meaning of those
individual words and sentences that the Kindergartner learns to read do not amount to
meaning something different from what an adult reads. The adult words don't change or
overturn the meaning of the same words that the 5 year old reads. It is the same sort of
relationship between the natural law and the Torah. The former is but the Reader's Digest
version of the latter and Paul is going to flesh this reality out for us over the next several
verses.
So at the end of verse 3 Paul asks his Jewish straw man a question that is actually an
indictment; do you think because you throw the spotlight onto the sins of gentiles that
somehow the very same sins you commit are excused by God? Or; that if a gentile commits a
sin and a Jew commits the same sin, that God will punish the gentile but not punish the Jew?
Let's not overlook a very basic principle that Paul and Judaism believed; one that I think
modern day Believers often forget: God rewards our good deeds and punishes our evil deeds.
Or, God blesses our good works and judges our wrong works or our lack of works. That
doesn't end when we become saved. But let's not miss the precise point that is being made
here by Paul: God is judge, and we're not. Ironically, for us to judge someone who commits
the same sins we commit brings God's judgment upon us. And it doesn't matter if it is a Jew
judging a gentile, a gentile judging a Jew, a Jew judging a Jew or a gentile judging another
gentile. What Paul is standing on is the fundamental Jewish understanding of the Biblical
principle of "measure for measure"; proportional justice. No one is special enough to hold
themselves outside of humanity, expecting preferential treatment from the Lord.
Verse 4 essentially repeats to Jews the same warning Paul gave to gentiles in chapter 1 verse
21. It is that to sin and then believe one can find a way to avoid judgment is to show contempt
for God's mercy. When Paul speaks of forbearance, kindness and patience he is saying that
God, in His loving-kindness, often withholds immediate judgment in hopes that the sinner will
repent. The thought Paul is getting at is that perhaps a Believer who does something wrong,
but nothing bad happens to him in the days following, says to him or her self: "I knew it! I'm
OK. God loves me so much that even when I do wrong He won't do anything to me. So I can
relax and know that doing a wrong thing here and there isn't going to cause me any
problems." This kind of attitude is not only an affront to God's character of loving-kindness,
but it misses the point of why it is that God typically doesn't immediately punish: His purpose
is NOT to overlook sin but rather that perhaps the sinner will come to realize his or her sin and
change their mind. His hope is that the sinner will notice the great mercy God has shown him,
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
and take this opportunity to turn from sin if nothing else as an expression of gratitude to God
for not being so quick to punish. The wrong kind of attitude assumes that either God is weak or
that He is a kindly Grandfather who just can't bring Himself to punish his grandchildren; He
just winks at sin. This is a truly dangerous sense of false security. And while this principle
applies equally to both gentiles and Jews, Paul is currently aiming this mostly at Jews for a
good reason: it was commonly held within Second Temple Judaism that merely being a Jew
granted you a get-out-of-jail-free card. It reflected a belief that while gentiles were inherently
evil in God's eyes, Jews were inherently good. It exposed a mindset among Jews that they
were privileged and operated by a different set of rules than gentiles. Being a Jew meant
(generally speaking) immunization against God's wrath. Paul is trying to dispel this mistaken
belief among Jews (and apparently the Believing Jews of Rome felt exactly the same as their
non-Believing brethren otherwise Paul had no reason to discuss this matter at such length).
In verse 6 we see that Paul has Psalm 62 in mind such that he quotes the last few words of
62:13: " He (God) will pay back each one according to his deeds". Let's look at the words
of Psalm 62 that precedes this:
Psalm 62:11-13 CJB
11 Don't put your trust in extortion, don't put false hopes in robbery; even if wealth
increases, don't set your heart on it.
12 God has spoken once, I have heard it twice: strength belongs to God.
13 Also to you, Adonai, belongs grace; for you reward all as their deeds deserve.
A day is coming, says Paul, when God's pent up anger against you for your sins will manifest.
Those with an unrepentant heart are in for a big surprise: it turns out that whatever they
counted on to keep them safe from God's wrath was a false hope. There is no safety from
God for your sins when you refuse to repent. Once again: Paul is addressing Believers, not
pagans. Your salvation is a mirage, says Paul, if you do not have a repentant heart. Your
salvation is a millstone around your neck if you think that you can go right on sinning,
contemptuously, as before your supposed redemption because it will NOT deliver you from
God's wrath.
Hebrews 10:26-27 CJB 26 For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the
knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but only the
terrifying prospect of Judgment,
Rather, says Paul echoing Psalm 62, each person will be paid back according to their deeds.
Uh oh. How can this be? It is standard Christian doctrine that once we've prayed the sinner's
prayer henceforth our deeds count for nothing. In fact, even good deeds can be a bad thing
because works are for Jews, not for Christians. Certainly that can't be!
But then comes Romans 2 verse 7: "
7
To those who seek glory, honor and immortality by
perseverance in doing good, he will pay back eternal life."
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
What? To Believers who seek eternal life BY doing good, God will pay back with eternal life?
Let's put that in proper context for the passage we're in: for those who seek eternal life by
doing good deeds, God will reward with the eternal life that they seek. "Doing" is not the belief
in an ideal, and it is not merely possessing a good intent. Neither are "doing" and "faith"
synonymous terms. And "doing" is especially not about any warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts.
Doing is a verb that involves tangible action; it is usually about our behavior. Doing can only be
about a deed or a work (which is exactly what Paul is literally saying). Needless to say these
passages about doing, works and deeds have caused great heartburn especially among the
Evangelical denominations because it sounds as though it is a direct repudiation of Paul's
other statements that salvation is by grace and grace alone.
Ephesians 2:8-9 CJB
8
For you have been delivered by grace through trusting, and even this is not your
accomplishment but God's gift.
9
You were not delivered by your own actions; therefore no one should boast.
So what are we to think? How are we to deal with this conundrum? In Romans 2 Paul is clearly
focused on our works and deeds as playing a big role in our salvation; yet in Ephesians he
seems to contradict himself. We'll talk about that more in just a bit. But one thing is clear: there
are only two possible outcomes for every human being as they stand before God to be judged.
We will either receive eternal life or we will receive God's wrath. There is no middle ground,
there is no third option. And as Paul is making it abundantly clear, this reality applies to all
humans, gentile or Jew. Verse 9 gives us a clue as to where Paul is going with this line of
thought because there he highlights disobedience to the truth as what it is that brings on
God's righteous wrath. Then he goes further and says as regards God's wrath because of our
disobedience, it is "to the Jew first then to the gentile". What this means is "to the
Jew especially", and there is a reason for this: as God's chosen people they bear a greater
responsibility to God to obey Him. Jews get a priority when it comes to blessings; therefore in
"measure for measure" they get a different kind of priority for wrath. But gentiles are still liable
as well.
This brings up another issue; since it is disobedience that brings about God's wrath, and
disobedience brings the same negative consequences to either Jew or gentile, then what is
this disobedience in reference to? That is, disobedience to what? Are we to think that the Jews
are to be obedient to one thing while gentiles are to be obedient to something else? Because if
that's the case then sin for a Jew is fundamentally different than sin for a gentile. Folks, a
goodly portion of Christianity says "yes" to that; sin is different for a Jew than for a gentile. A
Jew is to obey the Law of Moses but a gentile is to obey the Law of Love. In fact, it is thought
by much of Christianity that for a gentile Christian to obey the Law of Moses is itself sin. Even
more, a common refrain among Christians is "what is sin for me isn't necessarily sin for you".
Or, "Whatever the Holy Spirit tells me is sin is only sin for me, and whatever the Holy Spirit
tells you is sin is only sin for you". So the idea is that there is no standard for sin any longer;
since Christ has come, sin has been fully customized, individual by individual. If that is the
case then God has set a double standard; one standard for Jews, another for gentiles. One law
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
for Jews, another law for gentiles; maybe even a different and unique standard of sin for every
single gentile Believer.
Numbers 15:15-16 CJB
15 For in this community there will be the same law for you as for the foreigner living
with you; this is a permanent regulation through all your generations; the foreigner is to
be treated the same way before ADONAI as yourselves.
16 The same Torah and standard of judgment will apply to both you and the foreigner
living with you.'"
A foreigner means a gentile. And this passage is emphatic that there is but one law and
regulation for all, Jew and gentile.
James 4:12 CJB 12 There is but one Giver of Torah; he is also the Judge, with the power
to deliver and to destroy. Who do you think you are, judging your fellow human being?
So we learn from Holy Scripture that there is but one law, one judge, and one law giver;
therefore disobedience can only mean disobedience to the same law since there's only one.
And gentiles and Jews are beholden to the same judge who judges us under the same
standard because there's only one judge and one standard.
What then do we do with Paul's declaration that good deeds lead to eternal life and bad deeds
to God's wrath? Paul is not claiming that salvation happens by good deeds; rather it is that
good deeds are the obvious and expected outward fruit of salvation. If good deeds are not
present, then it defies a person's claim to salvation. But even more, judgment is part of the
future for all people, saved and not. We are all going to be judged by our deeds in the end.
Listen yet again to Matthew 5:17 -19.
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB
17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to
abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
So here we see that when woven together, what Paul says and what Christ says gives us a
better picture of the place of obedience, works, and deeds in the lives of Believers. I'll say it
again: Paul is ONLY talking to Believers. Everything he has to say about the importance of
works and deeds as it applies to our coming judgment before God, he is saying ONLY to
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
Believers. So indeed salvation by grace makes us a member of the Kingdom of Heaven. But
thereafter our obedience to God's Torah commandments (the Law of Moses) has substantial
determination at judgment on God's determination of our level of status in the Kingdom of
Heaven (apparently a status that shall remain unchanged for an eternity). In a sense, the
salvation granted by God for the person who trusts in His Son Yeshua is taken into account at
the time of judgment when our deeds are weighed. Our salvation grants us membership in the
Kingdom of Heaven. However it is our works and deeds that happened during our lifetimes that
confirm our actual level of faith and trust in God, and measure for measure that level of faith
and trust will determine our level of status in the Kingdom of Heaven.
2Corinthians 5:9-10 CJB
9
Therefore, whether at home or away from home, we try our utmost to please him;
10 for we must all appear before the Messiah's court of judgment, where everyone will
receive the good or bad consequences of what he did while he was in the body
Paul makes it clear in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians that everyone, including Believers, will
appear for judgment in front of Messiah our Lord. And what is it that will we be judged upon?
Says Paul, it will be upon what we did while we were in the body (that is, while we were still
alive).
And yet, there is another aspect of good deeds versus bad deeds; of obedience versus
disobedience. It is as Paul explained in Romans chapter 1 that when we don't know God (and
that is ALWAYS because we don't WANT to know God), and God has therefore abandoned
us to our sins and lusts, when we adopt lifestyles of sexual perversion, greed, dishonestly, and
a laundry list of other vices, these wrong behaviors are the outward proof of our inward
condition regardless of what we may claim or think of ourselves (that is, claiming that we are
Believers while at the same time being disobedient and knowingly doing evil things). The fruits
of our wickedness reveal who we really are.
So while we can't merit our deliverance and redemption by our good deeds, nor necessarily
be refused for our past bad deeds IF we have repented and changed, if we are accepted into
the Kingdom by means of our faith and trust in Yeshua then our status before God after our
death will be judged solely by our deeds while we were still alive. Folks: these lives matter.
What we do matters. In fact our deeds and works matter infinitely more AFTER we are saved
than before. So if you are allergic to the Biblical fact that your works and deeds are critically
important in your relationship with God, and will be to your dying breath and thereafter into
eternity, then you need to get over it in a hurry. Sadly most of the time worshippers of God
think this way is because of some pretty bad doctrine that has been taught in a number of our
evangelical denominations; doctrines that simply defy Holy Scripture.
Verse 13 continues with the theme of "doing". 13
For it is not merely the hearers of Torah
whom God considers righteous; rather, it is the doers of what Torah says who will be
made righteous in God's sight.
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
Paul is primarily talking to Jews (Believing Jews). So Paul continues to demonstrate that he
thinks the Torah must continue to be observed. At the same time, Paul is also making it clear
to Jews that just because they listen to the Torah doesn't mean that they will do the Torah.
God isn't impressed with career students; God wants career doers. But before Paul says this,
let's back up one verse to verse 12. Here he says something that can be confusing to the
casual reader.
When Paul speaks of those operating without the Torah, he is speaking of gentiles in the
sense that they didn't receive the Torah from God. Therefore when he refers to those
operating within the Torah, he is referring to the Hebrews (Jews) because God gave the Torah
to them, through Moses, at Mt. Sinai. So Paul is not thinking of the gentiles in terms of being
lawless; they are not outlaws, thugs. Rather it is that it is the Law of Moses, the Torah, which
makes the Jews who they are; it is what defines their identity as God's set apart people. So
the distinction between gentiles and Jews, to Paul, is that the Jews live within the sphere of the
Law, and gentiles live outside of it. He is saying this: those who sin outside the sphere of the
Law (gentiles) will perish, just as those who sin inside the sphere of the Law, Jews, will be
judged by the Law. Remember: Paul has already explained that the natural law that gentiles
follow is essentially the same as the Law of Moses that the Jews follow. So the sin of gentiles
will be judged according to the natural law, and the sin of Jews will be judged according to the
Law of Moses. The standard of judgment and the outcomes for both people groups is the
same. So back to verse 13: it is because of this logic that Paul can say that even those who
live according to the Law of Moses (the Jews) will nevertheless be condemned by the Law
when they sin. And since we have carefully studied the Law (the Torah) here at Seed of
Abraham Torah Class, then we know what this means. The Law of Moses not only defines
behavior in a nuanced and extensive way, it also lays out the penalties for violation of these
defined behaviors. These penalties are called the curses of the Law. They vary from restitution
for stealing, to loss of life for kidnap and murder.
Paul expands on this line of thought in verse 14 as it applies to gentiles. He says that when
gentiles who don't have the Law of Moses nonetheless follow the spirit and principles of the
Law, then they themselves are the Law. Again: this means that they follow the natural law,
which is but a general version of the Law of Moses. "Being themselves a law" means that the
Law is "within them"; it is made part of them. The law (meaning the natural law) is contained in
their innate sense of right and wrong (something that all humans have in common). Then we
get a familiar promise from a distant past in verse 15. Paul says that the lives of these gentile
Believers demonstrate outwardly the behaviors that the Law of Moses demands; and this is
because the desire to do what is right before God (that is the desire, and the knowledge, to
follow God's laws) is written on their hearts. Where have we heard this phrase "written on
their hearts" as regards the Law, before?
Jeremiah 31:30-32 CJB
30 "Here, the days are coming," says ADONAI, "when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Isra'el and with the house of Y'hudah.
31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 6 - Chapter 2
hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated
my covenant, even though I, for my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI.
32 "For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says
ADONAI: "I will put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
Jews also have the natural law written on their hearts since even though they are set apart
from gentiles, yet they obviously remain part of humanity in general. So since the natural law is
written on every human being's heart since the days of Adam and Eve, then why in Jeremiah
do we find that the "Law" will be written on the hearts of the houses of Israel and Judah as a
sign of a new covenant with God? Because the Law of Moses, which was given to Israel on
stone tablets, something external to them, will eventually be given to all Israel in their hearts.
Will it be an entirely different law than the Mosaic Law or the natural law, which itself is nothing
but a more or less condensed version of the Law of Moses? No; it is as David Sterns, the
author of the CJB says: God will put the Torah (the Law of Moses) into Israel's heart because
it is fully compatible with the natural law that is already in Israel's heart. In fact, it is the
completed Torah that will be written on their hearts just as Yeshua said that He came to
complete the Torah, not to abolish it.
We'll continue with Romans chapter 2 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 7, Chapter 2 continued
Put those thinking caps on today, it is going to be challenging. The things that often get
glossed over in Romans we're going to attack with gusto! In Romans chapter 2 the role of the
Law (or as the CJB prefers to say, the Torah) for both gentile and Jewish Believers takes a
prominent place in the narrative. We'll take this slow and easy because the issue has
immense implications for Judeo-Christianity. We're also going to spend some time examining
common terms that we find within Christianity, but those terms are often not defined. This is
where your study and knowledge of the Torah, and hopefully your study of the Book of Acts
with us, will pay off handsomely.
The issue is made all the more complex because of the terminology that Paul employs; and
unfortunately we have the added problem of Paul necessarily using Greek to transmit his
Hebrew thoughts. And for 21st century English speakers yet another challenge is that we go
through yet another layer of translation from Greek to English; Hebrew thought converted to
Greek, and then the Greek converted to English. Step number one for Bible students is
recognizing that there are challenges due to translation issues and they matter when we
attempt to understand Holy Scripture. It is when we deny these issues that poor doctrine is
created. Step number two is realizing that it doesn't take a PhD to understand the issues that
we will explore and find an understandable solution. The Bible wasn't created by or for
academics and theologians. It was created for average people to hear, read and understand. It
is just that the distance of language, culture, and a couple thousand years of history puts us at
a disadvantage, so we have to work a little harder to get to where God intends for us to go.
So while Jews of the first century could better understand by the context what Paul is getting at
(even if they didn't necessarily agree with his conclusions or his theology), gentiles who don't
understand Judaism are hopelessly lost in space unless they have been carefully familiarized
with Jewish culture of the Biblical era and the role of Halakhah (Jewish law) versus the Bible.
If we don't get this right, when we get there some weeks from now, it'll make the Romans
chapter 7 discussion on the matter of the Law seem somewhere between maddening
contradiction and a sort of first century religious/psycho-babble. Most denominations solve this
problem by picking a few phrases of Paul's out of context, and then relying on them while
ignoring his other phrases that seem to say exactly the opposite. We'll begin to tackle some of
this today and I hope it is as interesting and eye-opening to you as it is to me. But you will need
to focus.
One of the things to look for today is how Paul defines what "doing the Law" and "the work of
the Law" actually is. Since Yeshua says in Matthew 5:17 that He didn't abolish the Law; and
He says in Matthew 5:19 that to the measure one obeys the Law one's status in the Kingdom
of God will be determined, then what "doing the Law" amounts to especially in modern times
ought to be of supreme importance to every Believer.
1 / 8
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
Matthew 5:19 CJB 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches
others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys
them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
So once you become a member of the Kingdom of Heaven you will be * somewhere within
a hierarchy (as determined by God) from least to greatest fully dependent upon how zealously
(or not) you obeyed the Law of Moses. However becoming a member of the Kingdom of the
Heaven is, ironically, NOT dependent on obeying the Law, it is entirely a matter of trusting God
and having faith in Yeshua as our Messiah and Lord. And no doubt Paul's definition of "doing
the Law" comes as something of a surprise especially to his Jewish hearers of his day. So
open your Bibles to the Book of Romans as we continue with this important letter that has
become the fulcrum upon which modern Christianity balances. Whether it ought to or not is a
matter of opinion.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 2:12 - end
We just heard verse 12 in the CJB but now I'd like to read it to you in the King James Version.
KJV Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Notice how the CBJ chooses to use the word Torah where the KJV and virtually all other
English versions use the term law. Whether your Bible reads "without law" or "outside the
framework of the Torah" both of these phrases are actually attempted translations of the Greek
word anomos. Nomos means law, or a custom that is regularly obeyed; anomos means "not
law" or "without law" or "in ignorance of the law". Nomos and anomos are common words in
Greek that apply to any law in most any context in general. Therefore for Roman gentiles it
was up to the context of the conversation to flesh out how the term was meant. To the Jews,
however, the term law had a smaller range of meanings but in every case it pointed towards
their religious laws that are seen as having come (one way or another) from the God of Israel.
Even more, how we moderns take the term "law" in English has a number of variables. In the
Bible, however, we should take nearly every instance of the word "law" as being a religious
term. In non-religious usage, in the gentile world, the term law is used differently. For instance:
quite often the police or the sheriff is called "the law". Or we say that someone is "breaking
the law", and we mean that there is some societal statute, civil or criminal, that a perpetrator is
violating and so we think of it in a legal sense. Or we can speak of "the law" as an entire
system of rules enforced through various governmental institutions. Thus it is important that we
remember that in the Book of Romans the Hebrew Paul is thinking in Hebrew cultural and
religious terms, and not in Roman gentile cultural terms. So especially when he speaks of
someone sinning without the Law, clearly this helps us understand that Paul means "Law" in
the Hebrew religious sense of it. Therefore "without law" should be better translated "without
THE Law" because Paul is speaking of the system of rules that govern all Jewish behavior
within Jewish culture; and in his letters Paul usually calls this "The Law".
However as Paul uses the term "the Law", and often within Hebrew culture as well, "the Law"
is not a precise or technical term; it is general. In much earlier OT times "the Law" strictly
2 / 8
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
meant the Law of Moses (the Torah) as received at Mt. Sinai. But in Paul's day, when the
synagogue and not the Temple was the most influential and prevalent religious institution of
the Jews, the term "the Law" had taken on a more broad meaning and in general it more
meant Jewish Law, Halakhah, which was a blend of manmade traditions, plus interpretations
of the Law of Moses, plus what is often called oral law. Oral law is a little different from
Tradition in that it is said among academic Jews that what is written down in the Law of Moses
is NOT all that Moses received on Mt. Sinai. There were other laws (called Oral Laws) that
God also gave Moses but for various reasons Moses chose NOT to write them down; rather
they were handed down word of mouth (orally). Yet they remained valuable and valid and (for
Jews) equal in inspiration and authority as the written Torah. So for a Jew the term "the Law"
pointed towards a large body of rulings that they lived by that theoretically had its common
foundation based upon what God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And this is because Halakhah
purports to be the proper interpretation of what God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai, no matter how
fanciful the interpretation might be.
While that might have your head spinning, in effect it is almost exactly how Christianity works
today, and has for centuries. For instance; Christians often speak of the Trinity and when
asked about it say that it is in the Bible. I have news for you; it is not. The word Trinity never
appears in the Bible, OT or NT. Rather the word Trinity is actually the name given to a
manmade Roman Church doctrine that seems to have come about in the 3rd century A.D. This
Church doctrine of the Trinity arose mainly from an interpretation by some early Church
authorities concerning this passage in Matthew 28:19: CJB Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go and
make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the
Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh,
As you might imagine there is NO single, universally accepted Doctrine of the Trinity within
Christianity since indeed it is a manmade doctrine and is not a direct passage from Holy
Scripture. Nearly every denomination has its own version of it and some denominations don't
believe in the three-Gods-in-one theology at all. But the point is that those who do say that it is
valid also say that it's in the Bible. In reality, however, the Doctrine of the Trinity is only an
interpretation of a Biblical passage made by certain Church authorities; but in common
Christian speech and thinking, Holy Scripture and the Doctrine of the Trinity are essentially the
same things, carrying the same weight of authority. That's how it worked in Judaism when the
term "the Law" was used. Some of what was said to comprise "the Law" was indeed taken
word for word directly from Holy Scripture (the Law of Moses, the Torah), but most of the time
by Paul's day what was ordained and followed by Jewish society was what manmade
Tradition (Halakhah) said that the Law of Moses meant or led to.
In any case the point is that often in the NT era, like here in Romans 2:12, the term "the Law"
had a rather broad, general sense to it that didn't intend to make any scholarly or technical
differentiation between the Law of Moses and the various manmade Jewish traditions that had
developed especially since the Babylonian exile; it was all considered as equally valid and of
the same substance and, most importantly, of the same level of divine authority. Again; it
works very similarly in the Christian Church as regards doctrines and Scripture.
As used here in Romans chapter 2 what we must try to grasp is that "the Law" was more than
3 / 8
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
a set of religious rulings for Jews to follow; it described and instilled an entire way of life. The
Law is what defined Jewish identity. Following "the Law" was what separated Jews from
gentiles. So to a Jew a person who lived "without the law" indicated a non-Jew....a gentile.
There was no such thing as a Jew who lived "without the law", or that person wouldn't still be
considered as a Jew.
And interestingly Paul says that a person who was raised without the Law (a gentile) was as
liable to offend God and perish as the Jewish person who was raised in a society that revolved
around the Law (the Law in its broad sense, more than only the Law of Moses) but
nonetheless this Jew could offend God by not obeying the Law. So what Paul is plainly saying
is that simply being a Jew doesn't immunize you from God's wrath. In Christian-ese: simply
being a Jew doesn't save you. And especially so if you break the Law that is the main thing
that you cling to as what separates you, even elevates you, from gentiles.
Then in verse 13 Paul says something that would have really bothered Jews of his day. He
says that being one who hears the Law doesn't make the hearer (a Jewish hearer) righteous
before God. Rather it is those Jews who DO the Law who are righteous. Here are a couple of
things to notice. Notice how it is not that those who "read" the Law, but rather those who
"hear". Where did one "hear" the Law in Paul's day? In the synagogue. Traditions were
taught orally, as they had not yet been written down. And Holy Scripture, since it had long ago
been translated into Greek, was more accessible to the average Diaspora Jew than it ever had
been. But still most Jews did not possess a Bible. So indeed, nearly universally Jews were
"hearers" of the Law (Traditions and Scripture), but they heard it in the synagogue from the
mouths of Pharisees and not at the Temple. The other thing is that in Paul's day the Jewish
societal belief was that being Jewish automatically made you righteous before God. Any kind
of salvation experience for a Jew had to do with being physically saved from a bad
circumstance (for instance, from being occupied and oppressed by Rome). The kind of
salvation that Christianity envisions, and that Paul preaches, is meant in the spiritual sense
(that is, we are saved in the sense of our souls being given eternal life by the Lord). This is the
reason that Paul is explaining to these Jews of the city of Rome that merely being Jewish
doesn't keep them safe from God's wrath. And this thought would have severely agitated
most of the Jewish community including some of the Jewish Believers.
So, says Paul, it is the doers of the Law who are judged righteous by God. And, surprisingly,
this applies to the group that does NOT have the Law (gentiles) as well as the group that
DOES have the Law (Jews). KJV Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the
law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
unto themselves:
Needless to say verses 13 and 14 seem very difficult to understand and would have upset the
Jewish community to no end. But now here is something that causes great consternation within
the Christian community. It is best seen in the KJV. In verse 13 we read: KJV Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be
justified.
Did you hear that? Doers of the Law shall be justified. Let's pause to define a term. In
4 / 8
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
Christian parlance, the word "justified" means to be made righteous before God through faith
in Christ. Modern Christianity, dating back to Luther, emphasizes that since justification is
through faith alone, then it is impossible that works (physically doing something) can be
involved. So how does that operate here when clearly Paul says that it is the "doers of the Law
(who) shall be justified"? Folks, this is one big sticky wicket because if we stop right here and
go no further, understand that Paul just literally said that if one does the Law then that will be
their justification before God. So does Paul mean that one can either be justified by doing the
Law, or justified by faith in Christ? That indeed there is an option A and option B for salvation?
Or, as some have decided, Jews are justified by doing the Law but gentiles are justified by faith
in Christ? So indeed Christ is NOT for the Jews but only for gentiles?
Part of the problem with this verse comes with the translation from the Greek to the English
and a determination by Christian commentators to insert the word "justification" where I don't
think it necessarily belongs. Essentially they try to make two English words "righteous" and
"justification" that both come from the SAME Greek word mean two different things in order to
wind up with a theological result that they have predetermined. Let me help you through this
very real dilemma. The reality is that the Greek words used in verse 13 for when this verse
says that merely hearers of the Law will NOT be just before God, but only the doers of the law
shall be justified, are the exact same root word in slightly different forms and both times they
are used in our passage they actually mean righteous (not justified). Recall from an earlier
lesson in Romans that the standard root word for righteous in Greek is dikaioo and when it is
used here in verse 13 dikaioo is applied to both to the hearer of the Law NOT being deemed
by God as just and to those who are justified by DOING the Law. That is, English translators
customarily choose to use the words just and justified instead of using the more standard and
correct word righteous. This is the result of lots of literary gymnastics by Bible commentators to
try and figure out how to wiggle out of the problem that on the one hand Christians proclaim
that we can only be justified by faith in Jesus, but on the other hand we have Paul saying
bluntly and clearly that the doers of the Law shall be justified. And we find this is in all English
versions so it is not an error.
EP Sanders dealt with this conundrum in a wonderfully creative way. He says that we first
need to replace the word "justified" (a uniquely Christian term when used within the Church
that means to be made righteous on account of Christ), with the word righteoused. I know that
sounds strange; Sanders is adding an e-d to the end of the noun righteous to make it into the
verb righteoused (a word that doesn't actually exist in the English vocabulary). But since the
Greek words used in verse 13 are but variations of dikaioo, which clearly means righteous,
then it is much more helpful and appropriate to our understanding to use our newly minted
English word righteoused than sticking the word justified in here just because we want to give it
a distinctively Christian connotation. The beauty of using the word righteoused is that it
doesn't carry a particularly Christian or a particularly Jewish context with it. By using
righteoused then we understand the true meaning of what Paul is communicating, which is to
say that a person is made truly righteous ONLY by God Himself taking a divine action upon
that person to bring it about. God reached down from Heaven and righteoused that person.
That is, God, through His own unique power and sovereign decision, changed a person who
was not righteous into a person who now is righteous in His sight. He righteoused him.
5 / 8
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
But now we have the other dilemma to deal with. Is it true, then, that one can either do the Law
in order to be made righteous OR one can have faith in the Jewish Messiah to be made
righteous? The means to untangle this is to understand what the phrase "doing the Law"
means according to Paul.
Paul said in verses 9 and 10: Romans 2:9-11 CJB
9
Yes, he will pay back misery and
anguish to every human being who does evil, to the Jew first, then to the Gentile; 10 but
glory and honor and shalom to everyone who keeps doing what is good, to the Jew first,
then to the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
So the reward for those who do evil is misery, and the reward for doing good is glory, honor,
and shalom. Thus we find that the results for those who "do what is good" are the same as for
"the doers of the Law". And this is why Paul is able to say that gentiles who do what is good,
but don't have the Law, are the same as Jews who have the Law and they do the Law. Both
gentiles and Jews are essentially doing the Law because to Paul "doing the Law" is a faith␂oriented obedience to God.
What does this mean for us? Please focus all your attention on this, because if you can
apprehend this it will answer many questions for you. It means that Paul is saying that it is the
Law (the Law of Moses, the Torah) that in its entirety embodies the standard that MUST be
met if a person hopes to be made righteous by God (or in Christian terminology, if a person
hopes to be justified by God). But by this I do NOT mean that the Law itself is what makes us
righteous. Rather I mean that Paul's purpose is NOT to show how a person can be justified by
God (be righteoused) but rather what the standard for justification is. And the standard is set
forth in the Law by showing us what is good and right in God's eyes, and what is not.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. It's the Olympic trials and you are a star pole
vaulter. But the rules say that it isn't simply an issue of whoever vaults the highest at the trials
gets a trip to the Olympics. Rather it is that a particular height has been set by the Olympic
Committee as a standard and it must be met or exceeded if a pole vaulter is going to qualify for
the Olympics. If the height standard is 17 feet, and best pole vaulter present at the trials only
vaults 16'11", then nobody gets to go because nobody met the standard. But even more, the
Olympic committee doesn't tell you HOW to get yourself to that standard. All they've done is
to set the standard height that must be met, along with certain rules as boundaries for however
you intend to get there. And Paul says that the Law lays out the standard for being right with
God. How are you able to meet that standard? That's a different issue. But, whether Jew or
gentile, whether you have the Law of Moses as your moral guide or you have the natural law
that all human beings have as your only moral guide, the standard for being righteous is the
same.
But if the Law is the standard, how can people who don't have the Law (gentiles) even know
what the standard is? Paul answers that question in verse 15 (we'll go back to the
CJB). Romans 2:15 CJB 15 For their lives show that the conduct the Torah dictates is
written in their hearts. Their consciences also bear witness to this, for their conflicting
thoughts sometimes accuse them and sometimes defend them
6 / 8
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
While the CJB captures the overall meaning of this verse very well, I also want you to hear this
same verse in a different English version, the ESV, because it is a little more literal to the
Greek. ESV Romans 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts,
while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even
excuse them
A couple of things to see here. First, Paul says that the lives of those gentiles who naturally
don't have the Law of Moses as their guide, nonetheless demonstrate that the WORK of the
Law is written on their hearts. Since to a Christian a work is a physical action, how can a
physical action be written on our heart? Note that Paul is not speaking of the natural law in this
case; rather he is still speaking about the Law of Moses. And the point he is making is that
there are gentile Believers who have no knowledge of the Law of Moses and yet, ironically,
they naturally do the requirements of the Law. They have deep within them a natural moral
sensitivity that reflects God's will and standards that one would sooner expect to find in Jews
who have the Law of Moses as their guide.
But second, to put a finer point on it, this verse doesn't say that "the law is written on their
hearts"; it says that the "work" of the law is written on their hearts. Here is another verse that
gives Christian Bible commentators fits because of this allergic reaction to anything that a
Believer might do that even closely resembles "a work". And this is especially so when Paul
says plainly, "the work of the Law is written on their hearts". Here's the thing; once again it is
the English translation from the Greek, and not understanding Hebrew thought, that gets in our
way and can give us a mistaken understanding.
In this verse the English word "work" (work of the Law) is what is usually used to translate the
Greek word ergon. And while "work" isn't necessarily incorrect, without fail we take the word
"work" to mean something like "labors" or "deeds". It has to do with our exertion or effort.
But ergon has a little different sense to it in this context. It more leans towards meaning the
business of something; what a certain thing is supposed to accomplish. We might say that the
work of the United States Constitution is to bring equal justice for all. Or, for instance, there is
an old management saying that the business of business is business. In other words, a
business shouldn't get bogged down in other things or get distracted by other matters that in
the end don't contribute to what the purpose of their business actually is. So in the 21st century
way that English is spoken, rather than use the word "work" that makes us think that this is
talking about deeds, a better translation would be: "They show that the business of the Law
is written on their hearts..." In other words, Paul says that what the Law was created to
accomplish.....the business of the Law....what the Law is truly all about....is written on these
gentile's hearts even though they don't have the physical, written Law of Moses to guide
them. The purpose and the standard of the Law is what is revealed to the hearts of these
gentiles, even though the details of the Law are not.
I've used the term heart many times now but I want to remind you that I'm only using it the
way the Bible literally uses it. But while in modern times we speak of the heart metaphorically
as the seat of our emotions that is not what the Bible means. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
says this about the use of the word heart in the Bible: "We associate thought and memory
with the brain today; but in the idiom of the Bible, thinking is a function of the heart". So
7 / 8
Romans Lesson 7 - Chapter 2 cont.
heart in the Bible refers to our thoughts, not how we feel. The better word for our modern
vocabulary instead of heart is mind. Every time we see the word heart in the Bible, we need to
insert the word mind, according to what the words heart and mind means in English today
versus what the word heart meant in ancient times. Biblically the heart is not about acting
emotionally; it is not about feelings. Biblically, heart is about thinking, remembering, calculating
and making decisions and moral judgments. So what is NOT being talked about is some kind
of ethereal activity or unexplained emotional impulse that a gentile can't trace as to why he
makes the moral choices that he does. Rather it is that Paul says that the standard of the Law
has been written into the thinking and rational part of a human being, his mind, and that is why
he is making the good moral choices that he is. And it is God who put it there.
Let me pause to make this point: Paul is saying all this in order to lead up to something. Paul is
simply laying out the foundation of his case in an orderly way. And what he is doing is puting
Jews and gentiles on equal footing, and explaining that Jews are not so privileged that their
Jewish heritage somehow exempts them from God's wrath on judgment day. But neither are
gentiles automatically evil (simply because they aren't Jews), and that because they don't
know anything about the Law of Moses doesn't mean they are automatically condemned to
God's wrath at judgment day. And finally, after making all these points, he declares that what
he is saying is in accordance with the Gospel of Christ.
For the final time in this lesson, I'll remind you that this entire letter he is writing (the Book of
Romans) is addressed to Believers and not all Romans or all humans in general! He is talking
to Believers about Believing gentiles and Jews, but addresses each group within their own
social context (the natural law and doing good for gentiles, the Law of Moses and obeying the
Law for Jews). But then he ends up by saying that both amount to the same thing. And it is
that "doing the Law" is in reality obedience to God, based on faith and trust. And that "doing
the Law" in that sense is thus a necessity for both gentiles and Jews to avoid God's wrath at
the judgment.
Beginning in verse 17 he continues his diatribe and takes aim at the thing that Jews value so
greatly. In fact the word itself that Paul takes aim at, circumcision, is a term that Jews in his era
actually called themselves: the circumcised. Thus Jews would call themselves the circumcised,
and so called gentiles the un-circumcised. So as confounding as the next few verses might
sound to gentiles and English speakers, Paul was doing no more than using the common
Jewish vernacular of his day.
And, we'll finish off Romans chapter 2 and get a start on Romans chapter 3 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 8, Chapters 2 and 3
If you think that after going through the mind twistingly difficult words of Paul in Romans 2 last
week, that it is going to get easier this week, think again. Part of what makes this so
challenging for us is that Paul's terms, and the way they are translated into English, are so
strange sounding to us. But even more, if we are truly going to understand Paul's words then
we have to do that from the perspective of his 2000-years-ago Jewish cultural understanding of
what he meant by what he said.
We left off at verse 17 as Paul continues his diatribe against the Believers of Rome; people he
had never met. While in chapter one he took aim mostly at gentiles, here in chapter 2 he is
taking aim mostly at Jews. But always these gentiles and Jews are assumed to be Believers in
Yeshua. However Paul seems to be greatly concerned about what it is that they actually
believe and practice, what doctrines their leaders and elders have taught them, and he clearly
has a suspicion that while they claim trust in Yeshua they also continue, on some level, to
participate in the anything-goes Roman Hellenistic society that is permeated with sexual
deviance and perversion.
I want to make a point that I haven't since the Introduction to the Book of Romans. While in
the field of literature the style that Paul is writing in is legitimately called "diatribe", yet from a
Hebrew viewpoint he is merely making his case as any good studied Rabbi would. We find his
style of making an argument used throughout the Jewish Talmud. The Talmud is a compilation
of Jewish religious rulings that we would correctly call Halakhah, Jewish Law. It is true that the
first part of the two works that together make up the Talmud (the Mishnah and then the
Gemara) wouldn't exist for a couple of hundred years after Paul's day. But that doesn't
change the fact that the Talmud merely records and uses the traditional way that Rabbis had
long been debating and forming their religious interpretations and the resulting religious
regulations that control Judaism. Regulations that we call Jewish Law or Halakhah. This reality
will come more visibly into play as we get into Romans chapter 3, but it also plays a role in
Romans chapter 2.
Since Christian Bible commentators have historically been uninterested in factoring in the
realities of the Jewish society of 2nd Temple Judaism (Christ's and Paul's era) in their
commentaries, because their view is that the New Testament belongs to gentile Christ
followers and Jewishness plays no real role; and because of the additional understanding that
the deciphering of the Dead Sea Scrolls has recently brought us, only in the last decade is it
finally being acknowledged that much of what Paul says in his letters he says in the Jewish
idiom of his day and thus it has a definite effect upon the meaning. However change is a slow
process, and how these new findings will effect ancient and cherished Church doctrines (most
of which have been derived from the Book of Romans) is unclear. What is clear is that there
will be an effect, much of it not welcome by the more established and well known Christian
denominations that have little interest in challenging some of their own faith principles that
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
have made them who they are. So don't expect to take what you will learn to other Believers
and have them instantly embrace it. Change takes time.
Let's read the final few verses of Romans chapter 2.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 2:17 – end
The word circumcision is repeated numerous times in these verses, as is the word
"uncircumcision", which isn't really a proper English word. And the reason that uncircumcision
isn't a real word is that it is an oxymoron; it is not something that can rationally exist at least on
the physical level. That is, a male cannot be circumcised and then have it reversed (un␂circumcised). Although I am told that there actually have been surgical attempts to hide a
former circumcision in modern times, even so, especially in Paul's day, uncircumcision was a
physical impossibility and no one would ever think in terms of having his * somehow
reattached!
Therefore a person who Paul identifies as being uncircumcised merely means a male who has
not yet had a circumcision. Since Jewish males are given no choice in the matter (they are
circumcised as infants on the 8th day after their birth), then "the uncircumcised" can only mean
gentiles. So there is a distinct difference between what Paul is meaning when he says
"uncircumcised" as opposed to "uncircumcision". Uncircumcised means a gentile;
uncircumcision means a Jew who had a circumcision but now it has been reversed. But since
that is physically impossible, then obviously Paul means uncircumcision in different sense. But
what sense?
The reason that Paul uses the word circumcision is precisely because in this portion of his
letter he is talking primarily to Jews. And for a Jewish male there existed then, and exists now,
no more emphatic indication of his Jewishness than having been circumcised. Circumcision
was, in many ways, a point of great pride because it was felt that God so exalted His Jewish
people that to be Jewish was part and parcel of being accepted by God as righteous. So
gentiles (the uncircumcised) were generally seen as evil and not righteous and could expect
only God's curses and His wrath; but Jews (the circumcised) generally thought of themselves
as good and righteous and could expect only God's blessings and His mercy. Trying to
puncture this wrong attitude of his fellow Jews is largely what the Book of Romans has thus far
been about, as step-by-step Paul builds a case for accepting the Gospel of Christ that he
teaches; a Gospel that applies equally to Jews and gentiles. And it begins by the Jews he is
currently addressing understanding that this sense of security that they have been relying
on....that is, that merely being Jewish....merely being circumcised....was sufficient to be seen as
righteousness by Yehoveh, is really a false security because it isn't true.
So if you are a Jew reading what Paul says in the first part of these final verses of chapter 2,
then it appears that Paul is saying that circumcision does not and never had any real value. I
suspect that many Jews were offended and never read any farther. And I assure you from
having taught Romans many years ago in a very different setting, most Christians take this as
meaning that Jews no longer having any special status before God, and so satisfied, they
don't read any farther either. So Paul begins by making it crystal clear who it is that he is
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
challenging: he says "if you call yourself a Jew".
Now would be a good time to demonstrate something that might not have occurred to you. The
terms Hebrew and Israelite were no longer in fashion in the New Testament era. Rather the
term was Y'hudi; we translate that into English as Jew. But there is another very important
dynamic that is not to be missed; tribalism has given way to nationalism. That is, the Old
Testament dealt with Israel at a time when they were organized as 12 distinct tribes, and the
tribes each continually vied to be the most dominant of their brother tribes. This was not a plot
or an aberration within Israel; it was (and remains) the very essence of the tribal way of life and
social structure, and we see it still being played out today in the Middle East and in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other backwards places where Islam dominates.
But when the 10 Israelite tribes of the north (typically called Ephraim in the Bible) were exiled
by the Assyrians from their tribal territories in the early 700's B.C., then the rivalries among the
tribes of Israel all but ceased. All that remained of Israel were two tribes: the tribe of Judah, a
huge dominant tribe, and the much smaller and weaker tribe of Benjamin. Without doubt there
were also miniscule remnants of the other 10 tribes who declared loyalty to Judah, or through
family ties due to marriage, were allowed to remain within the tribal territories of Judah and
Benjamin. But especially upon the return from the Babylonian exile around 500 B.C, the
Hebrews who came back to the land saw themselves as more unified, belonging to one nation,
Judah, and not divided up as members of particular tribes. Certainly they remembered, and no
doubt were usually proud of, their ancient family heritage that would have tied them to one or
another of the 12 tribes. But just as Americans can look back a few generations and be aware
of our heritage as having come from German, or English, or French, or Asian stock, we don't
identify ourselves or feel any special loyalty to Germany, England, France, or perhaps China.
We think only in national terms: we are Americans. So by Paul's day, Jew was a national term
(like American) that indicated an attachment to the nation of Judah. The Diaspora Jews
personally felt, and were seen by gentiles, as maintaining a hereditary tie to the nation of
Judah, and therefore they maintained a certain measure of loyalty to Judah, often above
loyalty to the country and culture they now lived among. And this was always a source of
problems for the Jews and it regularly led to persecutions. That is, the Jews tended not to fully
assimilate into whatever nation they wandered but rather they set up their own separate
Jewish communities. And at the bottom of this mindset to disperse but also to be separate
was the matter of circumcision, which was the foundation of their desired identity as Jews. So
circumcision played a big role in Judaism.
Thus when Paul goes through this rather frank, harsh, and a bit tedious and repetitive diatribe
in verses 17 – 29, it is because of the cultural reality for the Jews at that time that I have just
described. In many ways this is all about what Paul sees as a bad attitude and he was intent
on adjusting it. Paul saw the issue of circumcision (in the sense that Jews typically thought of
it) not only as an unnecessary wall of division between Believing Jews and Believing gentiles
that God had never authorized, but also as a possible barrier to Jews accepting the true
message of the Gospel and their own Jewish Messiah. Because after all: if in their Jewish
pride they truly believed that their Jewishness (expressed most fundamentally by their
circumcision) automatically brought them righteousness before God, then why would they need
to be "saved" by the Gospel of Christ?
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
Paul explains that as Jews they have convinced themselves that since they HEAR the Law
spoken then they must know what is right and wrong. So how is it then that since they see
themselves as especially qualified guides to the blind and instructors for the spiritually unaware
(the spiritually unaware meaning gentiles), that the very things gleaned from the Law that they
instruct others to obey, they themselves violate? They claim to have all the advantages of
being God's chosen people, of being the privileged receivers and keepers of God's Word to
humankind, but in the end they don't do what God's Word demands. Let's remember who the
teachers of the Law were in Paul's day: the Pharisees. And what did the Pharisees live by and
teach? Halakhah; Tradition. Even though Jews said among themselves that they obeyed the
Law, for them the Law wasn't actually the original Law of Moses and it hadn't been for several
centuries; they lived according to religious rulings (Halakhah) that various groups of Pharisees
taught in the synagogues, and we hear Yeshua rail against this in the Gospel of Luke.
Mark 7:1-14 CJB
CJB Mark 7:1 The P'rushim and some of the Torah-teachers who had come from
Yerushalayim gathered together with Yeshua
2
and saw that some of his talmidim ate with ritually unclean hands, that is, without
doing n'tilat-yadayim.
3
(For the P'rushim, and indeed all the Judeans, holding fast to the Tradition of the
Elders, do not eat unless they have given their hands a ceremonial washing.
4
Also, when they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they have rinsed
their hands up to the wrist; and they adhere to many other traditions, such as washing
cups, pots and bronze vessels.)
5
The P'rushim and the Torah-teachers asked him, "Why don't your talmidim live in
accordance with the Tradition of the Elders, but instead eat with ritually unclean
hands?"
6
Yeshua answered them, "Yesha'yahu was right when he prophesied about you
hypocrites- as it is written, 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are
far away from me.
7
Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were
doctrines.'
8
"You depart from God's command and hold onto human tradition.
9
Indeed," he said to them, "you have made a fine art of departing from God's command
in order to keep your tradition!
10 For Moshe said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Anyone who curses his
father or mother must be put to death.'
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
11 But you say, 'If someone says to his father or mother, "I have promised as a korban" '
" (that is, as a gift to God) " ' "what I might have used to help you,"'
12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.
13 Thus, with your tradition which you had handed down to you, you nullify the Word of
God! And you do other things like this."
So the result of this hypocritical behavior of these Believing Jews Paul is berating in chapter 2
is that God's name is being blasphemed by gentiles. In other words, these Jews who think
their Jewishness (especially marked by their circumcision) gives them special privilege before
God, and even those who claim to have some sort of belief in Yeshua don't live the good and
righteous lives that are the standard presented in the true Law (the Torah, the Law of Moses),
and the result is that the gentile nations think that what Jewish Believers believe is all rather
worthless since it certainly doesn't seem to be reflected in their lives. These Jews Paul is
addressing are hurting the cause of the Gospel.
Wow. What an indictment and how deeply we all had better think about this as it pertains to
ourselves and to whatever congregation or fellowship we belong. Are we so rules conscious,
so firmly entrenched in our manmade traditions, and so certain that we hold all the truth, and
yet we don't display and live out the most fundamental elements of our faith so we're mostly a
turn off to people who desperately need Christ but in us they see no reason to seek Him?
Mathew 22:36-40 CJB
36 "Rabbi, which of the mitzvot in the Torah is the most important?"
37 He (Yeshua) told him, "'You are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your strength.'
38 This is the greatest and most important mitzvah.
39 And a second is similar to it, 'You are to love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All of the Torah and the Prophets are dependent on these two mitzvot."
Most Christians are familiar with verses 37 – 39. But verse 36 and verse 40 are generally
overlooked. Verse 36 says that the commandments to love God and love our neighbor are
taken from where? From the Torah, the Law of Moses. Loving God and loving our neighbor
isn't a New Testament innovation; Christ says it comes from the Law. But equally important
are the words of verse 40 when Yeshua says that all of the Torah (the Law) and the Prophets
are built upon the foundation of these two bed-rock God-principles. That means that the 10
Commandments rest upon loving God and loving our neighbor. The 10 Commandments are
the 10 basic divine statements about how we show love to Our Creator and to our fellow man.
And then the remaining 600 + laws of the Torah rest upon the 10 Commandments, each of
them a nuance or a case study of one or another of the 10 Commandments and each giving
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
important instructions regarding everyday circumstances, behaviors and predicaments and
showing us how to love God and love our neighbor in the midst of our circumstances. But if
however we take these laws to mean and to live out is not done in an attitude of sincerely
loving God and loving our neighbor, then we've more than missed the mark; we have not
attained nor recognized the standard for righteousness that the Law was created to show us.
This is precisely what Paul is accusing the Jewish Believers of Rome of doing and he's
reading them the riot act because of it. They of all people should know better, because as
Jews they have had every advantage and especially they have had the Law in their midst for
1300 years.
So in verse 25 Paul now takes direct aim at the bull's eye of pride of these Believing Jews of
Rome: their circumcision. They have leaned on their circumcision, depended upon it as proof
of their righteousness, and that was never what was intended by God. Now I'm going to step
on some toes. Within the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movement is this insistence among
many that they are Torah observant and you should be as Torah observant as they are, in the
standard they set, or you are less pious than them. This is the 21st century version of Paul's
rant in Romans about Jews and their wrong-minded pride and reliance on being physically
circumcised (indicating to them a national attachment to Judah, and a belief that being Jewish
made them righteous). Let me tell you something: no one is Torah observant. And that goes for
the most fastidious Ultra-Orthodox living in Israel as well. For one thing, about one-third of the
Torah is directly dependent upon altar sacrifices, a Temple and a Priesthood, none of which
exists. For another, many of the commandments are nearly impossible in today's world under
today's laws and governments. This idea of demanding supposed rigid Torah observance
according to the standards of some particular group almost always incorporates mostly
Halakhah along with a healthy dose of personal preference, and very little of the Biblical Law
of Moses.
Does that mean that after years of saying otherwise that I'm now saying we should not obey
the Law of Moses? As Paul would say, "Heaven forbid!" I'm saying that we need to be
humble enough to realize that as hard as we may sincerely try, and should try, we simply can't
do it all and insist that we are Torah observant because in some cases circumstances prevent
it, although in other cases (such as Kosher eating) it can be done rather easily. In other cases
laws are stated in an ancient cultural idiom that no longer exists, and we're not even sure how
those particular laws were carried out in ancient times.
At the other end of the scale, I must also say that any excuse for saying that since some laws
can't be done then that means we don't have to do any of them is based on poor Bible
scholarship. There has never been in a time in Israel's history from the moment they received
the Law on Mt. Sinai, that they could do every single law precisely as written. Some laws were
entirely circumstance related; some couldn't be done until Israel crossed the Jordan and
settled in Canaan. Because of the fall of mankind and the inherent fallen nature of the world,
many times one law would inherently conflict with another in their non-ideal world, just as it
does in our non-ideal world. Once the Israelites got to Canaan there were other circumstances
that prevented some laws of being carried out as written. They couldn't carry out all the Law in
exile, but the Scriptures make it clear that they were never excused from doing the parts of the
Law that they could do, especially as regarded morality and worshipping God. If the principle is
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
that every single one of the 600 laws and commandments must be doable to its fullest at the
current moment or none are enforceable, then never has the Law been enforceable. But of
course the Bible makes it clear that that has never been God's attitude, instruction, or
standard.
Even so, as we have learned that the Law is not abolished and as Believers in Christ we are
indeed to obey it as best as can be done, we do it not to attain salvation but rather in
obedience as the redeemed lifestyle of one who has been saved by grace. We must also not
stand in judgment of others because they do the Law somewhat differently than we do, or
perhaps don't do what we strongly believe they ought to do. And we must always carry out our
desire to obey the Law in light of what our Messiah and Lord taught us: do the Law in the spirit
of love, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and do the Laws for the purpose and pattern
they were intended, which is to do them in far more than merely the ritual or the letter.
So in verse 25, after Paul seems to almost shame the Jews for even having a circumcision, he
backtracks a bit and says that circumcision certainly has value, but only when you do what the
Law says. Of itself, without accompanying proper behavior, you might as well have your
circumcision undone. On the other hand, verse 26 says that if an uncircumcised man (a gentile
Believer) lives his life by doing what the spirit and standard of the Law requires, won't it be as
though he was one of God's set apart people: a Jew? In fact, this gentile Believer will act as a
kind of judgment against a Believing Jew who knows all about the Law and in obedience to the
Law has received a circumcision, but chooses not to be obedient to much of the remainder of
the Law.
Then we get one of the more controversial and difficult statements so far: verse 28 has Paul
saying that a true Jew or a real Jew isn't one who has merely had a circumcision in his flesh;
but as it turns out, that's about as far as his faith takes him when it comes to doing the Law.
And in fact, the point of circumcision is not about an operation in the flesh, but rather it is an
important spiritual issue. Circumcision was always meant to be an outward sign of an inward
spiritual condition. And the internal condition was to be a circumcised heart.....spiritually
speaking, not literal. So a gentile Believer who trusts God and strives for the standard that the
Law demonstrates, and does it with a sincere, loving, contrite heart, is more of a true Jew than
a Jew who has had a circumcision and knows the Law backward and forward but doesn't do
the Law or have a good spirit about whatever part of it he does do.
What is a "real Jew"? This has been debated endlessly. But clearly to Paul the standard of
whether a person is or is not a "real Jew" is a spiritual measure and not a physical measure.
So as it allows for the idea that a Believing gentile should be counted as a "real Jew" in the
sense that Paul means it, I agree with that concept. But as Paul says clearly, it is meant purely
in a spiritual sense and not in a literal sense. So it is not that a God-fearing gentile becomes a
physical Jew or even a national Jew. A Believing gentile does not suddenly have the right to
immigrate to Israel as a Jew. It is also not that gentiles replace physical, national Jews. And it
is not that gentiles suddenly acquire a Hebrew heritage or supernaturally find themselves with
Israelite genes. Rather it is that Israel (and therefore Jews) was always about reflecting
spiritual ideals of God's set apart people, whose main task was to serve God and bring about
His will on earth. God was faithful to them; Israel was not faithful to Him. From the time
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
Abraham was set apart, it was made clear that a gentile, by declaring Abraham's god as his
own god, could become part of the set apart people. Essentially all any gentile does to come to
the Lord, even in modern times, is to declare that Abraham's god, the God of Israel, is his or
her God . Although I truly doubt that most gentile Christians even realize that that is what
they're doing when they accept the Lord.
Because by Paul's day the term Jew had become more of a national title that also includes a
national religion (Judaism), I think I much prefer, and wish Paul had used, the term "true
Israelite" rather than "true Jew". Because I think Israelite is closer to what he actually
intended. Technically it was Israel that was meant to embody God's ideal of a set apart people
for Himself; not Jews per se. But, once again, Paul of course speaks in the idiom of his day
and in his day no one talked any longer about Israelites or Hebrews; those were more or less
dead terms. Rather it was only about the remnant of the Israelites, the Jews.
Let's move on to Chapter 3.
But before we do let me briefly set the stage. First, there should never have been a chapter
break at this point; it completely disrupts the flow and to most Believers it has the force of
separating what is being said in chapter 2 from what is being said to begin chapter 3. Second,
the first few verses of chapter 3 answer the obvious burning question just left hanging at the
end of chapter 2. And the question is this: If Israel (and the Jews) are God's covenant people.
And if circumcision is the God-required sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and one of the laws of
the Mosaic Covenant. And if God Himself has divided the world's population into two groups:
Hebrews and everybody else and circumcision is a required ritual to be identified as a Hebrew.
Then after everything Paul has just said about gentiles and Jews being equally liable to sin in
God's eyes, and therefore being equally liable to God's wrath, what is the point of being a
Jew? Why continue with male circumcision as a required sign of being Jewish? Has, indeed,
the advent of Christ changed the entire dynamic and indeed God has backed away from His
old covenant people, the Hebrews, and become instead the God of the new covenant people,
gentile Believers? Or just as profound, has God abolished the distinction that once existed
between Hebrews and gentiles?
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 3 all
Paul, the Rabbi, in typical Talmud style, then asks the question at hand that is intended to lead
to a religious ruling. The question is: "Then what advantage has the Jew?" Of course the
question means: then considering what has been previously said, what advantage does a Jew
have over a gentile....if any? Does it still mean anything to become a member of God's
covenant people? Now if gentile disciples of Christ answered this question after reading what
Paul just said about the equality of Jews and gentiles in the first 2 chapters of Romans, with
Paul even seemingly berating his fellow Jews over the matter of circumcision, then we would
be compelled to answer, "No advantage whatsoever". And, I'm sad to say, that is generally
what a good portion of the Church has done. It would intellectually dishonest to not admit that if
there really is no advantage for being a Jew, if there is no benefit from being circumcised, this
can only mean that the words of the Old Testament are a false witness or that God is not the
faithful husband to Israel that He always claimed to be. As the renowned Bible commentator
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 8 - Chapters 2 and 3
Charles Cranfield once courageously said about this passage: "The question raised here is
nothing less than the question of the credibility of God."
Let me paraphrase that. If throughout the Torah and the Tanakh (the Old Testament) God
could claim an ongoing faithfulness to His people, even in the face of their faithlessness to
Him, and promise them that He would be their God forever. If God could establish a set-apart
people, lead them into 4 centuries of slavery in Egypt, rescue them and give them the Torah,
guide them through a forbidding wilderness to their own land, and offer them a justice system
that promised atonement for their sins and that this justice would be forever, and then abandon
it all and give it instead to Israel's enemies, the gentiles, what sort of God is this? Why should
we believe the promises of the New Testament that are supposed to be "forever" if God could
simply extend it to His worshippers and then pull it all back from us if He gets upset enough or
changes His mind? Cranfield is essentially posing the question that I posed in my introduction
to Genesis many years ago.
Christianity honestly believes that God broke His promises to Israel, revoked not one but two
covenants that He said would be forever (the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenants), and then
made a new one, with a new set of rules, and gave it to gentiles. So if this is possible, if indeed
that happened, why should any of us believe that at some point God might not revoke the new
covenant, and give us a yet newer one with entirely different terms from the previous two? One
that perhaps doesn't even involve Christ? The good news is that this long held Christian
premise is a false one simply based on an anti-Jewish prejudice. God did not abrogate any of
His covenants; He has stayed completely faithful to His Word and gives us no reason to
suspect that He won't always be faithful to His Word.
Paul, the articulate Rabbi, even nuances his question to the straw man a bit more by asking a
second one; he says, "What is the value of being circumcised". So the issue of circumcision
for Believers is back on the table. And he answers it: "Much in every way". Suddenly the entire
dynamic of Paul's diatribe begins to come into focus, and it is not what we might have
expected given what was said in chapters 1 and 2. We'll look at where Paul now seems to be
heading, next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 9, Chapter 3
We barely got started on Romans chapter 3 last time, and this week we'll continue it. Before
we re-read Romans 3 I want you to keep in mind that what Paul is doing (at least for the first
few verses of Romans 3) is defending Israel's election as God's set apart people. Romans
chapter 3 is but a continuation of chapter 2 (there never should have been a chapter break
here as it completely disrupts the flow of Paul's thought pattern). Paul's opening words are
"Then what advantage has the Jew"? This question is what sets the stage for Paul to make
the argument that Israel was, is, and shall remain God's set-apart people despite what he may
have said in chapter 2. So whatever commonality Jews and gentiles share does not diminish
Israel's special standing before the Lord. On the other hand being Yehoveh's set-apart
people, having received and ratified covenants from God that makes them set-apart, does not
so totally separate them from the rest of humanity that they are considered exempt from the
shared fate of the human race. They are still liable to sin and to experience God's wrath.
Throughout this chapter we see Paul struggling, as do we, to define the place of the Law
(meaning the Law of Moses) within the lives of Believers: Jew and gentile. But the real reason
for this struggle is not so much that the Law's place in the lives of worshippers of the God of
Israel has changed due to Christ's advent, because it hasn't. The reason for the struggle is
because the place and purpose of the Law within 2nd Temple Judaism had become corrupted
and was now not being utilized as God intended. Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount was largely
about recovering the true purpose and meaning of the Law of Moses. Yeshua was not trying to
reform or recast the Law itself; in fact he stated straightaway that not the tiniest speck of the
Law would change until Heaven and Earth passed away. Rather He was trying to reform the
religion of the Jews (Judaism) that was misusing and misunderstanding the Law. In many ways
that is what Paul is trying to do. He is trying to put the Law into the proper perspective as it was
always intended because it had become diluted, subverted, and twisted over the centuries
since the Babylonian Exile as manmade rules and regulations (Tradition, Halakhah) crept in at
an ever-increasing rate, until finally Yeshua could say:
Matthew 15:7-9 CJB
7
You hypocrites! Yesha'yahu was right when he prophesied about you,
8
'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me.
9
Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were
doctrines.'"
So up to now in the Book of Romans we find Paul teaching some basic God-principles that the
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
Believing Jews of Rome, especially, should have already known. But their Judaism had
distorted these God-principles by intertwining them with manmade doctrines such that they had
to un-learn much of what they believed before Paul could teach them the divine truth.
Ironically, this is precisely the place that we find Christianity in the 21st century. The Church
has so mixed God's Word with the hundreds of doctrines of men (supplemented by the new
political correctness of the West) to the point that for the average laymen it is nearly impossible
to distinguish truth from error. So it falls to a few individuals to step forward and try to re␂establish God's most basic principles by re-establishing God's Word, just as it is, as the only
reliable source of truth. And just like what Paul discovered, there is much un-learning that must
come about among Believers before Godly illumination can take place and rid us of our false
beliefs.
Let's re-read Romans chapter 3.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 3 all
Let me begin by reminding you that what we see here, especially at the opening of the chapter,
is Paul speaking in a way that is quite familiar in the Jewish Talmud. Paul debates as a Rabbi
because he is a Rabbi. His method is to present a problem and then argue against a previous
ruling in order to arrive at the correct solution. The solution then becomes a doctrine or a
regulation. So he begins the argument by asking the question: "Then when advantage has the
Jews?" This refers back to chapter 2 where Paul explains that Jews and gentiles are equal
before God. And rather surprisingly, when it seems as though from everything he has said up
to now the answer would be "no advantage", he answers the question: "Much in every way".
The Jews' advantage, says Paul, stems from the reality that they have a God established
priority, a pre-eminence, which in every respect is valuable and important. And then Paul
begins to explain the most important aspect of this pre-eminence: they have received, and
were entrusted to keep and maintain, the Word of God. No other nation, no other people, had
this received such an honor. When we hear Paul say that the Jews' advantage is "Much in
every way", we need to take that in a conversational sense and not as a theological absolute.
Often I hear Pastors and Bible teachers say that in the Bible 'all means all: 100%'. No it
doesn't. In the Bible the terms "all" or "every" mean mostly, almost entirely, or the vast
majority. "All" and "every" are not meant to be precise terms; there will be exceptions to the
rule.
And yet, even with their great distinction as the keepers of God's oracles to mankind, the Jews
failed in their obligations. And so Paul acknowledges this failure by asking yet another question
in verse 3. He asks: 'but if Israel was unfaithful, does that lack of faithfulness cancel God's
faithfulness towards them?' That, my friends, is a very volatile question because it involves the
issue of whether Israel is still God's special people, or has God abandoned them because
they broke the covenant? Or in what in Theology circles is called supersessionism
(Replacement Theology), due to their rebellion has Israel been replaced by the gentile
Church? For centuries, including in our day, much of the institutional Church answers this
question with a resounding, "Yes it does!" It would have been nice if Church authorities would
just read, and take seriously, a couple more verses because in verse 4 Paul answers the
question that he asked to his straw man. He says that if some Jews failed by being unfaithful to
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
God, that this certainly does not affect God's faithfulness to them. Let's be clear that this
faithfulness of God has to do with His being faithful to the covenants that He made with Israel.
And conversely, Israel's unfaithfulness is based upon their not being faithful to those same
covenants. So while Israel broke their end of the deal, God kept His (and continues to keep it).
Thus the covenants remain intact and effective (the Covenants of Abraham and Moses) not
because Israel upheld them (they didn't); it is because God, the guarantor of the covenants,
upheld them. Therefore the advantage that Israel and the Jewish people have always enjoyed
over the gentiles continues enforce. Gentiles have not superseded Jews as God's covenant
people. Gentiles do not have an advantage over Jews.
So Paul refutes the straw man's suggestion by saying "Heaven forbid!" in answer to the
question of whether God has rescinded His faithfulness to the covenants He made with Israel.
In Greek the term "Heaven forbid" is me genoito. Literally it translates to "let it not be".
However what we are actually dealing with is Hebrew idiom, and it gets watered down when it
is expressed in Greek. I showed you a little trick a few lessons ago to find out how we can, in
some cases, better understand what the Hebrew thought is behind these Greek words of the
New Testament. The trick is that we go to the Greek Septuagint, which is a very early
translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). Then we compare the Greek next to the
Hebrew and we can see which Greek word was chosen to translate a particular Hebrew word
in the Old Testament. Next we can investigate exactly what that Hebrew word meant, which
tells us how it was also meant for the Greek equivalent word to be taken. Once we know that,
we can apply it generally anywhere we find that same Greek word, OT or NT. In the Septuagint
(the Old Testament) it is the Greek words me genoito that are used to translate the Hebrew
expression "chalilah". Chalilah is a very passionate and strong expression of intense
negativity. In the Old Testament chalilah is often translated to English as "a curse on it" or
"away with it". This is why you'll see some English translations say "God forbid" or "Heaven
forbid" because in English those are intensely negative terms. But in reality the words God,
Heaven and forbid are not there. It is merely an attempt to show just how emphatic of a
response Paul is making. And yet, there is one other element. Saying "chalilah" is a standard
Rabbinic response in the Talmud for when one Rabbi disagrees with the premise and/or
religious ruling that another Rabbi has established. So what we read is Paul arguing in a
familiar, standard Rabbinic way.
Verse 5 enters us into a fascinating theological whirlpool, and I will confess up front that my
recent research has caused me to change my mind on what I used to think this passage was
conveying to us. The passage reads: "Now if our unrighteousness highlights God's
righteousness, what should we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict His anger on
us?' Along with most other Biblical commentators I used to believe that what is being said as
a theological principle is that it is the extreme nature of humanity's lack of righteousness that
necessarily demonstrates God's profound righteousness. Thus, says Paul, would God be
unrighteous to inflict His anger on us? To which Paul answers "Heaven forbid". If this was true
how could God judge the world?
The usual theological assumption is that God uses the unrighteousness of mankind to prove
His own righteousness. Let me say it another way: it is regularly assumed that Paul is saying
that God more or less allows people to sin in order that He has a means to show the world just
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
how righteous He is. This is rather standard Christian doctrine, but I don't buy it because if
God had to allow wicked things to be done for sin to happen in order to prove His own
righteousness, then how can it be just to turn around and punish man for committing these
same sins? After all, according to this theological rationale, if mankind didn't sin then God
would have little way to prove His righteousness. Or in another way of thinking, God's
righteousness is to be measured relative to man's unrighteousness. None of this works; to me
the entire premise is just wrong minded. This explains why Paul replies in a typical Rabbinic
fashion to this straw man's ruling that he disagrees with, "Heaven forbid!" But what is he
saying "Heaven forbid" to? He is not replying to whether God is unrighteous to inflict His
anger, but rather he is saying "Heaven forbid" to the entire line of reasoning. That is, it is a
false reasoning to think that God's righteousness can only be established in proportion to
mankind's sinfulness.
He follows up his "Heaven forbid" response by saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that if God has
to measure His faithfulness in proportion to mankind's unfaithfulness, how can He judge the
world? We'd have a sliding scale of God's righteousness that is forever moving according to
the forever moving level of mankind's righteousness! Essentially Paul is saying that the notion
that God's faithfulness must be demonstrated by mankind's unfaithfulness is absurd. And he
goes on to give an example of its absurdity in verse 7. There he says (and again, I
paraphrase), if I lie, and by means of being a liar this elevates God's righteousness
(remember that sliding scale?); and by my lying God therefore receives even more acclaim and
honor, then why should I get punished as a sinner for making God even more glorious by my
lying? Isn't it advantageous to God for me to sin, since the more sin I do the more glory He
gets? I hope you're seeing why this standard theological doctrine that indeed our
unrighteousness is meant to highlight God's righteousness simply can't be so. And that
doctrine pretty much has to ignore everything Paul says in verses 7 and 8 because in verse 8
Paul then takes such faulty reasoning to its logical conclusion. He says that if the straw man's
suggestion was really true, then what else is a good Jew to do in response but to say, OK; then
"let us do evil so that good can come from it". In fact, apparently this same doctrine of God's
righteousness being established according to humanity's unrighteousness, which much of
Christianity has held to for centuries, is what many Jews held to in Paul's day. And so he says
that even though as Jews we certainly don't think or say to one another "let's do evil so that
good can come from it" in fact the Jews are accused by gentiles of believing that, due to their
tradition that man's unrighteousness establishes God's righteousness.
Let me pause to say this: our Christian doctrines are vitally important. They are not just
important to what we believe but also to how we are perceived by the unsaved world. In
Scripture we find that God is always concerned with the worldly perception of us, His
worshippers, because it reflects on Him. And when we don't bother to think through some of
these doctrines that we causally tell others that we believe in, and so they should too, and
when we don't examine where they logically lead to or ask where they came from, it can not
only relegate us to living a deception, it can also make us appear anywhere from mean to
irrational to the world. And thus it makes God look mean and irrational. What we just examined
is a perfect example of this.
In verse 9 Paul expands on the argument with his straw man. He says, "So are we Jews better
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
off?" Notice first of all that Paul says "we Jews". To those who think Paul has "converted" and
thus become a "Christian", which at all times referred to a gentile, this is yet another proof that
he did not. He is a Jewish Believer in Yeshua; not a Christian. I'll paraphrase Paul's question:
In light of Believing Jews having an advantage over Believing gentiles in every way, does this
make us (Jews) better off than our gentile brothers in Christ? To which Paul answers the straw
man: "not entirely". So this modifies his answer to "Then when advantage has the Jew" when
he said that the advantage was much in every way. But now he says that there are limitations.
And that limitation is that in the end a Jew is as much a slave to sin as a gentile. Thus any
thought of inherent Jewish superiority over gentiles because of their election as God's people
must be abandoned. A hierarchy of superior Jews versus inferior gentiles was never God's
intention. Whatever advantage Jews have is contained in the fact that God has given to them
the honor of having His Laws and commands in their midst, and in having a set apart land, and
the special protection and guidance of God. So while the Jews do have God's Torah to show
them what sin is and it isn't, the Torah (the Law) doesn't have the power to change people's
lives. The Law doesn't have the power to break the stranglehold that sin has upon people;
ALL people, including Jews. Further, no matter how hard a Jew might try to obey the Law, God
is going to judge each person (Jew and gentile) impartially based on what they do. So even
though trying not to sin, when a Jew inevitably sins he is as much liable to God's wrath as a
gentile who doesn't have the Law, and sins.
To back up his premise that Jews are no better off in this respect than gentiles, he begins to
list several Bible passages and weaves them together to form a logical thread. Verses 10
through 12 are from Psalms 14:1-3, and 53:1- 3. Verse 13 is Psalms 5:10 and 140:4. Verse 14
is Psalm 10:7. Verses 15 through 17 is Isaiah 59:7, 8 and Proverbs 1:16. Verse 18 is Psalm
36:2. The flow is that no one is righteous or kind (righteous unto God, kind unto his fellow man)
so no one is adhering to the two God-principles that undergird the entire Torah: "Love your
God with all your heart, soul, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself". Further
everyone sins if not by deed, certainly by their words (what comes up from their throats and
exits from their mouths). And everyone has evil in their lifestyle rather than only good (even if
they may think otherwise). I can't tell you the number of people I've spoken to who won't give
their life to Messiah, but do firmly believe they're going to Heaven because they are basically
good people. Therefore they don't feel they need to be saved from their sins, because they
see no sin in their lives. Or, even though they may sin, it is small sins and on balance their
good outweighs their bad. And finally Paul says that there is not sufficient fear of the Lord
within people thus they don't have enough wisdom to see themselves as they really are.
Obviously Paul is not suggesting that all people have sinned in exactly the same way or level
of seriousness. But rather it is that among these sins, all have succumbed to one or more. Let
me stop here to say that this is the point at which many commentaries say that it was not ever,
and is not currently, possible to obey all of God's laws and commandments. Thus the Law
was, from its inception, a faulty covenant. I disagree; ideally it is possible to obey everything in
the Torah. The problem for humanity is that from a practical point of view our evil inclinations
are simply too powerfully developed for us to fully overcome them. From a technical
standpoint, we can obey all of God's moral laws, and in fact during the 1000 year reign of
Christ, we will.
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 CJB
11 For this mitzvah which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond
your reach.
12 It isn't in the sky, so that you need to ask, 'Who will go up into the sky for us, bring it
to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?'
13 Likewise, it isn't beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, 'Who will cross the sea for
us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?'
14 On the contrary, the word is very close to you- in your mouth, even in your heart;
therefore, you can do it!
Did God lie to Israel, and to mankind? Or was this just kind of a hyperbolic Heavenly
cheerleading to obey the Law all the time knowing it was not possible? Of course not.
Obedience to the Law is possible and expected for Israel, and all who join themselves to Israel.
Verse 19 is a kind of summary meant to hammer home the point that whether living within the
Law (Jews) or living as part of the non-Jewish world (gentiles), everyone deserves God's
wrath. "Every mouth being stopped" is meant to depict a defendant in a courtroom who has
been pleading his case; but the evidence against him is now so overwhelming that he has
nothing left to say. He is guilty as charged; there is no doubt and he knows that nothing is left
but the verdict and the punishment. So he goes silent.
Recall that chapter 3 is being aimed very much at Jews because Jews in this era sincerely
believed that simply being a Jew exempted them from God's judgment and wrath. And if that
is the case, then they have little need for the Gospel. The gentile who believes he lives a good
and moral life, and the Jew who believes that his fortunate heritage immunizes him from God's
wrath, are in the greatest danger. This is sort of Paul's version of that TV crime show called
Scared Straight where youthful offenders are taken to an adult penitentiary and given a taste of
what true prison life is. Hopefully they'll leave so scared and shaken that they will change their
ways and never wind up there for real.
Then we come to the powerful verse 20. Here Paul states just what the purpose of the Law is,
and what it is not. First, no one will be righteoused by God as a result of obeying the Law. Or in
Christian-eze, no one will be justified by God as a result of obedience to the Law. Then why do
the Law? Because says Paul, the Law shows us what sin is. To do the Law is to do right; to
NOT do the Law is to sin. The Law reveals just how high that standard is in order for us, by our
own deeds, to achieve justification. And even that isn't sufficient because in addition to all
else, our underlying attitude as to why we do the Law matters. The words "For in His sight no
one alive will be considered righteous" is taken from a Psalm of David: 143.
CJB Psalm 143:1 A psalm of David: ADONAI, hear my prayer; listen to my pleas for
mercy. In your faithfulness, answer me, and in your righteousness.
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
2
Don't bring your servant to trial, since in your sight no one alive would be considered
righteous.
So 1000 years before Christ, King David knew that there is no one alive who can be
considered righteous based on their works and deeds. Because of our fallen natures, our evil
inclinations, and the impossible circumstances of the corrupt world all around us, God's
standard of righteousness cannot be met by any normal human being. King David had the Law
of Moses; and he grasped that while obedience to the Law was always the right thing to do, the
Law wasn't created in order to manufacture a self-righteousness.
Then verses 21 and 22 bring Paul's listeners a solution for what up to now has been an
insolvable problem. Everyone in the world, without exception, is going to be judged. If doing
the Law won't be enough to forego judgment, and if sincerely trying to live a good and moral
life won't be enough to forego judgment, then what hope does anyone have? Paul's answer?
There is only one hope and it is expressed in only one way. And that way doesn't come from
doing the Torah, and yet it is in full conformance to the Torah. And that way is that we must be
righteoused by God. And we will be righteoused (justified) IF we trust Messiah Yeshua.
There is an important theological distinction to be made here. Many Bible versions read, or
many doctrines interpret the Bible to say, that it is our faith in Messiah that saves us. That is,
our salvation is more or less dependent on our level of faith. The more faith we have the better
our chances not only of salvation but also of achieving God's favor in other ways. That is NOT
what this passage says. Rather it is that if we are to be righteoused (justified) by God, we must
place our trust in Messiah's own faithfulness. Messiah's faithfulness was, and is, perfect.
Biblically, faithfulness is about being obedient to God and to His covenants. So to be unfaithful
is to break a commandment or a term of a covenant. To be unfaithful is another way of saying
"to sin". Our human faithfulness will always be flawed, if not intermittent. If we have to rely on
our faith for salvation, we're in trouble. I can trust but still not have sufficient faith to be
perfectly obedient to God. Our faith will be sufficient for some circumstances, but not for
others. So in lieu of our faith, we are instructed to trust in Christ's faith. If we trust in Him, God
will substitute Yeshua's perfect faithfulness for our imperfect faith. That is the picture that the
sacrificial system in the Law of Moses paints for us. Animals that are 100% sinless (and thus
can be said in Bible-speak to have perfect faithfulness) can be substituted for our human lives
that are so full of sin and unfaithfulness. And God, in His grace, will deem that animal as
paying the ransom price for atoning for our sins. But atonement for sins is one thing; being
gifted with a saving righteousness is another. Christ provides for both, yet He is not the one
who actually bestows righteousness upon us. The Father is the one who reaches down to
righteous us (to justify us) as a free gift.
Later on in Romans Paul makes a statement about Yeshua's faithfulness that we really must
take a moment to examine. In Romans 10:4 we read this (I'm going to use the KJV because it
is more familiar to our ears):
KJV Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth.
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
I know what this probably sounds like to you, because this verse is the source of much Church
doctrine that says Christ has ended the Law for everyone who believes in Him. That is, we
transition from trust in the Law to trust in Christ. This is not what it says. In fact, it falls perfectly
in line with what we have been studying when we properly understand the meaning of the word
"end"; telos in Greek.
Listen to what the Greek Dictionary says that telos means:
A telos (from the Greek ????? for "end", "purpose", or "goal") is an end or purpose, in a fairly
constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term "teleology,"
roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their aims, purposes,
or intentions.
Oh my! So it doesn't mean end, as in "end of the world" or "end of the road". It doesn't mean
end in the sense of something is over and done. Telos means a purpose or a goal. Let's
reread that verse adding in the word purpose: For Christ is the purpose (or goal) of the law
for righteousness to every one that believes. So the Law is meant to lead us to Christ, and
Christ is the goal of the Law, and He is the one that provides a way for us to attain
righteousness, provided we believe in Him. It is anything but meaning that Christ has done
away with the Law.
In verse 21 Paul makes the statement that even though the Torah doesn't provide the
righteousness that we need, it is a witness to it. That is, the Holy Scripture (in Paul's day that
meant only the Old Testament) presents the plan of God's redemption. Listen to Jeremiah 23.
Jeremiah 23:5-6 CJB
5
"The days are coming," says ADONAI when I will raise a righteous Branch for David.
He will reign as king and succeed, he will do what is just and right in the land.
6
In his days Y'hudah will be saved, Isra'el will live in safety, and the name given to him
will be ADONAI Tzidkenu [[ADONAI our righteousness].
Paul continues the theme that rolls over into verse 23 that since it is God who gives us
righteousness, and since this occurs apart from the Law, then this way to achieve
righteousness applies to both Jews and gentiles. Why? All humanity is in the same leaky boat.
We've all sinned....Jew and gentile.....and we all come up short of being able to earn God's
praise ....Jew and gentile.
Paul's next thought in verse 24 is the center, the focus, of his entire theology. It is that this
righteousness that comes from God comes freely to the one who receives it. And yet there is a
cost even though we don't pay it. Messiah paid that cost through his act, his deed, of
permitting himself to be a sacrifice and a curse in our stead.
I think it is important in Seed of Abraham Torah Class to always realize this amazing reality;
that although we obey God by doing the Biblical Feasts, eating Biblically kosher and observing
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 9 - Chapter 3
the Sabbath, NONE of this is our righteousness. Christ is the vehicle of our righteousness, and
God freely gives us that righteousness through Him. But I would also like us to embrace
something that is going to gain more and more importance as the years go by. The release of
the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows the close connection between the theology of the
NT and the theology of the Essenes who developed their theology from a careful study of the
Holy Scriptures, the Tanakh.
So we'll close today with a short reading from the Dead Sea Scrolls, from what is called the
Community Document, scroll number 1QS. It is beautiful, it is poignant, and it is the truth that
we all need to hear. Listen closely, please.
For to God belongs my righteousness and the perfection of my way, and the
uprightness of my heart is in His hand. By His righteousness are my rebellions blotted
out. For God's truth is the rock of my steps and His power is the stay of my right hand;
and from the fount of His righteousness comes my righteousness. The fountain of
righteousness, the reservoir of power, and the dwelling place of glory are denied to the
assembly of flesh. But God has given (those things) as an everlasting possession to
those who He has chosen. For is a man the master of his way? No; mankind cannot
establish their steps, for their righteousness belongs to God, and from His hand comes
perfection of the way. And if I stagger, God's mercies are my salvation forever; and if I
stumble because of the sin of the flesh, my righteousness is in the righteousness of
God which exists forever... He has caused me to approach by His mercy and by his
favors He will bring my righteousness. He has righteoused me by His true justice, and
by His immense goodness He will pardon my iniquities.
Right there is a wonderful way to express the Gospel. The Essenes seemed to have it
absolutely figured out; everything except that Yeshua was Messiah. Everything except that
trust in Him is how they had to obtain this righteousness from God that they knew they must
have.
We'll finish up chapter 3 and begin chapter 4 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 10, Chapters 3 and 4
I'm not sure that more beautiful, soaring, hope-inspiring words have been written in the Bible
than what we read in Romans 3:24:
CJB Romans 3:24 By God's grace, without earning it, all are granted the status of being
considered righteous before him, through the act redeeming us from our enslavement
to sin that was accomplished by the Messiah Yeshua.
While this is stated in about half as many words in most English Bible versions, the meaning is
the same. It is that salvation and our release from the power of sin is a free gift from God that
cannot be earned or merited by our own good works (nor can it be denied by our lack of good
works). Rather it was accomplished on our behalf by the good works of Jesus Christ,
specifically by Him being so perfectly faithful that He went to the cross as our atonement and
as our Passover Lamb.
Since this indeed is the case, then why does Paul spend so much time talking about, and
teaching about, the Law? It can be reduced to this admittedly over simplistic but nevertheless
true principle: while the Law and the Gospel of Christ are organically connected, they serve
two critically important, but entirely different purposes. The Law and the Gospel are not
competitors; they are teammates. For human or animal life to exist we all must have as basic
needs air, water, and food. These 3 necessities for physical life are critically important and
organically connected, but they are each for entirely different purposes. No one can tell us to
choose one, or even two, out of the three as most important. Any one of the three that is taken
away from us for very long means physical death. It is the same with the Law and with the
Gospel of Christ. For centuries the institutional Church has told us to choose one of the two
(obviously with the intent that we choose the Gospel). God gave us both because we need
both. So Paul is attempting to explain the difference between the Law and the Gospel, and
what the purposes for each are and (just as important) are not. And that we must not confuse
one for the other.
We must never forget that both the Law and the Gospel were given by God to Israel. It is only
later that Christ told His disciples that the Gospel was to be taken to the gentile world. This is
something that confused and angered most Jews of Paul's day. And much of what we have
been reading is Paul explaining himself for bringing the Gospel to gentiles and in doing so
establishing some of the basic principles of our Judeo-Christian faith.
So let's take up Romans chapter 3 at verse 24. We'll reread chapter 3 from verse 24 to the
end.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 3:24 – end
1 / 8
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
Essentially in verse 25 Paul explains the nuts and bolts of just how it is that the Gospel as
stated in verse 24 is able to do what he claims it does. In other words Paul asserts that a
person is made righteous by God's free gift of grace, and not by any kind of work or deed. But
especially a Jew who is steeped in Judaism is going to look skeptically at that assertion for a
couple of reasons. First because it was standard Jewish doctrine of Paul's day that simply
being Jewish was sufficient for God to see a Jew as righteous. And that by doing the Law one
maintained their status as a Jew and therefore maintained their position of righteousness
before God. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but it is necessary. When Jews insisted that
they were doing the Law, they did not specifically mean that they were doing the Law of
Moses. They meant that they were doing Jewish Law; Tradition; Halakhah. The religious
philosophy of Judaism was (and still is) that Halakhah was effectively doing the Law of Moses,
because Halakhah was the rabbinical interpretations of the Law of Moses, which included a
long list of subsequent rabbinical rulings about required behaviors and rituals that were derived
from those interpretations. But were the rank and file Jews consulting the Torah, the Law of
Moses, on religious matters? No. They were following the Halakhot (the many Traditions) that
the Pharisee synagogue teachers said they should be following. Thus there was no longer a
clear line between Holy Scripture (the Law of Moses) versus Traditions of the rabbis.
The second reason that Jews were skeptical of Paul's assertion of salvation as a free gift of
grace for all who believe in Messiah is because they didn't see a Messiah as having any direct
involvement in their spiritual relationship with God. For them a Messiah was merely a real,
physical descendant of King David who would militarily lead the Jews out of being oppressed
by Rome and into a golden era of Israel becoming the dominant world-wide kingdom.
What we ought to be furrowing our brows about is that Paul (at least in his own mind) has
decided that it is necessary to lecture these Jewish and gentile Believers of the city of Rome
about these faith principles. Clearly he is skeptical that they have been taught the Gospel
correctly or that they have been taught the proper doctrines to live their lives by. Paul has not
decided to write an extensive general theology of Christianity and randomly send it off to
Rome. He is responding to what he thinks are certain pressing issues within the Believing
congregations of Rome. And as the Christ-designated Apostle to the gentiles, Paul also
believes that it is not only his duty to set down the doctrines of the faith of Messiah, but that he
also has the authority to do so.
So by way of explanation as to just how it is that God offers salvation as a free gift to everyone
who trusts in Messiah Yeshua, he says in verse 25 that God (meaning the Father) put forth
Yeshua as the sacrifice for sin. Therefore as a sacrifice (and Paul has in mind an altar
sacrifice, not something theoretical or allegorical), the blood of Yeshua meets the Torah
requirement of innocent blood being shed for the sake of the guilty. Let's pause for a moment.
The Greek word hilasterion is what is being variously translated into English Bibles as
propitiation, or sacrifice of atonement, or expiation. What is interesting is that in the Greek Old
Testament hilasterion is used to translate the Hebrew word kapparah. And kapparah means
Mercy Seat (the lid on the Ark of the Covenant). So the proper literal English translation is:
"God put Yeshua forward as the Mercy Seat....." That is, the Mercy Seat is the place where
atonement is made by the High Priest, once per year, for all Israel. Now God has put Yeshua
forth as that Mercy Seat....as that place where atonement must be made. Not allegorically but
2 / 8
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
actually.
I'd like to note that in Paul's day (and since the Jews' return from Babylon) there was no Ark
and no Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies. It had been taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar as
a spoil of war and never returned. So when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies in the
Temple annually on Yom Kippur, he still performed the required ritual of atonement but instead
of sprinkling blood on the Mercy Seat he sprinkled blood onto the floor where the Ark used to
sit. Was this efficacious for remittance of sins for Israel? I can't be 100% certain, but I don't
think so.
Paul continues by saying that this remittance of sin was the result of faith in Christ's blood.
This passage has always created some difficulty because the usual way it is interpreted is that
it is OUR faith in Christ's shed blood that counts as our righteousness. But as Joseph Shulam
points out, that cannot be correct because in order to arrive at that conclusion one must alter
the verb and word order of the verse. And in fact that is regularly done by Bible scholars who
think it makes more sense to alter the order of the Greek words in this passage. But if we leave
the word order as it stands in the original Greek, then the meaning changes from OUR faith to
Christ's faith as the catalyst for atonement and forgiveness. And this meets well with the
meaning of verse 22 that speaks of Yeshua's faithfulness to God. So when properly read this
passage it is saying that atonement has been made through Yeshua's faithfulness by Him
allowing His blood to be that sacrifice of atonement for all who believe. I only point this out
because too much OUR faith is emphasized in modern Christianity, when in fact the Scriptures
point to Messiah's faith and faithfulness as the primary issues. And then we are to TRUST in
HIS faithfulness. And often this manifests in Christians constantly being concerned about how
much faith we have, and thus a higher level of faith brings with it more favor and more rewards.
Or there is a belief that if things don't turn out the way we want them to because we don't
have enough faith, then if only we could muster up MORE faith more of what we want to
happen would happen. Our faith will never be perfect; our faith will never be sufficient to
warrant our salvation. Therefore we are to trust in Messiah's perfect faith.
The remainder of verse 25 and its flow into verse 26 is quite difficult. It speaks of how
Yeshua's sacrifice highlights God's forbearance because God passed over the sins that
people had committed in the past, even though He had never remitted those sins nor punished
the sinners for those sins. To understand this we have to go back a few weeks when we
carefully defined what is meant by God's righteousness. What is the righteousness of God?
And we found that first of all how God's righteousness is defined is entirely different than how
human righteousness is defined. Human righteousness is defined as being right before God,
and by doing right before God. God's righteousness is summed up in His saving will. That is,
God's righteousness is His determination to take people who are not right with Him and to
make them right with Him. In this instance Paul is saying that at least for some, God passed
over their past sins and postponed a punishment they richly deserved. He didn't wink at those
sins or forget them. Rather by postponing the punishment until Yeshua came, now Yeshua's
blood could atone for them once and for all. And the mere fact that God would so graciously do
this magnifies His glory all the more.
So after explaining the reason why Yeshua's death on the cross is the legal justification for
3 / 8
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
God reaching down from Heaven and righteousing those who trust in this amazing protocol of
grace, Paul then asks a simple question in verse 27: "So what room is left for boasting?"
That is, clearly the sinner whose sins are atoned for 1) doesn't deserve forgiveness, 2) has
done nothing to earn forgiveness, and 3) receives the forgiveness as a free gift. Therefore he
can't hold himself up as having worked tirelessly at being Torah observant as the reason why
God would choose to righteous him. His deeds don't earn him merit; they earn him
condemnation if he counts on those deeds to be his righteousness. So as usual, Paul answers
his own question. He says that there is no room at all for boasting about one's works as the
reason for God righteousing him, since works was never the way one received righteousness.
Rather it is trust and trust alone that gains a person righteousness. Paul says it another way in
verse 28: obeying the Law is not how one attains the righteousness that saves.
Paul moves his case forward for gentile inclusion into the Biblical faith in verse 29. He asks the
rhetorical question: Is God only God of the Jews or is He God of the gentiles, too? He of
course answers his own question and he says, yes, God is the God of both Jews and gentiles
because God is one (in Hebrew, echad). Or in modern English, there is only one God so there
can't possibly be separate Gods; one for Jews and one for gentiles. Really? That's funny
because this plainly contradicts another rather widespread Christian doctrine that essentially
does make the claim that there are two Gods: one for the Jews and one for the gentile
Christians. The one for the Jews is the God of the Old Testament, the Father. The one for
gentile Christians is the God of the New Testament, the Son. And if we have two Gods, then
we necessarily have two different loyalties for two different sets of people along with two
separate sets of rules. Paul tackles this question head-on and says no; there is but one God
for both Jews and gentile Christians.
And now in verse 30 Paul draws a conclusion. But let me remind you that throughout this
dissertation he has been following the standard rabbinical Talmud method of making his case.
He presents the question; next he presents the ruling that a previous rabbi made; next he
refutes that ruling (usually by saying Heaven Forbid); and then finally he pronounces his own,
correct, ruling. Paul's arrival at a conclusion is announced by beginning the verse "therefore".
And the ruling is that since there is only one God, logically meaning that God then must be
God of everyone (Jews and gentiles), then God will righteous those who are circumcised
(meaning the Jews) based on their trust, just as He will righteous those who are uncircumcised
(meaning gentiles) also based on their trust.
But now in verse 31 comes the question of the ages. Because of all the previous arguments
about Jews and gentiles, and that the Law (the Torah) does NOT save, only trust in God
saves, does that mean that the Torah is abolished because of this trusting? In other words,
since because of Yeshua's blood sacrifice on the cross in which we can place our trust, does
this render the Law (the Torah) obsolete, replaced, and therefore abolished? How might Paul
answer that question? And regardless of his answer, what might he base his theology on? I
think I know, and I think most of you know. As much as I enjoy using the CJB, on this passage
I want to use the KJV just to demonstrate that it doesn't matter which version we use, the
outcome is the same.
Matthew 5:17-19 KJV
4 / 8
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one * shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do
and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Paul's answer is directly connected to Yeshua's statement. And his answer to the question of
if all that he said regarding equality of the Gospel for Jew and gentile, and that the Law does
not save, means that the Law is therefore abolished.....HEAVEN FORBID! Let's face it; had he
said otherwise, he would have refuting His Savior.
Let's move on to Romans chapter 4.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 4 all
In Jewish terms, Romans chapter 4 is essentially a Midrash (an interpretive discussion) of
Genesis 15:6. There we read: Genesis 15:6 CJB 6
He (Avraham) believed in ADONAI, and
he (God) credited it to him as righteousness.
So Paul is going to justify his assertion that trusting faithfulness is what actually confirms the
Law of Moses (and doesn't abolish it) by citing Abraham. And he begins by addressing a
standard premise of Judaism that clearly existed then, and exists to this day that is called in
Hebrew z'kut avot: the merits of the Fathers. This was a belief that was part and parcel with
the concept that Jewishness itself guaranteed righteousness before God. However it peeled
the onion back another layer by claiming Jewish righteousness on the basis of the
righteousness of their ancestors. The key words of verse 1 are "by his own efforts". In other
words, the Jews believed that Abraham was righteous on account of his deeds and that
Abraham's righteousness had a great deal to do with their own righteousness.
First let me comment that it is sadly fascinating that Abraham is all but disconnected from
modern Christianity, even though Paul has appealed to Abraham on more than one occasion
to prove not only the efficacy of the Gospel, but also of the Law. Abraham is seen by the
Church as more connected to Judaism and to Islam. And yet here in the New Testament Paul
shows us that the plan of redemption that we all count on is directly connected to Abraham.
But even more if Paul can prove to his readers that if Abraham had no claim to glory (because
he did not receive his righteousness through his deeds), then neither can anyone else claim
glory from their own deeds.
Next Paul says that if Abraham was righteoused by God because of his works, then he
certainly would have something to brag about. But that is not what happened; rather Abraham
put his trust in God and God credited this trust as Abraham's righteousness. The point Paul is
making is that the Law didn't yet exist in Abraham's day (it wouldn't for another 6 centuries).
5 / 8
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
So it can't be by doing works of the Law that God saw Abraham as righteous. Rather if any
work was involved, the "work" was merely that of trusting. In 2nd Temple Judaism it was indeed
believed that Abraham was righteous before God on the ground of his deeds. In the Book of
Jubilees (which was written sometime in the 2nd century B.C.) we read that "Abraham was
perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well pleasing in righteousness all the days of
his life". So Paul was disagreeing with standard Jewish beliefs of his day. He says in verse 3,
"But this is not how it is before God", meaning Abraham did NOT establish his righteousness
before God through his works and deeds. Instead Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 as how Abraham
came by his righteousness; and it was simply credited to him by God on account of Abraham's
trust.
So to explain how it was that Abraham was credited with righteousness, Paul provides a
simple analogy. He says that a person who works for a wage doesn't receive his pay because
of a favor. He doesn't receive his pay as a gift or as an act of grace by his overseer. He's
earned it by his own hard labors; the reward is due to him and so he rightfully can glory in it.
On the other hand, if a person does not work but rather merely trusts in God to make people
who are not godly into people who are righteous, then that person has earned nothing and so
is owed nothing. The trust they have in God is simply imputed to them, by God, as
righteousness. What that person received (righteousness) was not owed to him; it was given
as a favor, a gift.
In verse 6 Paul drags King David into the picture to use what he had to say as yet another
proof that works and deeds are not what makes a person righteous before God. In fact Paul is
using Psalm 32 to help to properly interpret Genesis 15.6. Only the first 2 verses of Psalm 32
are quoted by Paul. But it was a rabbinic principle that only quoting part of a passage indicated
that all of the Scripture passage was being referred to and thus ought to be read into the
discussion. So let's hear what David had to say about the source of righteousness (including
for those, like himself, who were Jews and had the Law) by reading all of the rather short
Psalm 32.
CJB Psalm 32:1 By David. A maskil: How blessed are those whose offense is forgiven,
those whose sin is covered!
2
How blessed those to whom ADONAI imputes no guilt, in whose spirit is no deceit!
3
When I kept silent, my bones wasted away because of my groaning all day long;
4
day and night your hand was heavy on me; the sap in me dried up as in a summer
drought. (Selah)
5
When I acknowledged my sin to you, when I stopped concealing my guilt, and said, "I
will confess my offenses to ADONAI"; then you, you forgave the guilt of my sin. (Selah)
6
This is what everyone faithful should pray at a time when you can be found. Then,
when the floodwaters are raging, they will not reach to him.
6 / 8
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
7
You are a hiding-place for me, you will keep me from distress; you will surround me
with songs of deliverance. (Selah)
8
"I will instruct and teach you in this way that you are to go; I will give you counsel; my
eyes will be watching you."
9
Don't be like a horse or mule that has no understanding, that has to be curbed with bit
and bridle, or else it won't come near you.
10 Many are the torments of the wicked, but grace surrounds those who trust in
ADONAI.
11 Be glad in ADONAI; rejoice, you righteous! Shout for joy, all you upright in heart!
So Paul uses this Psalm of David to make a key point: God forgives and gives righteousness
to those who have sinned; and yet people who have sinned do not deserve forgiveness.
However in verse 2, God "imputes" or "reckons" (depending on your Bible version) no guilt to
the sinner, thus righteousness could in turn be given to that sinner who God now no longer
sees as a sinner.
The verse 8 instruction about "the way you are to go" is referring to the Law of Moses, the
Torah. But notice this is not associated with HOW one becomes righteous. Going the way one
is to go, and receiving righteousness, are two different things. "Going the way one is to go"
does NOT cause righteousness. But.....receiving righteousness DOES open a person's heart
to God's instruction and His wise counsel as found in the Law so that he can "go the way one
is to go".
Verse 10 of Psalm 32 is something we should carefully note. It says that grace surrounds
those who TRUST in God. Please notice that David lived 1000 years before Christ, and yet he
appeals to grace. I've said it before but it bears repeating: grace is not a New Testament
innovation. Christ did not open the era of grace. Grace is an Old Testament principle naturally
brought forward into the New Testament era. Grace is more than a principle; it is an attribute of
God. In fact the Levitical sacrificial system was grace in action because God decided that He
would accept the blood of sinless animals to pay for the sins of guilty human beings who owed
Him the debt of their own blood. Grace versus Law (as it is often framed in Christianity) is an
oxymoron. The Law WAS grace because God gave Israel a way to atone for their trespasses,
and to return to peace with Him, which didn't involve the human trespasser losing their own
life nor did it involve them "earning" their way back into God's good graces. So we...all of
us....need to be ambassadors to the Church in general to help them to understand the
goodness of God and the history of true grace that extends back to the beginning of
humankind on this earth.
Back to Romans chapter 4. In verse 9 Paul asks his straw man yet another question: "Now is
this blessing (that David was speaking of in his Psalm) for the circumcised only?" Can only
Jews expect such a blessing of unmerited grace? Or does this extend to the uncircumcised
(gentiles)? I can't even imagine the can of worms that Paul has just opened. This would have
7 / 8
Romans Lesson 10 - Chapter 3 and 4
caused fury among many of the Believing Jews in Rome who read this letter. But Paul is
undaunted and continues with his line of reasoning by pointing out the unthinkable: Abraham
was righteoused by God BEFORE he was circumcised. In other words, before He was officially
a Hebrew, while he was still a gentile, He was given righteousness because he trusted God.
His righteousness did not come because of his circumcision.
In fact the Biblical timeline (and Hebrew tradition) is that he wasn't circumcised until 29 years
had passed after the event of Genesis 15.6. So Paul has just annihilated the standard Jewish
argument that fleshly circumcision was the requirement for Jews to have a decided advantage
over gentiles, and to obtain righteousness, because as Paul said near the end of Romans
chapter 2: "True circumcision is of the heart; it is spiritual and not literal so that his
praise comes not from other people but from God". But it also proves something he has
been arguing since Romans chapter 1: since Abraham received righteousness from God long
before the Law ever existed, then it cannot be that it is the Law that is the vehicle to receive
righteousness. Even more it is that circumcision was NOT given as a sign of Jewishness; it
was given as a sign and seal that one has a trusting faithfulness in God.
Let me add something that people who have been following Torah Class for many years
already know. It is that not only did the way for receiving righteousness get revealed through
Abraham, but it is that deliverance (salvation, if you would) came upon Israel (they were
delivered and redeemed from Egypt), BEFORE they received the Law on Mt. Sinai. And this
redemption happened with utterly no deeds or merit on their part. It happened purely by God's
grace. He and He alone fought Egypt through supernatural plagues forcing Egypt to release
God's people. So here we have further proof that doing the Law is only something for people
who've already been redeemed; it is not a means of redemption. And yet to Paul the Law is
not at all dead and gone, nailed to the cross. It continues in full force. And that is because its
purpose is especially important to Believers; it is needed to show us what pleases God and
what sin is.
1John 3:4 KJV
4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law.
For the Apostles Paul and John, long after Christ was crucified and arose, the Law remained
the standard. The Law remains the manual for living the redeemed life that God gave to us all
as a free gift of grace. Or as Paul says; there is only one Law, because there is only one God.
And is He not the God of both Jews and gentiles?
Thus in Romans 4:11 Paul says that God righteoused Abraham BEFORE he was circumcised
so that Abraham could be counted as the father of the uncircumcised as well as the
circumcised. Fighting words to be sure to the Jews of Rome; but Paul's use of Holy Scripture
and logic is impeccable.
You probably have enough to think about for one day so we will conclude Romans 4 next
week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 11, Chapter 4
As we saw to begin Romans chapter 4 last week, Paul is essentially offering a Midrash (an
interpretive discussion) of Genesis 15:6 to bolster his case that the Gospel saves both Jews
and gentiles under exactly the same terms. This Genesis passage tells the story of Abraham
being reckoned by God to be righteous on account of his trust. But there is yet another aspect
that helps us to understand where Paul was going with his line of thought. So let's take a bit of
a detour to discuss something that although fundamental to our faith is not necessarily easy to
grasp. We'll begin this way: while so far Paul has asserted that the Father will righteous
people (justify them) on account of trust in Yeshua as Lord and Messiah, he really has not
proved this to be the case according to Scripture (meaning Old Testament Scripture since
there was no New Testament to refer to). The core of Paul's argument is that people (Jews
and gentiles) can only be righteoused only by an abiding trust in Yeshua's deed of going to the
cross, and not by the works or deeds of following the Law of Moses. But most importantly, this
applies to both gentiles and Jews.
This line of argument would have put him at loggerheads with the Jews living in Rome whether
they were Believing or non-Believing Jews. Even more, on the surface (and especially to
gentiles who didn't understand such nuances), it put him in a head-on collision with James,
brother of Yeshua, who was the supreme leader of the early Church. James operated from his
headquarters in Jerusalem where he led the Believing Jews of the Holy Land, while Paul
worked throughout Asia leading the Believing Jews of the Diaspora as well as the Believing
gentiles.
In the New Testament book named after him, James focused his writings as much on the
works of a Believer as he did on trust in Messiah. Martin Luther noticed this and was so
disapproving of what James had to say that he wanted the Book of James removed from the
New Testament canon because Luther found no place in the Gospel of Christ for the role of
deeds. Therefore he saw the Book of James as contradictory to Paul's writings and therefore
as also contradictory to Luther's doctrine of faith and faith alone as the means to attain
salvation. Part of Luther's stance stemmed from the fact that he was basically anti-Semitic and
thus the Book of James was a bit "too Jewish" for his liking.
We're going to spend just a short time looking at what James said that particularly upset
Luther because to him it ran completely counter to what we've been reading that Paul had to
say in the Book of Romans; and therefore also counter to Luther's doctrine of grace. But it
also highlights for us the conundrum that has always existed within the Christian and
Messianic faith (even from Paul's day) about finding the proper balance between the roles of
trust versus works. As I read this to you notice that it is almost as though James is responding
directly to Paul's midrash about Abraham in Romans chapter 4, as James also refers to
Genesis 15:6 and supplies his own reasoning for God reckoning Abraham as righteous.
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
James 2:14-26 CJB
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but has no actions to
prove it? Is such "faith" able to save him?
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food,
16 and someone says to him, "Shalom! Keep warm and eat hearty!" without giving him
what he needs, what good does it do?
17 Thus, faith by itself, unaccompanied by actions, is dead.
18 But someone will say that you have faith and I have actions. Show me this faith of
yours without the actions, and I will show you my faith by my actions!
19 You believe that "God is one"? Good for you! The demons believe it too- the thought
makes them shudder with fear!
20 But, foolish fellow, do you want to be shown that such "faith" apart from actions is
barren?
21 Wasn't Avraham avinu declared righteous because of actions when he offered up his
son Yitz'chak on the altar?
22 You see that his faith worked with his actions; by the actions the faith was made
complete;
23 and the passage of the Tanakh was fulfilled which says, "Avraham had faith in God,
and it was credited to his account as righteousness." He was even called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is declared righteous because of actions and not because of
faith alone.
25 Likewise, wasn't Rachav the prostitute also declared righteous because of actions
when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another route?
26 Indeed, just as the body without a spirit is dead, so too faith without actions is dead.
So while Paul says in Romans 3:24 that: Romans 3:24 CJB
24 By God's grace, without
earning it, all are granted the status of being considered righteous before him, through
the act redeeming us from our enslavement to sin that was accomplished by the
Messiah Yeshua.......... we find James say 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone
claims to have faith but has no actions to prove it? Is such "faith" able to save him?......
faith by itself, unaccompanied by actions, is dead.
On face value it sounds as though these two statements are at odds with one another. But in
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
reality there is no fundamental contradiction between Paul and James; rather they are
expressing two sides of the same coin. Essentially they are approaching the same matter (the
balance of faith and works as expected by the Gospel of Christ) from different angles. Paul,
due to who he was addressing (the Romans) and what he was trying to prove, puts more
emphasis on how one initially attains righteousness; while James, due to who he was
addressing (Holy Land Jews) and what he was trying to prove, puts more emphasis on how
one maintains the righteousness that they have received. Let me repeat: Paul is dealing with
Believing Diaspora Jews and gentiles; James is dealing almost exclusively with Believing Jews
in the Holy Land. These are very different cultures with equally different religious concerns.
What is especially challenging, however, is that James says that Abraham was righteoused on
account of his deeds (putting his son Isaac on the altar as the example); while Paul says that
Abraham was righteoused on account of his trust. It is my opinion that we are dealing mostly
with semantics and the fact that the organic unity between the Law and the Gospel can be
quite difficult to pull apart and then discuss each as separate things. But when we do, it is even
more difficult to then try to determine which is more important than the other: the faith of the
Gospel or the works of the Law. Because while James is speaking of deeds and actions in
terms of physical, tangible obedience to the various written regulations of the Law of Moses,
Paul is speaking of the spirit that undergirds the Law of Moses and the goal that the Law
strives for; and that righteousness is attained by means of God's grace.
The seeming distance between Law and trust (if not the un-crossable gulf that Christianity has
made it) is highlighted by the fact that a half-century after Paul's and James' era, the Jews
continued the route of deeming obedience to the Law as preeminent, while gentile Christians
decided that trust was preeminent. The debate become so polarizing that Jews determined
that righteousness was attained and maintained solely from obedience to the Law; while
gentile Christians determined that righteousness was attained and maintained solely from trust
(a classic case of both sides throwing the baby out with the bathwater). Neither of these
determinations mirrors actual Scriptural truth but rather they express manmade doctrines,
prejudices, cultural differences and political considerations. In reality Paul says that while God
righteouses us according to our trust, the Law remains alive and well and that it goes without
saying that properly doing the provisions of the Law (deeds) remains paramount in the life of a
Believer. Romans 2:5-6 CJB
5 But by your stubbornness, by your unrepentant heart,
you are storing up anger for yourself on the Day of Anger, when God's righteous
judgment will be revealed; 6
for he will pay back each one according to his deeds.
Conversely James says that if indeed you have actually been righteoused by God, then your
faith will surely show up in your deeds. If your deeds don't reflect the faith you claim then you
are simply deceiving yourself about your faith. 21 Wasn't Avraham avinu declared righteous
because of actions when he offered up his son Yitz'chak on the altar?
22 You see that his faith worked with his actions; by the actions the faith was made
complete;
So now back to focusing on Paul and Romans chapter 4. In verses 4 and 5 Paul makes it
abundantly clear that God accepts those who sin (Jews and gentiles) without requiring them
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
FIRST to prove their trust in Him either through deeds of kindness or through doing the
commandments of the Law. Let me say it this way: it is NOT through trust plus deeds that one
is initially righteoused by God (that one is saved by God). However, it certainly is that once one
puts their trust in God and God righteouses them (saves them) DESPITE his or her deeds,
then the expected result is to express that trust by means of being obedient to Him through
works and deeds as defined by the Law. Or, perhaps more succinctly, works and deeds as
defined by the spirit of the Law. First trust, then deeds. This order can never be reversed nor
can one only have trust OR do deeds as a Believer. And in this, James and Paul are in full
agreement; they just express it a bit differently.
It helps us to understand what Paul was dealing with in his letter to the Romans when we learn
that the Jews of his day absolutely would not have seen obtaining righteousness as a
possibility without first faithfully doing the works of the Law. He was also dealing with a Jewish
society (both the Diaspora and the Holy Land Jews) who didn't distinguish any significant
difference between the Law of Moses and Tradition (Halakhah). So even using the term "The
Law" was full of ambiguity and it required some careful explanation.
One of the main thrusts of Paul's argument is what he sees as misinterpretation of Genesis
15.6 by his fellow Jews. That is, when it is said that Abraham believed God, and God reckoned
it as righteousness, Paul says that this is speaking of Abraham's faith and NOT his
faithfulness. What's the difference you may ask? The issue between the meaning of faith and
faithfulness has become especially murky in the modern West because of the way we
commonly use those words. In our day faith can mean a particular religion ("what faith do you
belong to?") or even an ideology. It can mean a reasonable expectation or a hope for
something and even a wish for something. Faithfulness means loyalty to a person (usually a
marriage partner) or an organization, involving either sincere intentions or in actuality. But
Biblically speaking faith is a term that speaks of a person's trust and confident belief even
without tangible proof to back it up; it speaks of a mindset that usually involves a spiritual
condition. Faith and trust in the Bible are so closely tied together that they are virtually
synonyms. On the other hand Biblical faithfulness speaks of person's loyalty to a covenant. In
the case of Jews, it was loyalty to the divine covenants of Abraham and Moses. Put another
way: faithfulness is far more than only a mindset, hope or intention; it is the actual performance
of the terms of a covenant agreement. Faithfulness is expressed in physical actions;
faithfulness is accomplished through works and deeds. Biblically this definition applies both to
God and to man.
So in applying this understanding to our issue of James versus Paul, Paul is approaching the
Gospel more in terms of faith; James is approaching the Gospel more in terms of faithfulness.
Paul's approach is about mindset; James' approach is about actions. And yet in living reality,
the faith and faithfulness of a true Believer are to operate together as one. The actual
existence of a true saving faith in a Believer will always be evident through our faithfulness.
And the active faithfulness of a Believer is the necessary tangible proof of our true saving faith.
As it pertains to the Gospel, trust (or faith) and Law can be separated in theory in order that we
can discuss each of them; but in reality they are so tightly interwoven that they operate
together as one complex entity. It is the same challenge with trying to discuss the Godhead.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be separated in theory in order that we can
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
discuss each one of them; but in reality they are fused together as one complex entity (God is
echad.....God is one).
I know this concept can be a bit difficult to think about but I've spent so much time with it
because it is fundamental to understanding the core nature of our faith, and how we gain and
maintain membership in our faith. So I'll use an example that I used many years ago to
illustrate it. I'll say upfront that it is not a precise illustration, but it is close enough to help
communicate the concept. Becky is my wife. But she is also mother. In addition she is
grandmother. Further she is a friend to many and she is also a child of God. I can speak of the
separate and various roles and elements of Becky my wife, Becky the mother, Becky the
grandmother, Becky the friend, and Becky the child of God. I can even emphasize one over the
others, or give more weight to one over the others. And she can climb in and out of those roles
as circumstance dictates. But that is only theoretical because at the same time I can't
physically separate Becky into those several parts and identify one part of her as wife, another
part as mother, and so on. That is because Becky is echad, one. God makes it clear that He is
one; humans are similar, and James and Paul show us that within the Gospel Law and trust
operate that way as well. I hope that helps.
Let's re-read part of Romans chapter 4.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 4:9 – end
Beginning with verse 11 Paul is again using the term "circumcised" to identify Jews, and
"uncircumcised" to identify gentiles. This is because of the preeminent place that the ritual of
male circumcision held in Judaism at that time. It was akin to a person citing the pledge of
allegiance to their particular flag and nation. Thus Paul is saying that while having a
circumcision is on the one hand obedience to both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, on
the other hand what it really has come to signify in his present day is more of a symbol of
national allegiance to Israel and to the national religion of Judaism. However originally
Abraham's circumcision was intended as an outward sign and authentication of his inner trust
in God as his heavenly king. Therefore, if a person has trust in God but does not have a
circumcision (Paul is speaking of gentiles), the lack of this outward authentication does not
revoke the righteousness given to him by God because of his trust. And the proof of this is that
Father Abraham was reckoned with righteousness 29 years before he was circumcised.
Therefore Abraham is legitimately the father of the uncircumcised who trust God, as well as the
circumcised who trust God. Ladies and gentlemen this reality is why this ministry is called
Seed of Abraham. It is not to say that we are a congregation consisting only of Jews that are
Abraham's physical seed, or only of gentiles that are Abraham's spiritual seed. It is an
acknowledgement that Abraham is as much the father of gentiles who have trust in the God of
Israel, through His Son Yeshua, as he is the Jews' father. The difference is that Jews have a
God-given right to also see Abraham as their source of citizenship to earthly Israel, while
gentile Believers do not have any such national rights; our rights are entirely spiritual in nature.
Paul continues with impeccable logical reasoning for his conclusion in verse 13 by saying that
Scripture states that Abraham would inherit the world. But this inheritance would not come
through legalism (that is, through Abraham's obedience to the Law), but rather through the
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
righteousness that is reckoned to him because of the trust he has in God. That is logical
because the Law did not exist in Abraham's time, and would not exist for another 6 centuries.
But even more, if it is obedience to the Law that produces a saving righteousness, then it can't
also be said that a saving righteousness is produced by trusting. If it was only by obedience to
the Law that the promise to Abraham to inherit the world comes about, then this is no promise
at all but rather it would have required Abraham and his descendants to work for it.
So Paul is challenging a fundamental principle of 2nd Temple Judaism. In fact, he is essentially
redefining Abraham's covenant in relation to how Judaism defined it in Paul's era. He is
saying that the inheritance promised in the covenant does NOT come through doing the Law,
but rather through the righteousness that comes by trust. Let's be clear: Paul is NOT saying
that maintenance of the divine covenant, and the relationship between God and man that it
produces, is no longer needed. He is saying that the maintenance fundamentally requires a
foundation of saving righteousness that can only happen by means of trust. Therefore while
Believers should do the Law, it is only effectual if doing the Law is done on the basis of
first having trust in God. Put another way: faith first; faithfulness second.
Verse 15 seems to throw us a Major League curveball. In fact many Bible scholars feel a little
bewildered why this statement is even here. Is it meant to be a conclusion or summation of
what Paul has just said? Is it just a straggler that somehow fell into this passage centuries ago
perhaps by a copyist error? Opinions vary. First let me say that the CJB translation where it
says "for what the Law brings is punishment" is not a good one; it gives us the wrong idea and
doesn't allow us to make an intended connection. It is much more literal and correct (and
agrees with just about all other English versions) to have it read, "For what the Law brings is
wrath". Using the word wrath is important because what Paul is doing reminding his readers of
the other major reason that both Jews and gentiles must have trust in order to be given
righteousness. It is that all humans are liable to God's wrath, whether they are humans who
follow the Law or humans that don't have the Law (gentiles). But since Paul is, in this section,
directly addressing Jews then he is speaking from their point of view and that view, by its
nature, is a view involving the Law. Paul says that despite what Judaism thinks (that the Law
produces righteousness), in fact what the Law produces is not righteousness but wrath
because by the Law we learn what sin is (that's the purpose of it, in Paul's view) and when we
break the Law we sin. And because of our highly developed evil inclinations, it is the fate of all
mankind to embrace sinning. And how much more responsible are people who have God's
laws and commands (the Torah, the Law) but violate them, than people who do NOT know His
laws and commands but do have the natural law and violate it (that was an earlier premise that
Paul established). Thus what the Law cannot do is precisely what trust alone can do; provide
a saving righteousness.
Sadly this verse 15 is another one that is regularly used out of context to say that for Christians
the Law is dead and gone. Or, even more off the mark, that Paul is saying that the best thing
for Christians to do is to stay away from the Law because "where there is no Law there is no
violation". That is, if we just deliberately shun the Law then we can avoid sinning! In other
words: where in American jurisprudence we have the saying that 'ignorance of the law is no
excuse', in the New Testament we have Paul saying that 'ignorance of the Law of Moses is
not only a good and acceptable way to excuse our sins, he advises that we should strive to
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
know nothing about the Law. To me that is near to blasphemy.
In verse 16 Paul indeed does sum up what he has said thus far in this chapter; and it ends with
Paul making a statement that would have enraged most Jews. It is that Paul's explanation of
Abraham receiving his righteousness by trust alone is why God made the promise to him that
he would be a father to all nations. Therefore Abraham is the father for "all of us", meaning all
Believers (Jews and gentiles). To the Jews hearing this, Paul just gave away their most
revered Jewish Patriarch, Abraham, to their enemies: the gentiles. However what Paul really
did was to redefine what the seed of Abraham consists of; and Paul says it consists of all
Believers in Yeshua, Jew and gentile. In verse 17 Paul even quotes Genesis 17:5 to prove his
case: Genesis 17:5 CJB
5
Your name will no longer be Avram [exalted father], but your
name will be Avraham [father of many], because I have made you the father of many
nations.
Interestingly over time, Jews made peace with this idea of gentiles who choose the God of
Abraham as their God as also becoming seed of Abraham. However, this peace had a caveat.
Maimonides, aka the Rambam, one of the greatest Jewish sages of all time, lived in the 13th
century A.D. and said this as it concerns gentiles:
"You ask me if you are permitted to say in the prayers, 'God of our fathers,' and 'You
who worked miracles for our fathers'. Yes; you many say your blessing and prayer in
the same way as every born Jew. This is because Avraham avinu (Abraham our father)
revealed the true faith and the unity of God, rejected idol worship, and brought many
children under the wings of the Shekinah. Ever since then whoever adopts Judaism and
confesses the unity of the Divine Name, as prescribed in the Torah, is counted among
the disciples of Avraham avinu, peace unto him.........Thus Avraham avinu is the father of
his pious posterity who keep his ways, and the father of his disciples and of all
proselytes who adopt Judaism".
So from Maimonides perspective the caveat for a gentile being allowed to see himself or
herself as a seed of Abraham was official conversion to Judaism. Unfortunately we see some
of Rambam's thinking alive and well within the Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements and I
want to say as firmly as I can that this is entirely wrong minded. Paul makes it clear that
gentiles become a seed of Abraham because of our trust in God, through our trust in God's
Son Yeshua, and this involves no conversion whatsoever. But the same is true for Jews who
believe in Yeshua; no conversion or renouncing of their Jewishness is required....just trust.
I want to take a moment to emphasize something I said earlier: Paul explicitly makes Abraham
the father of gentile Christians as well as Jews. Think upon that. What role has Christianity
given Abraham in our faith? Practically none. He is mostly the subject of Sunday School stories
for children. But if Abraham is the father of all who trust in God as Paul says he is (and Paul
has spent considerable pen and ink on the subject of Abraham), and if Paul is right that since
Abraham is the common father of Jews and gentiles in a spiritual sense, then how can the
Church assign Abraham to Judaism but not to Christianity? How can the Church make
Abraham as applicable only to the Old Testament and largely irrelevant to the New
Testament? How can the Church say that the Covenant of Abraham has been abolished and
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
replaced by the so-called New Covenant in Christ? For right here Paul explains that gentile
Believers who trust in God, through Yeshua, are fulfilling the most ancient of covenants: the
Abrahamic Covenant.
If you want to demonstrate to others the fallacy of saying that the Old Testament is obsolete for
Believers; or that the covenants of old, Abraham's and Moses', are dead and gone and nailed
to the cross, just refer them to Romans chapters 3 and 4 when by Paul's words gentiles are
directly attached to, and called, seed of Abraham. And point out how gentiles do NOT replace
Jews, but rather are added to the mix. Paul will explain this addition of gentiles to the mix more
thoroughly in Romans chapter 11, when he uses the term "grafted-in".
In the last part of verse 17 Paul highlights two of God's primary attributes: He gives life to the
dead and He is the Creator of all things. And the point is that while Abraham had little
familiarity with God at first, he quickly recognized these 2 important, although basic, aspects of
God's nature. I'll use this opportunity to emphasize that we can only know God in 2 ways: by
His name and His attributes. Thus if any religion (such as Islam) claims that the Judeo␂Christian God is the same as their God, that is easily refutable because the Muslim God has a
different name and different attributes than the God of Abraham. It is wrong for a Believer,
even if out of some misplaced sense of compassion, to ever allow a Muslim to claim that we all
worship the same God; we definitely do not. And if we allow him to think that way, what
incentive is there for him to seek the true God? We become complicit in condemning that
person to *.
Here Paul reminds his readers that Abraham was very old when he was finally given a son. A
son was necessary from a practical viewpoint if he was going to be a father to many nations. If
Abraham had no sons then his line would have ended with his death and God's promise could
not have been fulfilled. Abraham fully understood that he was too old (almost 100 years old) to
father children. But his wife, Sarah, was also too old to bear children. So what hope was there
that God's promise could possibly be fulfilled? Paul describes Abraham as "as good as
dead". Dead men don't produce offspring. Yet Abraham, so very aware of his impossible
situation, did not give up hope; he trusted that God would somehow give Abraham and Sarah
children despite their dead reproductive systems. This trust is why he was credited with
righteousness.
I think it is entirely fair, in fact it is only logical, to call Abraham's belief that he would produce
offspring regardless of he and Sarah being past child bearing age, a deed or a work. Even
though the intention was misplaced, that he took Sarah's handmaiden and slept with her
believing that his infertility would become fertility, is of course putting faith to action. Sadly that
action was wrong, because his faith wasn't pure or because his understanding of God was a
bit off the mark. When we hear from Paul that Abraham never lacked trust that doesn't mean
he didn't have moments of doubt. Rather it means that he did not enter into a deep-seated
and permanent mode of distrust; essentially renouncing the trust that initially brought him his
righteousness. This is something that all Believers need to pay attention to. Our trust, our faith,
is not perfect nor is it steady. We will have our moments of doubt from which we can recover. It
is falling into that permanent mode whereby we deeply, sincerely, no longer trust when we are
in grave danger. As for Abraham; later after it turned out that God supernaturally restored
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
Abraham's fertility as evidenced in Hagar becoming pregnant by Abraham (God bringing life
from the dead), God also restored Sarah's dead womb and with that belief firmly in mind,
Abraham slept with Sarah and she became pregnant by Abraham. The result was the true son
of the promise: Isaac.
Having given us the example of Abraham, in verse 23 Paul now explains that the reason for
God righteousing Abraham was not meant only for him; this was not a one-off event meant
only for a special Patriarch. Rather the recording of this event and the written accounting for
how righteousness is obtained is meant to inform everyone about it. I maintain that the story of
Abraham as we find in the Old Testament is the earliest recorded form of the Gospel. In fact, I
think that Paul's entire theology is based around his conviction that the Old Testament,
throughout its many books, speaks directly to the matter of the Gospel. After all, what else did
he have to refer to than the Old Testament?
Finally, in the last few words of chapter 4, Paul connects and compares Yeshua to Abraham.
Notice how Paul turns the phrase (especially since the point is to compare Yeshua to
Abraham) such that we are to trust in the one who raised Yeshua from the dead, just as
Abraham trusted in the same one who has the power to raise from the dead. That is, Paul is
indicating that we should "trust the Father". It is by the Father's power that Yeshua was
raised; Yeshua did not raise Himself. It is by the Father's power that people are righteoused.
However, also trust in Yeshua's perfect faithfulness.....His action and deeds.....because
Yeshua's deeds were 100% without sin. It is on account of Yeshua's perfect faithfulness that
He can be our atonement for sin, which is a prerequisite for our being righteoused by His
Father. It is how we become seed of Abraham.
We'll begin Romans chapter 5 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 12, Chapter 5
As we study Romans Chapter 5 today we should pause to remember just who Paul is
addressing his thoughts to: it is to the gentile and Jewish Believers living in the capital city of
the Roman Empire: Rome. To put a finer point on it: this was not an open letter to all Believers
where ever they might live. What he was teaching them certainly could apply to all Believers
everywhere as the conditions arose, but that was not the intent of this letter.
While all sections of his Letter to the Romans are meant for both Jewish and gentile Roman
Believers, some sections are more carefully aimed at Jewish Believers, and other times more
at gentile Believers. Just how Jewish Believers might understand what Paul had to say could
be quite different from how the gentile Believers perceived it. This is because Jewish Believers
had a fairly in-depth understanding of Judaism and their Hebraic heritage, and so grasped the
many nuances of their religion and history that would not have been realized by gentiles. Much
of what Paul had to say in the Book of Romans would have flown over the heads of gentile
Believers. Their only hope was that knowledgeable Jewish Believers would explain it to them.
It is ironic that today's gentile Believers are in the same boat as the Roman gentile Believers
of Paul's era. The difference is that back then it seems that gentile Believers sought out and
were happy to have the tutoring and insight of Jewish Believers to help them understand
Scripture. But today (and for many centuries, actually) that is not the case; gentile Believers
usually think that we can understand the Old and New Testaments with little or no knowledge
of Judaism or of Jewish history or culture. Christians have typically shunned any thought of
turning to Jews for some answers. And if we are honest we can see where that mindset has
led the Christian faith. So let us determine to first admit to ourselves that the Bible is an ancient
Hebrew document, written in the context of various stages of ancient Hebrew culture, and that
until we take the time to learn the nuances of their culture and their religion we will have a
skewed or incomplete understanding of what the Hebrew writers of the Bible meant by what
they said.
As we get ready to read Romans chapter 5 recall that chapter 4 was mostly a Midrash on
Abraham that ended with Paul comparing Yeshua to Abraham. Paul's conclusion was that
while Abraham is indeed the biological father to the Jewish people (more accurately, the
Hebrew people), Abraham is also the spiritual father to gentile Believers in Christ. Thus gentile
Believers are as much legitimate seed of Abraham as are Jews; just in a slightly different
sense that doesn't involve membership in the Jewish nation. Paul's words would have thrilled
the gentile Believers of Rome; but it would have had a different effect upon the Roman Jews.
Some Jews would have had mixed feelings about such a notion, while others would have been
downright furious at the thought and disagreed vehemently with Paul.
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
So what we will see is that Romans chapter 5 (when taken as a whole) can only be taken as a
summation of all that Paul has discussed in chapters 1 – 4, and what it means for Believers,
even though new information is added. Open your Bibles to Romans 5.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 5 all
The reason that most of you are studying with Seed of Abraham Torah Class is because you
want a better understanding of who God is and what His Word to us is intended to impart. I'm
hoping that you also are seeking to better understand certain terms and expressions that are in
common, if not daily, use among Christians. Terms like sin, death, and even "through Christ"
(such as "I can do anything through Christ"). We seldom stop and ask ourselves some basic
questions about exactly what those terms mean, and equally seldom do we hear them defined
in the Church or Synagogue setting; the terms are used and we're expected to know. The
result is that Believers have a somewhat hazy understanding of those terms and expressions
that are so central to our faith, or we have our own understanding of their meaning unaware
that to other Christians (or to the un-Believing population in general) those terms can mean
something quite different. We'll work on remedying that but you'll need to be patient and
attentive. As important as understanding these Biblical terms is, they are not necessarily easy
to explain.
Thus right off the bat in verse 1 we see Paul say that since we have indeed become righteous
by our trust in God, then we need to maintain our newly found "peace" with God "through our
Lord, Yeshua the Messiah". Our CJB uses the word shalom instead of peace; English Bibles
most often translate shalom as meaning peace. But what does peace (shalom) mean,
Biblically? Typically peace with someone (in this case peace with God) is thought of in military
terms; as in peace instead of hostility. However because that kind of peace is seldom spoken
of in Scriptures (especially when speaking from a spiritual aspect) then we need to expand the
meaning from peace to well-being because that more closely approximates the meaning of the
Hebrew concept of shalom. Peace is not meant in verse 1 as only a cessation of hostilities; it
is meant as our receiving overall well-being from the Lord. This is a type of well-being that can
only come from God and it gives us a lasting comfort, a sense of protection and devotion, a
return to wholeness, and it also involves aspects of grace.
Many commentators will argue that indeed the term peace is meant as a cessation of hostilities
between God and man because this peace is the result of reconciliation. But that doesn't
entirely dovetail well with the character of God. The Father is not a hostile God; and
reconciliation doesn't always have to be between enemies. He is a God who loves His
creatures even when we don't love Him and might even be hostile towards Him. Otherwise,
how does one account for God giving up His Son for the sake of those who are against Him?
Even when He punishes humans it is not with a sense of hostility but rather with a sense of
justice. God's wrath is much less about hostility and more about the just consequence of
rebellion. In a court of law when a person commits a crime, is judged guilty and goes to prison,
that is not about judicial hostility; it is about proportional justice. Therefore it cannot be that
shalom with God (peace with God) in this context means only that enmity between man and
God is over (for the Believer, anyway); it must also mean that upon God righteousing us we
receive the divine gift of shalom provided we continue to abide in Him.
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
But then we are told that this shalom with God happens "through our Lord, Yeshua the
Messiah". What does that mean? "Through our Lord" is a kind of New Testament shorthand
that Paul in particular favors. Back in Romans 3:25 we were told that Yeshua is our Mercy Seat
"through His (Yeshua's) faithfulness". We have already defined faithfulness as the tangible
good works and deeds of a person who has faith. So the phrase "Through our Lord" or
"Through Christ" more means: we can now access God the Father by means of our trust in
the perfection, works and deeds, and the willing sacrifice of Yeshua that atoned for our sins.
Since that is certainly too many words to remember or use when speaking about how we
obtained our peace with God, then perhaps we could reduce that to simply: "Through the
works and deeds of our Lord, Yeshua". That better captures Paul's meaning.
Verse 2 proves this definition that I've given you to be the case because what we have is Paul
providing a little more information about what "through Yeshua" means and what it provides.
And since it is our trust in the works of another (Christ) that has given us this shalom with God,
then the only boasting that we ought to do is in the expression of our hope of experiencing
God's glory. Here we have two more terms that need some definition: boasting and God's
glory. The CJB use of the word "boast" here is dubious. The Greek word it is attempting to
translate is kauchaomai. Many English versions translate it as rejoice, others as exult. In fact,
it is often translated as glory. However when we see the term "glory of God", the Greek word
that is translated as glory in this case is doxa. Doxa means splendor or an exalted state. So
since we have two different Greek words that both can translate into English as glory,
translators do not want the passage to read "So let us glory about the hope of experiencing
God's glory". That sounds odd and confusing so they usually choose a different construction
and replace the first "glory" with the word exult or rejoice. The CJB chose to use boast.
So as used here; to say that we should rejoice in God's glory means that we should celebrate
or have a great rejoicing in God's splendor. Yet what is Paul actually getting at in this
passage? What is God's glory or splendor? Paul is not speaking about splendor in the sense
of how a human king appears in all his regal clothing and aristocratic bearing. He is saying that
as Believers we are to look forward to the divine illumination of the wholeness, the perfection,
of our humanity that comes only from the divine radiance of being in God's presence. Do you
recall in the Book of Exodus what happened to Moses after spending time in God's presence?
He literally radiated light (or better, illumination) when he came down from Mt. Sinai. The
radiance emitting from his face so confused and frightened people that Moses took to wearing
a veil when he was around the Israelites. So God's glory in relation to humans involves a
recovery of the original destiny of mankind before Adam fell from grace. All wrapped up in the
concept of God's glory, this passage speaks of the restoration of human beings that will even
be immeasurably enhanced beyond the original state of Adam into something that more
resembles Yeshua's exalted state as He ascended to Heaven.
But in verse 3 Paul says something that is troubling because, honestly, what he is saying
usually doesn't turn out that way. He says that we should rejoice in our tribulations because
we know that tribulation produces endurance, and endurance grows our character, and our
growing character produces hope. Really? Folks, not very many who experience great
tribulation wind up with more hope. In fact Job, as one of the Godliest men who ever lived,
gave up hope and mischaracterized God once his troubles overwhelmed him. It is more likely
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
for humans who experience great tribulation to speak against God, or even abandon Him. A
sad revelation for me has been that as I have met a number of Holocaust victims over my
years of traveling to Israel, most have given up belief in God due to their horrific experiences.
Of course what Paul is speaking about is the outcome of tribulations with those who have a
true, abiding trust in God through the faithfulness of Messiah Yeshua. Without that trust the
sad result that I just spoke of is far more likely. But with that trust in God then indeed for a
confident Believer tribulation will achieve endurance; endurance will achieve character; and
character will produce hope. But what is the "hope" that Paul speaks about? Is it that our trials
and tribulations will be overturned, or solved, or ended? Is it the happy ending that we all want
in our novels and movies? In the Book of Acts when Paul spoke about hope it always had to do
with resurrection from the dead and there is no reason to think that he means something
different here.
Death has always been a terrifying and unavoidable prospect for humans. That is why many
cultures invented elaborate death cults; cults like the Egyptians who built pyramids and
furnished them with lavish items for the Pharaohs to enjoy in the Land of the Dead. This of
course was a pagan fantasy. But the Lord God solved this dilemma through Yeshua, the
firstfruits of the resurrection, by promising that all humans will be resurrected from the dead at
some point in the future. The problem is that most will be resurrected to face God as the judge
who will condemn them for all eternity. But for those who trust God through Yeshua's
faithfulness, we will be resurrected into eternal life and shalom. That is the hope that Believers
possess that no one else does or can, and that is the hope that Paul is speaking of here.
Paul's kind of hope is essentially the end result of a chain of events in the life of a Believer.
Please notice in verse 6 how Paul speaks of when "we" were still powerless that Messiah died
on the behalf of ungodly people. So Paul is not only including himself, the "we" includes all
Believers (he makes no distinction between Jewish and gentile Believers in this regard). But
we must also notice that he essentially makes synonyms of the terms "we" and "ungodly".
There is something hidden deep here that we must acknowledge: Paul is saying that "belief" in
God doesn't keep us from being ungodly. Before Paul accepted Christ, he believed in the God
of Israel. Before the Believing Jews of Rome accepted Christ, they believed in the God of
Israel. We can believe in God and still be helpless, powerless, sinful, and (by Paul's definition)
ungodly. For Paul "ungodly" doesn't mean you don't have some level of belief in God; it
means that your behavior proves that you don't obey Him. It means that you live a lifestyle as
though you don't know who God is. And as unlikely as it might sound, says Paul, this is
exactly the kind of people that Messiah died for. That thought might sound a bit radical to us
except that Paul's Master said the same thing many years earlier.
Luke 5:30-32 CJB
30 The P'rushim and their Torah-teachers protested indignantly against his talmidim,
saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax-collectors and sinners?"
31 It was Yeshua who answered them: "The ones who need a doctor aren't the healthy
but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the 'righteous,' but rather to call sinners to turn to
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
God from their sins."
Paul acknowledges that it sounds entirely unlikely that one person would give up his life for
another even if that person who is in danger is a decent person (is righteous), although it is
slightly more imaginable if that good person was very special. But by allowing His own Son to
die on behalf of sinners (ungodly people, bad people), God demonstrated a love that is
unheard of among humans. This validates my contention that God is not a God of hostility so
we need to be careful how it is that we characterize Him. So, as a result of this fact Paul says
the following in verse 9 that can be best explained by the words of Douglass Moo in his
Commentary on Romans: "If God has already done the more difficult thing.....to reconcile
and justify unworthy sinners....how much more can He be depended upon to accomplish
the easier thing.....to save from eschatological (End Times) wrath those who have been
brought into such a relationship with Him."
That is, it was a monumental undertaking by God to bring about redemption for evil mankind by
giving up His perfect Son's life in exchange for theirs. So now that He's done that, it goes
without saying that since the purpose for Yeshua's death was to save, then those who have
benefited from this awesome act will be protected from God's wrath. Thus redemption through
Christ and being saved from God's wrath come as a package deal. Aren't you glad? I know I
am.
Verse 10 is parallel to verse 9 and demonstrates one of the two most fundamental
characteristics that identify God's nature. We talked about these characteristics a couple of
lessons ago: 1) God creates everything from nothing, and 2) God brings life from the dead.
Here Paul emphasizes that the way God brought new and eternal life to sinners was by means
of the death of Yeshua.
Paul now moves to a section of Chapter 5 that begins in verse 12 and ends in verse 21. While
Chapter 5 can be said to be, as a whole, a conclusion and summation for Romans chapters
1-4, verses 12 -21 of chapter 5 can be said to be a conclusion of what Paul has just said in
verses 1 – 11. And these 10 verses lead us into a theological minefield that we could probably
spend a month dissecting (but we won't). One of the most controversial aspects of this section
is that it approaches the subject of what theologians call "the Doctrine of Original Sin". And
while Christianity has several different viewpoints on this subject that spills over into the even
more basic concept of "what is sin?" the Jewish viewpoint is altogether different and so
Judaism and Christianity have been at odds on this delicate matter since Paul's day. In fact,
since the issue of sin and where it came from was already well formulated within Judaism by
Paul's era, I can assure you that when some of the Jews of Rome read this part of the letter
they probably read no further, so sensitive is the subject and so at odds was Paul's statement
against what Judaism traditionally believed.
And yet, we won't hear Paul using the terms Jews and gentiles in these verses; rather the
scope of Paul's comments is universal. Paul is dealing with all of mankind in general without
distinction of any kind. Everyone simply falls under the category of "Human Being"; the way
the world was before Abraham was set apart for God. Further, after speaking about how
Christ's death brought hope to the Jewish people, and how that occurred even while they were
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
yet sinners, Paul now begins to explain the positive effect that this would have on the entire
world. And to flesh this out he points towards a similarity between Yeshua and Adam. So Paul
first used Abraham and now He uses Adam to explain the Gospel: why it was needed and how
it works. So much for the Gospel being a New Testament innovation.
Without doubt the theme that pulls these 10 verses together is that Christ's faithfulness to die
on the cross was needed to counteract Adam's unfaithfulness that first sent humanity into the
abyss of sin. Thus, says verse 12, it was that one person (Adam) brought sin into the world
and with this sin came death. And once sin and death appeared on earth it propagated itself
throughout every Human Being from that time forth. Everyone would sin and so everyone
would die. This verse is so enormous in its theological implications that perhaps the only
comparable verse is Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. The impact of the first words of the Torah is incalculable and no doubt debate about the
precise meaning of these words will continue until Yeshua returns. It is that same way with
Romans 5:12 (at least among Christians). This verse enters us into the realm of the Doctrine of
the Original Sin. How one interprets these words has a great deal to do with how a person
might understand redemption, and it certainly affects our understanding of how sin and death
entered this world in the first place.
Most Christians are caught off-guard when they hear that there is no such thing as one
universally accepted Doctrine of Original Sin within Christianity. Whichever one of the several
original sin doctrines one might choose, it in no way lines up with Jewish thought on the matter.
I'm going to rely mostly on the fine work that Dr. David Stern put together in order to give you
a Reader's Digest version of explaining the various views of original sin not because it is
necessarily the best but rather because Dr. Stern explains it in an organized and concise way
that doesn't go too deep or get too technical, and so it is suitable for our purposes.
I hope you're ready to focus on this important issue because what happened in the Garden of
Eden with Adam is about as foundational of a faith issue as it gets when it comes to both
Judaism and Christianity. Depending on what one believes actually happened in the Garden it
has a significant effect on how we might view sin, redemption, death, and salvation. So the
first thing we must do is to define some terms so that we're all on the same page. I'll define
those using familiar Evangelical Christian words and definitions as a baseline.
The Doctrine of Original Sin is exactly that: it is the title of a manmade doctrine. You will not
find the words "original sin" in the Bible. In fact it isn't until the 4th chapter of Genesis that the
word "sin" is used in the Torah. As attributed to Adam, original sin consists of two pieces: the
first piece is called original pollution and the second piece is called original guilt. Don't get
too hung up on the titles of those two pieces; I didn't choose them. Rather they are the
standard terms that theologians have long used to deal with the subject. Original pollution
refers to the sinful state and condition into which every human is born. This sinful state of
everyone also gives everyone a sinful nature that makes it utterly impossible for us to follow
God faithfully and to do what is good and right in His eyes.
Therefore original guilt is what makes condemns us all. Original guilt is what makes every
human ever born fully deserving of God's wrath and our death. And this is so from the second
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
we are born; we are all born guilty. We can call infants innocent but they are not. Infants have
not yet had a chance to commit behavioral sins, but they are still guilty of original guilt because
they are born with original pollution stemming from Adam.
Why are these sin terms called "original"? Because 1) we all share the same original root of
humanity, Adam. 2) It is also original since pollution and guilt are present in every human at
our personal origin (at our birth, perhaps even at our conception). And finally, 3) it is original
because this pollution and guilt themselves are the origin, the root cause, of our evil
inclinations and our sinful deeds that ultimately defile us as a human person. So the term
original applies in three different, but complementary, senses.
However original sin and original guilt are not so "original" that they can be traced all the way
back to God, the Creator, the ultimate originator. That is, God did not build pollution and guilt
into human DNA or into the spirit of life that He breathed into Adam. Man, Adam, is responsible
for that. So pollution and guilt were not passed on from God to man because God has no
pollution or guilt in Him.
So what, exactly, was the so-called original sin? The standard answer is that Adam
(encouraged by Eve) ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
However the underlying essence of that act was siding with Satan in rebellion against God.
Just as Satan suggested he do, Adam substituted his own personal will for God's will. Adam
did this from pride, from unbelief, and he shared Satan's desire to put himself on the same
plane of being as God. It is this sin, or perhaps better this bent to apostize from God, which
has been passed along to every human from Adam and for which we are all held accountable
by God. But at the same time we do not share the responsibility for eating the forbidden fruit;
only Adam did that.
What does sin mean in the Bible? Sin has 3 basic meanings. 1) It refers to our wrong deeds
and actions; our bad behavior and immoral thoughts and actions. 2) It also refers to our sinful
inclination; that is, sin is a moral defect that urges us to choose that which we know is morally
wrong. And 3) sin refers to our sinful natures. That means that our very nature as humans,
right down to our DNA, is corrupted with evil. Thus an evil inclination in all humans is
inevitable, and thus so are the evil deeds that our evil inclinations demand us to do.
So how do we all inherit this original sin? Propagation of the species. If you are a descendant
of Adam (and we all are), you have received the original sin in your genes and so you will
transmit the same to the genes of whatever children you spawn and so on and so on, forever.
There is no fix for it in human terms.
What is the consequence of our inheritance of the original sin? Death. So death should not be
seen or talked about as the natural, God ordained, end of life. Death is unnatural and it is
divine punishment. But death is more than the physical death of our bodies; it also includes
spiritual death and eternal death. Spiritual death means our separation from God. Spiritual
death that is present at the time of our physical death brings on eternal death. On the other
hand a person (while still living) can be in a state of spiritual death but can repent and turn from
his or her sins and trust in God through Yeshua. And then at his or her physical death they will
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
not suffer eternal death.
There are other versions of the doctrine of original sin within Christianity. We'll not discuss
them all, but briefly here are 6 more (this ought to give you some idea just how fractured
Christianity is even at its core beliefs).
The Augustinian version. This says that we are born with both original pollution and
original guilt. But more, we are all participants in Adam's original sin of eating the
forbidden fruit. Therefore we die because we actually and personally sinned the original
sin.
The Mediate Imputation version. This claims that we have original guilt only because
of the original pollution of Adam. But we do not share in Adam's original pollution or in
his sinful act of eating the forbidden fruit. We die because we have a sinful nature.
The Federal version. We are born with original pollution but NOT with original guilt
because we did not share in Adam's original sin of eating the forbidden fruit. It is not
that we are born with a sinful nature, but rather it is at the age of accountability that sin
becomes imputed to us, reckoned by God upon us, because Adam was our
representative in the Garden of Ed
The Uncondemnable vitiosity version. This says that the original pollution that we
are all born with doesn't also make us guilty, and that we are certainly not guilty of
Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit. We have guilt before God only when we
commit sinful deeds. Death is not the result of sin, but rather it is the natural end of a
human life span as always intended by God.
The Arminian-Methodist version. This says that even though a person is born
physically and intellectually depraved, we can choose another way and actually be
obedient to the Holy Spirit as-is. We become guilty before God only when we co␂operate with our sinful nature, and commit actual sinful deeds. Therefore death
happens not because death has been passed on to us by Adam, and not as the penalty
that Adam received for his sin, but because the death penalty has been imputed upon
us by God.
The Pelagian version. This says that man is born as an innocent infant, and that from
birth we are able to obey God. However due to the bad examples we see all around us,
we eventually commit sinful deeds. We then die because we sin, and we suffer spiritual
and eternal death not because of anything Adam did but because we all imitate Adam
by sinning and so we suffer the same consequence as Adam; death.
So what does Judaism believe about the original sin? Generally it does not accept a doctrine
or concept of original sin. That is, there is no such thing as the original sin. Judaism believes
that what Adam did in the Garden was Adam's sin alone and has no bearing on his billions of
descendants. Jews believe in free will to the point that a Jew rejoices when he can prove his
ethical moral fiber in his personal battle against temptation and sin. In fact Jews are taught to
see themselves as stronger than their evil inclinations and thus able to avoid sin altogether if
they sincerely strive for righteousness. Thus the Jewish view is that humans are created
essentially good, like Adam, in the image of God. There is no sin nature woven into our DNA.
But in order to give us free will and free choice, every human is born with an evil inclination and
a good inclination, and it is up to each human to choose which they shall serve.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 12 - Chapter 5
Some of the argument that Judaism uses to deny the Christian doctrine of an original sin is that
the word sin isn't even used in the Bible until Genesis 4:7.
Genesis 4:1-7 CJB
CJB Genesis 4:1 The man had sexual relations with Havah his wife; she conceived, gave
birth to Kayin [acquisition] and said, "I have acquired a man from ADONAI."
2
In addition she gave birth to his brother Hevel. Hevel kept sheep, while Kayin worked
the soil.
3
In the course of time Kayin brought an offering to ADONAI from the produce of the
soil;
4
and Hevel too brought from the firstborn of his sheep, including their fat. ADONAI
accepted Hevel and his offering
5
but did not accept Kayin and his offering. Kayin was very angry, and his face fell.
6
ADONAI said to Kayin, "Why are you angry? Why so downcast?
7
If you are doing what is good, shouldn't you hold your head high? And if you don't do
what is good, sin is crouching at the door- it wants you, but you can rule over it."
Notice the words that say: "Sin is crouching at the door-it wants you, but you can rule over it
". So Judaism certainly acknowledges that committing behavioral sins is a danger lurking
around every corner. But they see it as possible, and even expected by God, that humans rule
over that sin. Thus Jews do not accept the idea of an original sin from which humanity is held
universally captive.
My point in this little excursion is not to recommend to you a precise version or doctrine of
original sin, or to dissuade you from any particular view, but rather to acquaint you with one of
the major reasons that it can be so difficult to convince especially the religious Jews to accept
a Savior to pay for their sins, and to save them from their sin natures. They believe that they do
not have a sin nature stemming from Adam, and also that they have every ability to not sin if
they work hard enough at it. So their fate is, in essence, in their own hands.
My purpose is also to show you that Paul's version of original sin as many of us interpret it is
not the only one within Christianity. So don't be surprised when you encounter other Believers
who disagree with you over this issue. But then also don't be surprised when because of their
view of original sin, how they think of Christ and salvation will also be different.
We'll continue with Romans 5 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 13, Chapter 5 continued
As we return to Romans chapter 5 we had just finished learning of Paul's approach to
explaining how the Gospel works by a comparison he is making between Adam and Yeshua.
In verse 12 Paul stated this:
CJB Romans 5:12 Here is how it works: it was through one individual that sin entered the
world, and through sin, death; and in this way death passed through to the whole
human race, inasmuch as everyone sinned.
Christianity, as it has a habit of doing, has taken this verse and turned it into a doctrine. It gave
that doctrine a name and made it fundamental to the Christian faith: the Doctrine of Original
Sin. Most Believers are aware of the Church's teaching on the original sin of Adam; however
as we saw last week there are several variations on it (I told you about six variations). No
matter; Paul's theology, and his entire understanding of what Yeshua's sacrificial death
accomplished, rests on the proposition that it was Adam's rebellion in the Garden of Eden that
introduced sin into the human race (if not the world in general) and that sin also brought death
with it as a consequence. Let me be clear: Paul implies that sin did not exist in humans prior to
Adam's trespass of eating the forbidden fruit; and thus death did not exist in humans before it.
So Paul links sin and death as having an unbreakable bond; if you have one, you have the
other. Some believe that death in the animal kingdom also did not exist, and in fact neither did
time as we know it exist, until Adam sinned. Why might time not have existed before then?
Because time is essentially a measure of decay, and decay is the process of dying. Yeshua
said this:
Matthew 6:19-20 CJB
19 "Do not store up for yourselves wealth here on earth, where moths and rust destroy,
and burglars break in and steal.
20 Instead, store up for yourselves wealth in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
destroys, and burglars do not break in or steal.
Rust (oxidation) is decay; so when Christ describes the conditions here on earth He explains
how moths and rust gradually degrade and ultimately destroy physical things. But, He says, in
Heaven there are no moths and rust to destroy; He is describing decay in terms suitable for His
era. If there is no decay then all that exists remains in its pristine state forever. We have a
name for that; eternity.
All dimensions of existence (whether there are only the 3 dimensions of space that we see all
around us, or more dimensions as mathematical models suggest and many physicists think
there are) are necessarily dimensions that either have time as one its elements, or has eternity
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
as one of its elements. Time and eternity cannot co-exist because eternity, as the Bible attests,
is an existence without time and thus without decay. So perhaps the Universe was originally
created as 3 eternal dimensions. The 4th dimension, time, may have been part of the
consequence of Adam's sin; or perhaps better put, time erupted the instant death erupted
because they are fused together as one, with one being the measure of the other. Thus the 4th
dimension is a kind of curse laid upon the 3 original dimensions. By the addition of time, 3
timeless dimensions were changed to 3 time-limited dimensions. And the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, fundamentally approaches death as the ultimate curse. The question, then, is
what can be done about it because little has terrified humans since Adam and Eve more than
the prospect of our own mortality. Over the eons rich people have spent enormous sums of
money trying to defeat the effects of time and to cheat death.
So I set this radical proposition before you: the Gospel is, as Paul states, the only possible
remedy for Adam's sin; but even more the Gospel is meant to reverse death and decay
because the Gospel will literally usher in life from the dead for humans who trust in God. Even
the 3 dimensions that we all live in will eventually be renewed, never again to be cursed by the
existence of the 4th dimension of time because time will no longer exist. And if it can be truly be
counted as a dimension, then the 4th dimension will cease being a dimension of time, and
instead will become a dimension of eternity. Sound like Science Fiction? Where in the world
would Tom Bradford come up with such pseudo-science babble all mixed up with religion and
God and expect you to believe it?
Revelation 21:1-7 CJB
CJB Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and
the old earth had passed away, and the sea was no longer there.
2
Also I saw the holy city, New Yerushalayim, coming down out of heaven from God,
prepared like a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
3
I heard a loud voice from the throne say, "See! God's Sh'khinah is with mankind, and
he will live with them. They will be his people, and he himself, God-with-them, will be
their God.
4
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will no longer be any death; and
there will no longer be any mourning, crying or pain; because the old order has passed
away."
5
Then the One sitting on the throne said, "Look! I am making everything new!" Also he
said, "Write, 'These words are true and trustworthy!'"
6
And he said to me, "It is done! I am the 'A' and the 'Z,' the Beginning and the End. To
anyone who is thirsty I myself will give water free of charge from the Fountain of Life.
7
He who wins the victory will receive these things, and I will be his God, and he will be
my son.
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
Revelation 22:1-5 CJB
CJB Revelation 22:1 Next the angel showed me the river of the water of life, sparkling like
crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2
Between the main street and the river was the Tree of Life producing twelve kinds of
fruit, a different kind every month; and the leaves of the tree were for healing the
nations␂3
no longer will there be any curses. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the
city, and his servants will worship him;
4
they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.
5
Night will no longer exist, so they will need neither the light of a lamp nor the light of
the sun, because ADONAI, God, will shine upon them. And they will reign as kings
forever and ever.
Folks; I took us on this route to open our lesson today because too much we speak of, and
think of, the Gospel in a much too limited way. We think of it in "Church" terms. We think of it
as "getting saved" and then being nicer to one another. We think of it in terms of how one
gains membership to a group. And of course, we think of it in terms of when we die we get to
go to Heaven instead of to that other place. But the Gospel is far greater and more expansive
than that; the Gospel affects everything that exists just as Adam's sin and the resultant curse
of death affects everything that exists. It is no wonder that while (on a limited basis and by
God's grace) the blood of animals could indeed atone for human sins; but the blood of bulls
and goats could not literally reset the Universe. The sacrificial blood of sheep and cattle could
not bring us an entirely new Creation process. But Christ's blood could. In fact it did and (as it
plays out) the Gospel is in the process of bringing us to an entirely new Creation where sin
isn't even a possibility. And since sin isn't possible then neither is death and decay. This is
why Paul was driven to take the Good News to the world at any personal cost; and it is why we
should be driven as well. What a message of hope in world that has precious little to hope for.
Let's re-read a portion of Romans chapter 5.
RE-READ ROMANS 5:12 – end
So in verse 12 Paul tells us about the effects of the original sin and how death was initially
introduced into humanity (possibly into the Universe) and how it propagates; it came through
the wrong deed of merely one man: Adam. But in verse 13 Paul returns to less of a theological
and more or a logical/rational argument about sin in relation to the Torah (I will use the terms
Torah and the Law of Moses somewhat interchangeably). He says that simple logic tells us
that mankind existed a long time before God gave the Torah to Moses. So if it is the Law of
Moses that is the sole source of what tells us what sin is, then what about the time between
Adam and Moses when there was no Law of Moses? And Paul says that yes, of course sin
was in the world before Moses (how could anyone seriously argue that point?). However he
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
goes on to say something rather confusing. In fact it is at this point that many good, honest
Bible commentators will say that the remainder of Romans chapter 5 is very difficult, and it
contains some ambiguities that could allow us to legitimately understand Paul's words in more
than one way. So Paul says to end verse 13: "but sin is not counted as sin when there is no
Law (no Torah)". What? Does that mean what it seems to mean? I thought back in chapters 1
and 2 that Paul had made his case that it doesn't matter whether the Law of Moses was in
existence, or whether gentiles didn't have any knowledge of the Law, because the Natural
Law that is known to all human beings from Adam onward tells us plainly God's standard of
right and wrong; what God wants and doesn't want from humans. Thus there exists a kind of
Torah (a kind of law) that is not the Law of Moses, against which all humanity in all eras are
measured and so all humans can sin before God and rightfully be judged by God (Adam didn't
have the Law of Moses, and yet his sin changed the nature of the world).
We have to be careful here not to take Paul's statement that where there is no Law (no
Torah), then sin can't be counted as sin, too rigidly or universally, nor especially from a
modern Western mindset. This statement is one of a few that Paul makes that has resulted in
some dubious Christian doctrines. A misunderstanding of this admittedly difficult statement of
Paul has caused the bulk of Christianity to make it a Church axiom that since without the Law
of Moses there is no sin, therefore then how dumb the Jews are today, and how dumb and
misguided those Israelites of old must have been, to have actually followed the Law of Moses.
Because if they had just refused to follow it then they could have avoided sinning! And guess
what? It's even more so for Christians. By Believers refusing to know anything about the Law
of Moses we are supposedly made safe from sinning. Well if that's the case, then non␂Christians are in even better shape; they certainly know nothing about the Law so these non␂Believers can't possibly sin because they don't know the Law in order to disobey it, right?
Then if they can't sin because they don't know anything about the Law, why would their non␂existent sins need to be atoned for by Christ? I hope you see that such a doctrine is essentially
a circular firing squad. It is self-evident that whatever Paul intends here, it is certainly not that.
So what might he mean? I'm going to give you my opinion, but that is all that it is: my opinion.
I'll necessarily have to pepper in some explanation.
Part of what we are dealing with is that there is no Greek word for Torah. And there is just one
Greek word typically favored to express a law or regulation, even an established custom:
nomos. We know from the context of a passage that sometimes when Paul speaks of law, he
speaks specifically of the Law of Moses (the Torah). But at other times when he speaks of the
law he is speaking of Jewish law (Halakhah). And yet at other times he employs the same
exact term, nomos, to describe the law of God that all men have within us, gentile and Jew,
what Judeo-Christianity has come to call the Natural Law. So when the Greek word nomos is
used by Paul it can legitimately mean at least 3 different things: the Law of Moses, or the
Natural Law, or Jewish Law. I am baffled as to why Paul didn't see the need to insert a word
or two to help his readers differentiate between the three possibilities (although occasionally he
does). I can only guess that he assumed that the context made it plain; or that because these
letters of his always were sent to synagogues where the Believers in his day gathered, then he
took it for granted that the Jews would naturally understand his meaning and, if necessary,
explain it to the Believing gentiles who also attended those synagogues and/or congregation
meetings. I think it is also highly likely that many times Paul's own mind didn't make a strong
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
distinction between the Law of Moses and Jewish Law. As a Pharisee he would have easily
accepted as correct many of the rabbinic interpretations of the Law that had become traditions,
and so there was no need to be too terribly precise to say whether he was speaking directly
about Holy Scripture or about an interpretation of Holy Scripture.
However because since the late 2nd century there has been a doctrinal bent by gentile
Christians against Jews and also against the Law of Moses (a bent that became Church Law
by the 4th century), then whenever Paul uses the term law (nomos), it is nearly always
interpreted to mean the Law of Moses. This is especially so when a statement about the law is
seen as Paul saying something negative about it. So I'm going to use my own words to
paraphrase what I think Paul is meaning, and then I'll explain why I think so. I believe he is
saying: "Sin was indeed present in the world before the Law of Moses was given; but sin is
not counted as sin when there is no divine law". Paul is saying that it is self evident that there
was sin before Moses, so logically there had to be laws of God in existence even if those laws
didn't come from the Law of Moses. This assumption is because if there weren't any laws of
God, then truly there was no way to sin! The very definition of sin is breaking God's laws.
Adam was given only ONE LAW: don't eat that fruit! He rebelled by breaking the one law God
gave to him; Adam sinned.
Since Romans chapter 1 Paul has been explaining that sin is not only associated with
violations of the Law of Moses; sin is also associated with violations of the Natural Law or any
direct law that God might give a person. Paul has just used the example of Adam who certainly
did not have the Law of Moses; and yet by a divine law that God directly pronounced to Adam
(do not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) he broke that law and it
brought death into the world. So even though there was a long time of history when there was
no Law of Moses that doesn't mean that there weren't any laws of God in existence. And
when a human broke those laws (any human, at any time) it was counted as sin. And as Paul
explained earlier, that is why all human beings, and not just Jews, are liable to sinning and thus
to experiencing God's wrath. So the sin of violating the Natural Law (or even a special law
directed only at one person) is just as deadly for the sinner as it is for violating the Law of
Moses.
So the reason that Paul said what he said in verse 13 (something that is so confusing to us in
our time) is because he is talking about the period of time between Adam and Moses before
there was such a thing as the Law of Moses. He was addressing the straw man that he has
been debating with since the beginning of Romans, and Paul's straw man has incorrectly
surmised: 'but sin is impossible without the Law of Moses'. As it turns out, that actually was the
belief within mainstream Judaism of Paul's day. Paul of course was well aware of it and he
was refuting that thought because it went against his theology concerning the Gospel.
Verse 14 goes a long way towards validating my opinion about the intent of verse 13. That is,
Paul says that even though Adam received a direct, personal commandment from God that he
violated, the entire human race that came from Adam continued sinning in his own way and so
experienced death. Yet humans couldn't possibly have committed the same sin Adam did
because humans were no longer allowed to live in the Garden where the forbidden tree was
located. Thus there had to be some common, unspoken divine laws that humans violated. Or
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
as Paul phrases it, the sinners were: "Those whose sinning was not exactly like Adam's
violation of a direct command". Paul ends verse 14 by saying that Adam prefigured someone
who would come later (Paul is alluding to Christ).
Yet in verse 15, after just saying that Adam prefigured Christ, Paul nuances his statement by
saying that even so there are differences between Adam and Yeshua (these are the kinds of
things Paul does that drives Bible academics crazy). He says that the free gift from Yeshua
(righteousness) is not like the offense that Adam committed. He says that because of the bad
deed of one man, many have died. However from the good deed of a different man, Yeshua,
God's grace has come to just as many. And that because of the bad deed of one man, every
human has been judicially condemned to death. However because of the good deed of one
man, a judicial pardon is available. Even more, the pardon is a free gift.
So in verse 17 Paul says that because death and sin are blood-brothers, Adam's sin opened
the door for the dominion of death to enter in and rule over mankind. However because God
offers the free gift of righteousness to sinners, made possible by Yeshua's death on the cross,
then this has opened the door for the dominion of life to enter in and rule over mankind. So the
Adam-caused dominion of death gets counteracted by the Yeshua-caused dominion of life.
The point to notice from the perspective of trying to understand where Paul is going with this is
that even though he first says that Adam prefigured Christ, it is not a comparison of like-for-like
that Paul winds up making but rather quite a stark contrast. Adam caused judgment; Yeshua
caused righteousness. Adam caused death; Yeshua caused life. Other than the comparison
that 2 human men caused these things to happen to many other humans, what is produced
from these 2 men are opposite results.
Before we go farther I want to explain some things about Paul that you may already be picking
up on and perhaps it will help you in your personal study. Paul tends to communicate in a
somewhat casual conversational style. So it is not unusual for him to make a rather bold (even
brash) statement and then walk it back a little bit because he knows he may have gone a tad
overboard or has found himself suddenly headed in a direction he didn't intend to go. He also
tends to discuss a faith issue or a God-principle or an area of theology that might have several
complex aspects to it, but highlights only one or two of the aspects and doesn't confront the
other aspects at all. Without a more thorough reading it can seem to the Bible student that
those one or two aspects Paul highlights are the ONLY aspects of that issue or principle that
exist (or perhaps are the only aspects of any importance), even though that is not the case. My
conclusion is that this highlighting he does has everything to do with whom he is talking to and
what the specific agenda is that he is trying to communicate. Paul rightly assumes that anyone
reading his letters is directly associated with the congregation to whom he is writing, whether it
is at Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome. Despite what the institutional Church has done with his letters
(that is, to make them out to be general theological proclamations and teachings applicable to
all Christians in all circumstances) that is far from the case. And for centuries the assertion of
theologians has been that when taken together Paul's letters are an intentional, organized
system of Christian theology that Paul is carefully crafting; I thoroughly deny that this is the
case.
So in verse 18 when he explains something that he's already addressed 2 or 3 times in this
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
section, he says that just as it was one offense (one sin) that brought all human beings under
condemnation (Adam's original sin), so it is that with one righteous act (Yeshua going to the
cross) that all people may be considered righteous, he is speaking using sweeping words but
at the same time is dealing with a narrow issue. For instance: saying that because of this
righteous act (presumably of Yeshua) ALL people can be considered righteous is simply not
true. He has taken the Adam pattern too far (typical Paul). While it is true that Adam's sin
indeed brought death to ALL people who would come after him, it is definitely NOT true that
Christ's sacrifice brings righteousness to ALL people. So, again typical Paul, he just made
another bold statement and has gone a bit overboard, and so in verse 19 he begins to walk his
statement back.
In verse 19 he says that through the disobedience of one man (Adam) many were made
sinners, so through the obedience of one man (Yeshua) many will be made righteous. Wait a
minute: just a second ago he said Adam made ALL people sinners, now it is many. Just a
second ago Paul said ALL people were made righteous by Christ's sacrifice, now it's many.
What happened? It is simply Paul being Paul. It is his style and he loves to use metaphors and
analogies, and * for his era he takes some poetic liberties to make them impactful. I'm in
no way denigrating Paul or criticizing him. I'm not saying Paul is suspect. I'm saying that of
the many writers of the Bible, Paul is the last one that we should be plucking out one of his
statements and making it into a Church doctrine because very likely he'll have more to say on
that topic and he'll say something different about it next time. Verses 18 and 19 are a perfect
example of this. Some denominations prefer verse 18 and so say that Paul's theology is that
the entire world....every last human....has been redeemed by Christ's death. Period. It is just
that only some realize their redemption and some don't. This is actually an understanding
within the Catholic Church (among other churches) and emphasized by Pope Francis fairly
recently and Pope John Paul II some years ago. Here is a quote from Pope John Paul II: "In
the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and
Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to
eternal life. All are redeemed and called to share in glory in Jesus Christ, without any
distinction of language, race, nation or culture."
However to those denominations that prefer to lean on verse 19, then it is only some people
who will be saved and the remainder won't be. The saved were in some Heavenly lottery and
"elected" or "predestined" by God to be saved; this is a precept that Calvin held.
It is critical in all Bible books to look at the immediate, but also the broader, context of what is
being said on any particular subject or within any particular passage, or we can find ourselves
losing our bearings and coming up with some incorrect conclusions; it is especially so with the
Apostle Paul. We must not only look at an entire chapter but rather an entire book (or letter) he
has written and sometimes we even have to look to all of Paul's letters as a whole to distill his
actual theology on any given principle. At all times we must keep at the forefront of our minds
that even though he was Christ's personally chosen Apostle to the gentiles, he was not a
gentile. Paul was still a Jew of Jews and a Pharisee of Pharisees according to his own
description of himself. He thought like a Jew because he was born a Jew and that was his
cultural upbringing. He thought in the religious terms of Judaism, because he was trained at
the elite school of Judaism, in Jerusalem, at the Academy of Gamaliel. Paul could not get into
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
the mind of a gentile because he was not one. Indeed because he was a Diaspora Jew he had
a certain social comfort level with, and tolerance for, gentiles that Holy Land Jews did not have.
But even when Paul is directly addressing gentiles he uses Jewish thoughts and terms to
communicate because that's who he was. We must always understand Paul within his Jewish
cultural character and recognize that some of the especially difficult and ambiguous things he
says are very likely Jewish cultural expressions commonly used in his day but whose
meanings have become lost to history. This is what makes reading Paul both fascinating and
frustrating, and fraught with potholes.
So now in verse 20 Paul starts to pull together what he has been saying into a conclusion for
the purpose of establishing a doctrine. I'll tell you in advance that what he has been saying
about the Law of Moses would have been shocking, even insulting, to most of his Jewish
readers. He has put the Torah in a less than stellar light. No doubt he intended to shock them.
You don't shock people by being gentle and diplomatic, something which Paul would have
been ill suited for anyway. So he says that the reason that the Law of Moses was created by
God, and then given to Israel when He gave it, was so that offenses against God would
increase. Where we find the word proliferate in our CJB (sin would proliferate), or increase or
abound in other English versions, the Greek word is pleonazo. This word means to super␂abound; to increase super-abundantly. It is a word that indicates an extreme amount of growth.
However, says Paul, to counteract the super amount of increase of sin that the Law would
produce, the Lord would super increase grace to an even higher level. Paul has done it again.
He has made a bold, brash statement that essentially reduces the purpose and scope of the
Torah, the Jews' venerated and ancient Holy Book, to something mostly negative if not
intrinsically faulty. Rather than causing righteousness to come about, the Law causes sins and
curses to explode to unheard of levels. To hear Paul tell it thus far in the Book of Romans, the
Torah is akin to a Trojan Horse sent by God to His chosen people. Yet, says verse 21, this is
all part of God's plan for grace to overtake sin and death as the ruler of this world. And this
Torah that causes sin ironically brings on even more grace; the grace causes more people to
be righteoused by God, and in the end they wind up with eternal life.
First: while this is a great piece of hyperbole, it is also Paul speaking truthfully and accurately
about one narrow aspect of a complex subject: the Torah. He knows, as does anyone who has
seriously studied the Torah that the Torah was given as a blessing and a gift of life by God to
His people.
Second: as exaggerated and negative as Paul has made his comment about the purpose of
the Torah, nonetheless it exposes a great truth about humanity. It is that the more we're told
what NOT to do, the more we want to do it. There is something about long lists of do's and
don'ts that energizes our evil inclinations. Our evil inclination wants to do whatever it is that
God does not want us to do, and vice versa. The Law, in its detail and explanation,
comprehensively reveals God's will for our lives. The generality of the Natural Law has given
way to the explicitness of the Law of Moses. There's no hiding from our behavior and our
thoughts; there's no ambiguity with the Law. We don't have to wonder if we're doing right or
wrong; the Law of Moses makes it clear. Not only are the laws set out, so are the God␂ordained penalties for breaking the laws. So in that sense, the Law increased sins. The Law
exposes sin in our lives for what it is truly is.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 13 - Chapter 5 cont.
But Paul, in his brashness, has also created an impression in his straw man that is just
bursting to come out. Can Paul really be saying that essentially the more we sin the more
grace God gives? Can Paul really be implying that sin is a good thing because it increases
grace; that it is practically our religious duty to sin more so that more grace can be applied and
therefore God gets even more glory? And that is why God gave the Torah to Moses and
Israel?
But even more, according to this line of reasoning suddenly God's chosen people have been
put at a horrible disadvantage. God rescues them from Egypt, gives them His Torah on Mt.
Sinai, demands that they obey it, and when they do they find themselves in a much more
dangerous position than the gentiles who weren't given the Torah. After all; by Paul's logic
who is the most exposed to the danger of God's wrath? The people who do not have the Law
or the people who do? If the entire purpose of the Torah is to create more sin, then what has
ever been the benefit to following the Torah? And why would God do this to Israel? Paul
seems to have dug himself into a deep hole. Next week we'll begin chapter 6 and see how he
digs himself out.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 14, Chapter 6
Romans chapter 5 verse 20 said this: And the Torah came into the picture so that the
offence would proliferate; but where sin proliferated, grace proliferated even more.
(Rom 5:20 CJB). Or in plain English, Paul is saying that the Law of Moses was given so that
sins would become even greater; but where sin increased God's grace increased an even
greater amount so God was always ahead of the curve. This is a very bold assertion but Paul
intends it as more than that; he intends this to be a fundamental doctrine that Believers in
Yeshua should adopt. However, because he is presenting his doctrines in typical Talmudic
style (presenting his proposed regulation to a straw man, in essence), he leaves himself wide␂open for an assumption by the straw man that is radical to the point of absurdity. And that
assumption is that if what Paul is asserting is true, then it follows that Believers have just been
given the divine green light to go ahead and sin more, since apparently the more we sin the
more God pours out His grace; and the more God pours out His grace, the more glory God
receives from His worshippers. Therefore it must be the duty of Believers to sin more so that
more adulation and glory goes to God!
Paul is well aware that a Roman Believer could take his assertion to an extreme and draw the
same absurd conclusion as the straw man so he must remedy this. That is what the opening 2
verses of Romans chapter 6 addresses. And by the way: clearly he is concerned that the
Roman Believers indeed were predisposed to take what he said the wrong way. The receivers
of the letter live in the capital of paganism and worldliness, Rome, and Paul has never met
these Believers and can only surmise what they know and don't know about the Gospel. He
has no personal knowledge of what doctrines (good or bad) they might have established
among themselves. It might seem disjointed to us when looking at our modern Bibles that Paul
would propose the doctrine in one chapter and then wait until the next chapter to explain
himself. But it only seems that way because of the addition of chapter divisions and verse
markers that didn't exist in his day. When he wrote the letter it was just as we would write a
letter; it was one long narrative without any divisions or marked sub-sections. The Bible wasn't
divided into chapters until the 13th century.
Before we read chapter 6 I think it is important that we discuss the word "grace". In Hebrew
the word typically translated as grace is chen, although sometimes the Hebrew word chesed
is translated as grace in English Bibles (but it ought not to be). Chen means favor or grace.
Chesed more means loving-kindness. In Greek the word that is almost always translated into
English as grace is charis. So the Greek charis is attempting to translate the Hebrew chen.
However the Greek word charis seems to more or less combine the definitions of the Hebrew
words chen and chesed, so charis can mean favor, grace, kindness, or good will. Nothing
wrong with that; it just points out that Greek and Hebrew vocabularies don't always have a
complete one-to-one relationship. That is, there are many Hebrew words that don't have a
direct equivalent Greek word (and vice versa), so when translating Hebrew words or thoughts
to Greek, sometimes the best that can be done is an approximation. Nonetheless, there is no
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
reason to quibble over the choice of the Greek word charis to indicate grace in the way Paul
meant it, and in the way we typically think of it. There really is no other Greek word that could
have been used.
However grace has a very broad meaning in the Bible and in English use. Grace involves the
notion of favor; but it is Christianity that has taken it one step further and made the definition of
grace as UNMERITTED favor. That is because in English "favor" can indeed be fully merited;
it can be a tit-for-tat reciprocation (I did a favor for you, now you owe me a favor in return).
Favor can be something that is expected or customary. Favor can simply indicate approval or
support, or it can indicate a preference or even an indulgence. I completely accept the notion
that, Biblically speaking, grace means unmerited favor so long as we limit it to God bestowing it
upon humans. Even so we next have to ask ourselves an important question: what is the
particular substance of God's grace? In other words, when God gives us grace it involves Him
doing something in particular for us. So for instance: God could show me grace by giving me
the job I so badly needed. He could show me grace by healing me from a serious illness. He
could show a ministry grace by supplying a monetary need. So the term "grace" doesn't have
any real applicable meaning for us until we connect it to a specific act or event. So as we read
Romans 6, be aware that when Paul speaks of God's grace he means it as a kind of
shorthand. When Paul speaks of grace he means it in direct relation to some particular action
that God did that Paul is thinking about.
I'll say it again this way: saying "grace" by itself simply means an unmerited favor from God.
But what favor? Until we know the exact nature of the favor we don't know what that act of
grace involved. One more illustration and we'll move on. You walk in the front door and say to
your wife: "Isn't that nice; our neighbor just did us a wonderful favor"; and you turn and walk
out of the room. Wives, what would be your first thought? First, you'd be bewildered because
you have no idea what he's talking about. So you would think: "What favor did our neighbor
do?" Favor, grace, must be connected to a particular identifiable action for it to have any real
application or meaning to us. So when we say we are saved by grace, it has little actual
application until we identify what particular action of grace God did to save us.
Thus as we read Romans chapter 6 and Paul repeatedly uses the term "grace", he has a
specific action in mind that he has previously identified. And what is it that Paul says God did
for sinners as His act of grace? He made us righteous. And how did He make us righteous? He
reached down from Heaven and "righteoused" us as a free gift. In Christian-eze, He "justified"
us in an act of grace. We'll come back to this to clarify a bit more as we go along in chapter 6.
We are going to walk slowly and deliberately through chapter 6 as Paul makes numerous
theological points that are critical for our understanding of our faith. So we'll take as much time
as needed to get all we can from it and we'll work at defining some terms as we do.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 6 all
So to begin chapter 6 Paul uses the typical Talmud method to deal with the issue of God
granting more grace as people sin more. Our straw man has come to the erroneous conclusion
that is presented in verse 1: So then are we to say: "Let's keep on sinning so that there
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
can be more grace?" Thus, the straw man has created his own regulation that says that
Believers should be encouraged to keep on sinning so that more grace will abound. Paul
obviously disagrees with that regulation and (again in standard Talmud fashion) responds to it
to begin verse 2 with: "Heaven forbid!" Now that the incorrect regulation has been stated, and
Paul reacts strongly against it, he states the correct regulation: "How can we who have died
to sin, still live in it?" And from there he fleshes out the details of his regulation and why his
doctrine is the right one.
Another of the main doctrines that Paul establishes is what he calls "dying to sin". Here is one
of those phrases (or terms) that Christians often use, which is not so easy to understand or to
explain. For one reason most Bible commentators don't seem to be able to come up with a
single, standard definition of it with some commentators suggesting that Paul means "dying to
sin" in a number of ways simultaneously. Great pains are made to connect "dying to sin" to
Christ's death, and sin to the Law, and so on. I see the issue as becoming needlessly
complicated within Christianity because we don't understand it in the Jewish cultural mindset
of the 1st century; an understanding that was widespread and common knowledge among the
Jewish people. So since Paul is a Jewish scholar then we need to look at it the way he would
have.
One of the most fundamental Jewish beliefs was (and still is) that mankind is born with two
inclinations: a good inclination (yetzer ha tov) and an evil inclination (yetzer ha rah). Since all
humans have two opposing God-given inclinations within us then it follows that we also have
the freedom to choose to obey one or the other; this is the Jewish definition of free will and
how it is made possible. In Jewish thought a human is mastered either by his good inclination
or his evil inclination. So a master/slave relationship is contemplated since slavery was a
normal and visible part of life in the Biblical era and the relationship of slave to master was
understood by all. In this Jewish belief the master is the inclination, while the slave is the
person. This principle was encapsulated by a fundamental Jewish doctrine (taught by the
Pharisees) called the doctrine of the Two Ways. The Essenes held an almost identical doctrine
that they titled the doctrine of the Two Spirits. The bottom line to both of these doctrines is that
man cannot be a slave that serves two masters. Thus a man cannot obey both his evil
inclination and his good inclination; he must choose. Yeshua obviously believed this doctrinal
philosophy and He taught it this way:
CJB Matthew 6:24 No one can be slave to two masters; for he will either hate the first and
love the second, or scorn the second and be loyal to the first. You can't be a slave to
both God and money.
In Yeshua's statement God is personified as the master of the good inclination, and money (or
really, the world system) is personified as the master of the evil inclination. Since it is the evil
inclination that produces sin, then to "walk in sin" is to be a slave to the master of your evil
inclination. Conversely to "die to sin" is to acknowledge a change of masters. You cease being
a slave to the evil inclination and instead become a slave to the good inclination. It really is no
more difficult than that, and it is certainly what "dying to sin" would have meant to the Jews.
In verse 3 Paul begins by saying, "Don't you know?" So he is saying to the Believers of Rome
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
that he assumes that they already understand the ritual of baptism that has been practiced by
Hebrews since time immemorial. Ritual bathing was fundamental and would have been
required for any gentile Believer to congregate with any Jewish Believer. So Paul is connecting
the concept of baptism as a symbol of dying to sin, with the death of Yeshua. What can be a
little confusing is what the term "baptized into Christ" or "immersed into Christ" means. The
Greek word for baptize is baptizo. It was a rather common word for the era that didn't always
have religious overtones. Rather it was something that those in the cloth industry used.
Baptizo meant to immerse; but it also meant more than simply dunking an object in water or
liquid. In the cloth industry it meant to immerse cloth into a vat of dye and the cloth taking on
the characteristics of the dye liquid; that is, the cloth absorbed the colored dye and so it
became that same color. So when used in the religious realm, when Jews walked into the
Mikveh (the ritual bath), they took on the qualities of the Living Water they were immersing in
(Living Water is pure and it cleanses). And when a Believer immersed themselves in Christ
(were baptized into Christ), the idea is that we are being immersed into His qualities, which we
absorb into ourselves much like a cloth absorbs the colored liquid in a vat of dye. Thus since
one of Christ's qualities was that He died, then when we are baptized we also absorb the
quality of His death. Therefore we can say that we died with Christ.
Of course for Believers in Yeshua, by Paul's day baptism was also a ritual for gaining
membership into the community of Believers (very much as it is seen in Christianity in our
time). This was not a new concept; the Essenes did the very same a long time before Yeshua
was born. A person who wanted to join the Essene community had to be baptized into it....they
had to be immersed into a Mikveh symbolizing absorbing the qualities of the Essenes, which
was needed to become part of the community.
Starting in verse 4, Paul starts to further nuance what he wants to communicate and frankly it
starts to get rather complicated. I'll do my best to untangle it and make it more
comprehensible. Paul says that through our immersion (baptism) into his death (that is, we
both identify with Christ and we take on the qualities of his death), we are also buried with Him.
Death is one thing; burial is another. Burial signals the logical and culturally accepted way to
indicate the end of life. It is also the official end of the old life. So Believer's baptism doesn't
only identify us with Christ's death, but also with His burial. Thus just as His old life was dead
and buried, so is our old life (life before salvation) dead and buried. Christ's death was by
means of crucifixion and that has significance in itself. So Believer's baptism identifies us as
symbolically joining Christ on the cross as the means of death, and also of joining Him in the
grave as the finality of death. Understanding this different symbolism between death and burial
will help us to see what Paul is getting at as we move along in this chapter.
The last half of verse 4 explains that the reason for our baptism and identification with Christ's
death and burial is in order for us to be able to take the next step, which is to identify with
Christ's resurrection from the dead. So just as the Father resurrected Yeshua from the dead
into a brand new life, so it will be for us. It is important that we understand that this resurrection
that Believers experience is twofold: first, we are resurrected into a new quality of life in the
here and now. Second, in the future we will be bodily resurrected and enter an entire new
glorified physical state, just as Christ did when He was resurrected. So the change we undergo
upon baptism into Christ is partly immediate and partly in the future.
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
Now a question: so far Paul has been talking about baptism. Is baptism a must, or is it
optional? If it is a must does this mean that UNTIL we are baptized we are not dead to sin, we
are not buried with Christ, and so we are still the old person, not yet living the new redeemed
life of a Believer? That is: what about a person who has professed Christ but for one reason or
another has never been baptized (whether prevented by circumstances or declined by
choice)? I may not be able to give you a satisfactory answer to that, but one thing is certain: in
Romans 6 (and in other passages) for Paul baptism (immersion) is absolutely the
indispensable ritual moment for gentiles or Jews when the finality of leaving our old sin life in
Adam and entering our new righteous life in Christ occurs. When we go to a funeral, and
especially if there is a graveside service and the casket is lowered into the earth, there is a
sense of closure. Even if that loved one has been deceased for a few days, the impact of
death's finality doesn't usually begin to happen until the funeral is over. For Paul baptism
serves that same role for a new Believer; it indicates finality and closure. But there is also
another aspect of baptism to consider. Baptism is the initiation rite into the community of
Believers for a new Believer. Faith in Christ is of course assumed before baptism occurs, so it
seems that salvation happens independently from, and before, baptism. But salvation and its
effects upon us are not all immediate or all at once. There are great religious debates over the
sequence and timing of coming to faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the reception of
spiritual gifts, and so on for a newly professed Believer. Baptism, to Paul, is clearly part of the
salvation sequence and an important milestone that is not to be set aside. For Paul baptism
goes far beyond mere symbolism and carries real and tangible consequences with it.
Interestingly the consequences of baptism seem to be more in the here and now in these
present bodies than upon our resurrection into our new bodies. So too, therefore, does the lack
of baptism carry real tangible consequences with it. Believers; I urge you: do not neglect being
baptized even if you cannot quite imagine the true benefits. Paul insists the benefits are there
and they are real. But most importantly, baptism is a matter of obedience.
In verse 6 Paul asserts that when our "old self" was put to death on the cross (that is, in
baptism we have joined Christ on the cross) that is the moment when everything that caused
us to sin is laid waste and so we are no longer slaves to sin. The old self means all of us; the
whole person. Every aspect of who we were that represents all the effects of fallen man as
caused by Adam is involved. But we must not also assume that Paul is saying that our old self
no longer exists; in some mystical way that old self lingers on to be a challenge to us all of our
days. These old bodies, so fragile and subject to time, will continue on until our death; we
don't emerge from the cleansing waters of baptism with a new body. Death in Christ, just as
resurrection in Christ, is a process: some now, some later. So we must not be surprised when
temptation at times still wins out. But the best news for us is that we are no longer slaves to
sin; or, from the Jewish view of Paul's time, no longer is the evil inclination our master to which
we are its slave. We have been liberated to be able to respond to God and the good inclination
within us.
And why are we so free from sin? Paul says in verse 7 it is because dead people can't sin.
And since we have fully identified with Christ in His death, then of course we identify with Him
in His resurrection and His new life. Yet while Christ's death and resurrection is a completed
happening for Him it is not that way for us. Yeshua is no longer burdened by a fragile body nor
the links and relationships of this world; but we, His worshippers, are. Not until we go to the
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
grave will those links and relationships end. Not until we are resurrected from the grave will our
bodies be replaced with new, eternal, glorified ones. So; we wait. And hopefully with each
passing day our new life and our identification with Christ increases in its effects even in this
present world. But that is up to us; that is our obligation to see to it that it happens. Our
forgiveness, mercy, compassion, and loving kindness towards our neighbor don't come
automatically with salvation; we must work at it just as we must work at our obedience to God.
In verse 12 Paul draws some conclusions from all that he has asserted up to now. It is that if
we are dead to sin, but alive in God through Christ, then this means that an entire new
dynamic is possible for us and we need to be aware of it, and we need to take advantage. So
now that we have learned how we are to think and understand what Yeshua's death and
resurrection mean for the Believer on a spiritual level, the next step is to understand what
physical, tangible actions we are to take as a result of this reality. And the first thing a Believer
must do is to prevent sin from reigning in our lives. Before salvation we were fairly helpless
against the power of sin; but now we have more control. Since the evil inclination is no longer
our master and we its slave, then we shouldn't behave as though it is still that way. Soldiers
and others who have had horrific experiences (especially over long periods of time) can
sometimes come away with PTSD; Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. And while it can manifest
itself in a number of ways, in the end the situation is that when the time comes that the victims
of PTSD are no longer in those circumstances nor in harms way, their sub-conscious minds
still at times feel as though they are. They can't reconcile their old dangerous situation with
their new safer situation. The result can be behavior that doesn't match their current
conditions, but rather is more like a strong afterglow from the trauma of the past. As Believers
we had been under the power of sin, under the mastery of our evil inclinations, since our birth.
We were in that dangerous condition for so long that we aren't quite sure how to act since the
moment of our salvation when the situation changed. As Believers we can still carry the
residue of our past sins with us, and so behave out of instinct and knee-* reaction more than
in relation to our new reality.
Paul says that Believers, thanks to salvation, now have a control and a resource that they
didn't have before coming to faith because as a result we are no longer a pawn under the spell
of an evil master (our evil inclination). We are now removed from our dangerous, traumatic
conditions, thus we don't have to let sin have its way with us any longer. In fact, we must fight
our lingering sinful tendencies as rebels fight against an evil tyrant when we feel ourselves
slipping back to the behavior and mindset of our old self, which in reality exists for us only as a
memory. So Paul focuses his attention on our bodies because they still belong to this present
world and can be used for either Godly things or unrighteous things. It is through our bodies
that we connect to this present world; through our senses and through our extremities. So we
must learn to control these bodies that were not made any different because of our salvation.
We must consciously control what our bodies see, what they hear, what they touch, what they
say, what they eat, what they drink, and what they do. It is through these mortal bodies where
sin can have its most devastating effect because these bodies are essentially the held-over
vestiges of our old self. But now we have the power of God to help us regain control for doing
righteous things with these bodies instead of the unrighteous things we used to do. But make
no mistake: the responsibility lies with us. We can no longer offer the excuse that "the Devil
made me do it"; or "it's just my nature to do wrong". You are no longer a slave to sin and to
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
your evil inclination.
And how is all the above possible? In verse 14 Paul says something that has been interpreted
and re-interpreted over the centuries. It has led the Church to come up with the nearly
universal doctrine that the Law is dead and gone. And yet some top Christian scholars
continue to say that such cannot be the case because of what Paul said and because such a
thought is a radical departure from what Yeshua instructed. Let's look at verse 14 in a small
sampling of different English translations.
CJB Romans 6:14 For sin will not have authority over you; because you are not under
legalism but under grace.
NAS Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but
under grace.
KJV Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law,
but under grace.
Depending on how your ears are tuned, what you may have heard is that Believers are no
longer subject to the Law of Moses, but rather are subject to grace. This is the primary NT
verse where the doctrine of Law versus Grace is defined as not only a means to salvation, but
whether the Law of Moses has any relevance in the life of a Believer. And I tell you that honest,
good Bible scholars confess that this verse is very unclear and ambiguous in its meaning. So
that is why various denominations will each take something different from it. Let's see what
conclusions we can reach here in Seed of Abraham Torah Class.
Let's being by noticing that of these three different versions of this verse I read to you, one in
particular is a poor translation (the KJV) and another is what is called a dynamic translation,
which means it is an attempt to tell us the meaning rather than transliterating the Greek words
to English (the CJB). Notice how the NAS says "under law" while the KJV says "under THE
Law". Clearly the use of the term "The Law" is nearly universally used in the Bible, OT or NT,
to refer to the Law of Moses. However, "The Law" is an incorrect English translation. I'm not a
Greek language expert but I know enough to notice that the definite article "the" does not
appear before the word "law" in the Greek manuscripts. I consulted our ministry Greek
language PhD. Rabbi Baruch, and he agreed that there is no definite article present. So it is
NOT "under the Law", rather it is simply "under law". Big difference as this means that we are
not to see this as meaning that Paul places the Law of Moses in opposition to grace. But it
does mean that we are to see some characteristic of law itself in opposition to some
characteristic of grace.
So the basic question that the Church and Bible scholars wrestle with is: is Paul saying that
grace has suddenly appeared and replaced God's laws and regulations? Or, does grace
perhaps replace or mitigate some aspect or consequence of laws and regulations? But the
second basic question is: what does Paul have in mind when he speaks of grace? As we
learned to start this lesson, we cannot just speak of grace (unmerited favor) without knowing
what act of favor God connected to it. Paul has made clear that grace is not some indefinable
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
divine "favor" that God has given His worshippers that saves us; rather it is something very
specific. It is that God favors us (He graces us) with righteousness. Or better, God favors us
BY MEANS OF Him righteousing us (justifying us in more traditional terms) even though we
don't deserve it.
You know my position on this; at its most basic, whatever this verse may intend to convey it
cannot possibly mean that Paul is saying that an act of divine grace has abolished and
replaced the Law of Moses. Because if Paul does indeed mean that then he is in direct
confrontation with His Messiah Yeshua because in Matthew 5:17 -19 Yeshua says He did NOT
come to abolish the Law of Moses, and that not the tiniest part of the Law will change, let alone
vanish in its entirety, until Heaven and earth pass away. And in fact, if anyone says He did, and
so decides not to obey the Law, then Christ will relegate him or her to the least position in His
coming Kingdom. But the people who agree with Him that the Law of Moses continues
untouched, and obeys the Law, Christ will relegate as the greatest in His Kingdom.
Professor C.E.B. Cranfield's Commentary on the Book of Romans is thought by even the
greatest modern day Christian scholars to have no peer. His is the pinnacle, the Gold
Standard, for Romans commentaries. Here is what Cranfield says about verse 14.
"...for you are not under the law but under grace" is widely taken to mean that the Old
Testament law has been superseded, its authority having been abolished for Believers.
This, it may be admitted, would be a plausible interpretation, if this sentence stood by
itself. But since it stands within a document (the letter to the Romans), which contains
such things as (Romans) 3:31; 7:12; 14a; 8:4 and 13:8-10, and in which the law is
referred to again and again as authoritative, such a reading is extremely unlikely. The
fact that 'under the law' is contrasted with 'under grace' suggests the likelihood that
Paul is here thinking not of the law generally, but of the law as condemning sinners; for
since 'grace' denotes God's undeserved favor, the natural opposite to grace would
seem to be 'under God's disfavor or His condemnation'. And the suggestion that the
meaning of the sentence is that Believers are not under God's condemnation
pronounced by the law but under His underserved favor receives strong confirmation
from (Romans) 8:1. "So then there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus."
While I don't agree with Cranfield that what Paul is referencing in this verse is the Law of
Moses (for reasons I gave you moments ago), I do agree with him that it is usually assumed in
institutional Christianity that the Law of Moses is what is intended. But even under that
assumption it still doesn't pan out that Paul is saying that Believers have no further obligation
to obey the Law of Moses because instead they are under grace. In exactly what capacity the
Law has relevance for Believers today is open for debate; but it is not open for debate
(especially using Paul's own words in other places in his letter to the Romans) that what he
means in verse 14 is that the Law is dead and gone for Christians. So it seems clear that what
we as Believers are not under is the curse of the Law; the issue is not the Law itself. The curse
of the Law comes from disobeying the Law. Disobedience to the Law is defined throughout the
Bible (OT and NT) as sinning. The curse that results from sinning is God's wrath, and God's
wrath against us results in our eternal death.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 14 - Chapter 6
But the reason that Believers who disobey the Law are NOT subject to God's wrath or our
eternal death is certainly not because God has abolished the Law; but rather because God has
righteoused we sinners by means of His undeserved favor upon us (His grace). Remember:
since chapter 1 Paul has framed this letter to the Romans as revolving around the problem of
sinning and the consequences of God's wrath. And that wrath is not only applicable to the
people of the Law (Jews) who have broken the Law, it also applies to gentiles who did not
have the Law of Moses but who did have God's Natural Law that all humans have written
within us, but broke it, and so are also subject to God's wrath. God's solution: He righteouses
Jews and gentiles who will trust in Yeshua's faithfulness to God His Father. And this
righteousness exempts us from God's wrath. That is the proper doctrine.
We'll continue with Romans chapter 6 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 15, Chapters 6 and 7
We are going to spend considerable time today defining terms and words that have become
common in our Christian-eze vocabularies; but we either don't actually have a definite
understanding of those words and terms in our minds, or we take them differently than how
they are actually meant.
So before we conclude Romans 6 and get started on chapter 7 I want to begin by taking
another shot at explaining why Paul must be understood so very unlike he traditionally has
been, and why this is no easy task. Why do I harp on this so much? Because like it or not,
what Paul says in the New Testament forms the core of most Christian doctrine. Whether it
should or not is another matter.
Bible translators are forever in a bind; they are well aware that at times what they are
attempting to translate from the Biblical Hebrew or Greek to English is probably a Jewish idiom
or expression that is from an ancient era 2000 to 3000 years ago. Even if it is fairly clear to
them that the phrase under translation seems to be an idiom or an expression they don't
necessarily know for certain what it meant to the writer or to the people of his day. And if the
meaning of the expression isn't entirely clear to them, then the dilemma is: do they go ahead
and transliterate the Hebrew or Greek word for word (resulting in a passage that is likely to
mean something to a 21st century English speaker that it could not have meant to the writer), or
do they translate it dynamically? A dynamic translation means to interpret and write down NOT
what the words literally say, but rather what those words mean to communicate (at least in the
opinion of the translator).
Let me give you some well known English examples of idioms and expressions from American
culture to help to illustrate my point about dynamic translation. "Don't cry over spilt milk".
"Don't let the cat out of the bag". "Let the chips fall where they may". "Don't count your
chickens before they hatch". "Every cloud has a silver lining". "Kill two birds with one stone".
I could go on and on with these because idioms and expressions are simply part of our daily
conversations. Idioms and expressions are designed to be memorable and to communicate
something that is uniquely connected to one's particular culture. They work; and it is
infrequent that if I should use these idioms when conversing with another American that the
other person would not instantly understand my meaning. In fact, in but a few words those
idioms sometimes convey something very specific that it might otherwise take a paragraph or
two to define.
But something very different happens when an American talks to a non-American using those
same idioms. In fact it usually doesn't even help if the American can speak the foreign
language of his or her conversation partner, because if those American idioms and
expressions are translated to the foreign language word for word, disregarding culture, the
foreign person still doesn't get it. Or worse, he accepts what is said as meaning exactly what it
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
sounds like it says. I remember some years ago in Brazil talking to a business associate and
telling him "a deal is a deal". He looked at me with an odd expression and said: 'Well of
course it is. And a cat is a cat, and car is a car.' He kind of wondered if I thought he was
stupid, or because I said something that is so blatantly obvious to any thinking person that
perhaps he was being insulted. It actually took about a 5 minute conversation for me to explain
and nuance the American expression "a deal is a deal" in Brazilian cultural terms that finally
made sense to him.
This is what we are dealing with when we are interpreting Paul, and at times when interpreting
other writers of the Bible books. Paul is not an American or a European and doesn't think like
one or talk like one. The Old Testament can be challenging to interpret but it gets even murkier
in some ways when we are dealing with the Greek New Testament. Why? Because by this
point in history Jewish Tradition, Halakhah, had become fully integrated into Jewish society so
many Jewish religious beliefs, expressed using certain unique terms and expressions, were
nearly universally accepted within Jewish culture and taken for granted. And as what happens
in many languages, abbreviations, idioms and expressions are developed as a kind of short
hand to express the essence of these various beliefs. For instance: a popular Christian
religious expression is "once saved always saved". It is short hand for a long and complex
assertion about the nature and workings of redemption. But it only has meaning to a Christian
who holds to a similar belief system and who lives in the same culture. Outside of that, those
words are either misunderstood or they hold no discernable meaning at all.
Paul brings us a unique set of translation and interpretation difficulties. As a highly educated
Pharisee and Rabbi he not only thought and explained religious matters in terms standard to
his Jewish culture but he also thought and explained things in terms of how he was taught at
the Academy of Gamaliel, at which he was a star pupil. There is a unique structure and
protocol that Rabbis use to state or debate religious principles and regulations of Judaism that
we can identify within Paul's statements provided we know what to look for. I've already
pointed out some of these and showed you that what Paul seems to be saying according to our
21st century way of using the English language within Western culture (and especially within
the 21st century Church, which holds certain doctrinal viewpoints that aren't quite as universal
as we might assume), doesn't always jibe with what he meant within his 1st century Jewish
culture that had Judaism at its center. Rather Paul is using words and expressions that were
everyday, common, and well understood in Jewish society but can mean something else
entirely to our ears. Our job (difficult as it may be) is to discover what he meant to
communicate to his contemporaries; not what it SOUNDS like it means to us 2000 years later
in an entirely different cultural setting. For example: I speak regularly to you about the good
inclination and the evil inclination. These are not standard Western Church terms. But they are
standard Jewish terms from the Old and New Testament era, and the concept of humans
being born with good and evil inclinations is perfectly valid, biblically speaking, even if
Christianity uses different terms to express a similar theological concept. Paul of course uses
the Jewish concepts behind those very Jewish terms and idioms to express himself in his
letters that form so much or our New Testament (what else would he use?). But if we don't
recognize that fact, and if we can't explore what it meant from his Jewish point of view of the
1
st century A.D., then it is all but guaranteed that we will derive some very strange doctrines
from those words, or we will find Paul making conflicting statements, or seeming to disagree
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
with either the Torah or (at times) with Christ.
I tell you this because especially passages in Romans chapters 6 and 7 get misunderstood
because many Bible commentators, and nearly all Pastors and Bible Teachers, do not
recognize the Jewish cultural expressions that Paul is using for what they are. Let me give you
some examples of this issue using rather standard foreign expressions from our era, which
when directly translated to English certainly have a meaning, but the sum of the words do not
actually mean what it sounds to our ears like it means. In German there is an expression that
literally says: "You have tomatoes on your eyes." Now we can certainly understand those
words and go look in a mirror to see if we really do have tomatoes resting on our eyes. But in
German idiom this has nothing to do with tomatoes. It means: "You are not seeing what
everyone else obviously sees".
Another example comes from Sweden. The expression is: "There is no cow on the ice". And of
course while those words certainly do have meaning in English, in reality this idiom has nothing
to do with cows or ice. Rather it means: "There's nothing to worry about". Thank the Lord
those two idioms aren't Hebrew expressions found in the New Testament; otherwise
tomatoes, cows and ice would undoubtedly hold prominent places in our Christian doctrines
and Church services.
Let's continue with our study of the Book of Romans and I'll continue to point out when we
are dealing with apparent Jewish cultural expressions and what they seem to have meant at
that time. What those words meant then is what they need to mean to us now or we have
missed the point.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 6:12 – end
I want to review something important with you. In Romans we have heard Paul speak about
three distinct kinds of divine law. I pause to do this because precious few Bible commentators
acknowledge that there are three and insist there is but one use and meaning for the word
"law". There is the kind of divine law like Paul says that Adam received; a direct
commandment, one on one, from the Lord that is really meant only for that person. Then there
is another kind of divine law that all human beings are born with. We innately know these laws
and all humans are required to obey them; this is the Natural Law. Finally there is the third kind
of divine law that was given to the Israelites on Mt. Sinai: the Law of Moses. Paul has gone to
great lengths to explain that no matter which of the three kinds of divine law a person might
violate, it is sin and therefore that person becomes a sinner. And since the Law of Moses
didn't even come to mankind until after the Israelites had left Egypt, then only two kinds of
divine law had existed up until then: a direct command, one on one, from God, and the Natural
Law. Thus all human beings regardless of race, nationality or ethnicity, and at all times in
history, have been subject to one kind of divine law or the other; and so all human beings could
(and did) sin. What is the consequence of sin? God's wrath, and ultimately, eternal death.
That, and what to do about it, has been the focus of the Book of Romans.
But it is equally important that we understand that apart from divine law Paul also weaves
another kind of law into his dissertation that goes unnoticed to the untrained eye: Jewish Law.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
Halakhah. Tradition. Manmade law as opposed to divine law. We have to watch for this. So as
Bible Believers our challenge is that when Paul speaks of "law", which of the three kinds of
divine law and one kind of manmade law he is speaking of? The major difficulty in identifying
which is which is because in all cases Paul only uses one Greek word for all four kinds of law:
nomos. And when we translate nomos to English, it is always "law". So a Bible student has
their work cut out for them when reading Paul's letters, and especially so the Book of Romans.
Although we discussed verse 14 last time, we'll briefly follow up on it since it is a perfect
example of Jewish idiom that meant one thing to Jews then, but communicates something
different to Christians today. It says this: "For sin will not have authority over you; because
you are not under law but under grace". I quoted the eminent Bible commentator C.E.B.
Cranfield who points out that even though it might sound so, this does not imply that the Law of
Moses is dead to Christians. Rather we must instead understand what "under Law" and
"under grace" mean. But before that, what is meant by 'sin will not have authority over you'?
We have learned that those living under the dominion of sin are therefore living under the
authority of death since sin and death are fused together as one. And who are those living
under the dominion of sin? All who come from Adam. Us. Everybody. Thus what is being
contrasted by Paul are the consequences of what happens to a sinner according to the Law of
Moses, versus what happens to a sinner who, by God's grace, has been righteoused. The
consequences of sinning (which is God's wrath upon the sinner) has been the topic since mid␂way through Romans chapter 1. And Paul has been preaching that by means of a sinner
trusting in the faithful works of Messiah Yeshua that sinner can be protected from God's wrath,
which is due to him. Thus the consequences of sinning under law is God's wrath (death), but
the consequences for committing the same sins under the gracious act of God righteousing the
sinner (grace), is the avoidance of God's wrath.
Then in verse 15 we again encounter Jewish idiom. In this case it is Jewish idiom used
especially by Rabbis. In the standard rabbinic way that a matter of Scripture interpretation and
a resultant ruling about it is created, Paul puts words in his straw man's mouth. And the words
are in response to Paul seemingly implying that if we are free from law, then we must also be
free from sinning. So the straw man says: then "Let's go on sinning because we are not under
law but under grace". In the standard rabbinic expression of strongly disagreeing with a
proposed theological ruling, Paul responds, "Heaven Forbid!" Then starting in verse 16 he
goes on to explain why the straw man's idea that under grace it is OK to continue sinning is
not correct.
To make his case Paul again resorts to using the fundamental doctrine of Judaism called The
Two Masters. Please take note: while the concept of a person not serving two masters can be
found existing in the broadest sense in the Torah (such as the commandment in Exodus to
serve no other gods but the God of Israel), it is not explicitly stated in the Bible until we read it
in the New Testament. Luke 16:13 CJB 13 No servant can be slave to two masters, for he
will either hate the first and love the second, or scorn the second and be loyal to the
first. You can't be a slave to both God and money." So why don't we hear this doctrine of
the Two Masters before the New Testament? Was it an innovation of Christ who essentially
created and spoke the doctrine of Two Masters as a kind of new "Christian" doctrine? No. This
was a long established doctrine of Judaism; Yeshua was merely using something familiar.
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
Remember: Judaism was the result of the Babylonian exile. So Paul knew of this Jewish
doctrine of the Two Masters since his childhood. Therefore he uses the doctrine of Two
Masters to make his point because the Jewish Believers in Rome would have instantly picked
up on it and accepted its validity.
And Paul says that if you obey your inner instinct to sin, then you are a slave to it. And since
the Jews connected sinning to our evil inclination, then they saw the evil inclination as one
Master and the good inclination as a second Master. Paul reminds his readers that you can't
be slaves to both. Once we were slaves to the master of sin, now we are slaves to the master
of righteousness (God).
He does something kind of interesting in verse 19: he apologizes for using the choice of words
that he did. Why? Because in the Diaspora, and especially so in the capital of the Roman
Empire, Rome, being a slave was a low and degrading thing. So using the metaphor of slavery
to express a Believer's devotion to obeying God was to use something disgusting and thus
inappropriate in Roman culture. So while Paul understood that sensitivity he used it, as he
often does, for impact to gain the attention of his readers. But the point Paul is making here is
that after being released from slavery to the Master to sin it doesn't mean that a Believer has
no obligations to his new master, the Master of righteousness: God. And I'm afraid that it is
often mistakenly thought among many Evangelical Christians that the type of freedom and
liberty they gain in salvation is the freedom and liberty from obedience to God or from any
obligation to Him whatsoever. Paul makes it clear that our new found freedom is only from our
obligation to sin, because we had allowed our evil inclinations to be our Masters.
I also want to point out in verse 19 how he speaks about how in the past those to whom he's
writing his letter used to use their bodies for impurity and lawlessness, which, says Paul, only
led to more lawlessness. What does Paul mean by lawlessness? Is he implying they were
criminals? When the Bible speaks of lawlessness, it is speaking only of one thing: divine laws.
Law breaking in the Bible means to break God's divine laws; not laws made by human
governments. In fact Yeshua was so aware of this reality and this understanding among Jews
that He made it a point to teach that worshippers of God were indeed to obey their human
governments. However in other statements it is also made clear that this only applied to
government laws that were in moral agreement with God's laws. Thus if the human
government deified their leader, worshippers of God of course weren't being instructed to, as
good citizens, commit idolatry and worship the government leader. And it was the same
concerning all matters of morality. However when it comes to non-moral matters like
conscription into the military, taxes, contract law and the like, then indeed God's worshippers
are to abide by their local governmental laws.
Thus a very good and appropriate substitute for the term lawlessness as used in Holy Scripture
that reveals how it was meant in Paul's day would be Torahlessness. In fact Torahlessness
carries with it a far more accurate sense of what Paul means than lawlessness, which sounds
to our modern ears like the actions of a criminal.
Paul ends this section of his letter to the Romans by stating his final conclusion, which is
actually (in Jewish culture) a Halakhic ruling. After debating against his straw man, now, for
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
several chapters, verse 23 brings this particular flow of thought to a close with a religious
instruction that all who worship Yeshua as Lord and Savior are to follow. A ruling that is the
very basis of Christianity.
Romans 6:23 CJB 23 For what one earns from sin is death; but eternal life is what one
receives as a free gift from God, in union with the Messiah Yeshua, our Lord.
Let's move on to Romans chapter 7.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 7 all
This chapter, if it had a title, should probably be: True Liberty is Freedom from the
Condemnation of the Law.
I spent quite a bit of time at the beginning of our lesson today explaining that the key to
understanding the New Testament, and especially Paul, is to spot his Jewish idioms and
expressions. The opening verses of Romans 7 afford us just such an opportunity.
Paul offers this "odd" opening to chapter 7 saying that his "brothers" ought to already know
most of what he's telling them. Paul's brothers are the Jewish Believers of Rome because he
says that he is speaking in regard to those who know and understand Torah (at least that's
what the CJB says). Most English versions will not use the word Torah, but will say either
"law" or "the Law". So in those versions, Paul is speaking of those who already ought to know
law. We discussed in an earlier lessons that by adding the definite article "the" before the word
"law", we turn it into "The Law". "The Law" in Jewish thought means the Law of Moses. The
problem is that in this verse the definite article is not actually there. Bible translators have
added the word "the" in order to make it appear that Paul is speaking of the Law of Moses.
But the Greek NT manuscripts don't have it that way.
I've already explained that the Greek word for law is nomos, and that Paul uses the term
nomos to refer to several different kinds of law and not only The Law of Moses. So our
challenge is to identify which kind of law he is speaking about at any given time since in
Romans the term "law" is used constantly. The general consensus of Bible translators is that
Paul is indeed speaking about the Law of Moses in verses 1 – 3, when he uses the analogy of
a woman being married to her husband, but then the husband dies so according to law she is
free to be remarried to another man. And this freedom is because since the husband died he is
no longer under law, and so the widow is set free. Virtually every Bible commentary I could find
agreed that what Paul was quoting was a commandment from the Torah (the Law of Moses)
about the circumstances under which a widow could remarry. And, these Bible commentators
are wrong.
How do I know they are wrong? Because there is no Torah law that deals with a widow being
able to remarry; in fact it is forbidden. The closest thing there is in the Law of Moses to a widow
legitimately remarrying after her husband's death is the law of Levirate marriage, whereby a
man dies but his wife has produced him no sons. The man's brother is required to marry the
widow and produce a male child with her. The reason is so the deceased husband's
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
bloodlines will continue, because the son produced by the widow and the brother are
considered as belonging to the deceased husband. Clearly this is not at all what Paul has in
mind and the Law of Moses has no other laws in this regard to a widow remarrying. Rather, in
verses 1 -3 Paul is citing a general law of Jewish society that when a Jewish woman is
widowed, she may remarry and it is not adultery. The important issue for us, however, is where
this law comes from because it clearly does NOT come from the Law of Moses. Rather, it is a
Tradition. Jewish Law. Paul is not referring to Scripture; he is referring to Halakhah.
In the Mishnah we read this: A woman is acquired in marriage in three ways and
acquires her freedom in two. She acquires her freedom by divorce or by her husband's
death. As for divorce, it is well, since it is written "then he shall write her a bill of
divorcement"; but whence do we know that she is freed by her husband's death? It is
logic; he (the husband) bound her; hence he frees her....thus death is compared to
divorce: just as divorce completely frees her, so does death completely free her.
The Torah carries the death penalty for a woman who remarries because it is viewed as
adultery; so a ruling of Halakhah (a Tradition) was created within Judaism that says a widow
who remarries is not guilty of adultery. Therefore we know that in Romans 7:1 – 3 we have an
example of when Paul uses the term nomos to mean law in the sense of Halakhah, Jewish
Law. And clearly Paul gives much authority to this ruling of the Rabbis and accepts it as
legitimate. However I don't think Paul has a clear, conscious line of demarcation between the
Law of Moses and Jewish Law; most of the time he sees Jewish Law as but an expanded
interpretation of the Law of Moses, so it is nearly one in the same. This is because that is
exactly how Jewish society viewed it. When he speaks of The Law of Moses from a historical,
technical sense that is one thing. But when he speaks about law from a Jewish social/cultural
sense, The Law of Moses and Jewish Law are so closely inter-related that most times he sees
them as unified.
So when in verse 1 he says that his brothers already understand "law", he means they
understand Jewish Law; Halakhah: the Jewish law code of Jewish culture. It doesn't mean
that they have been formally trained in the Law of Moses as the priests were. We must
remember that in the Jewish Diaspora especially, the only real contact that Jews had with their
religious authorities took place at the Synagogue where the Pharisees ruled. And the
Pharisees were the authors and enforcers NOT of the Law of Moses but of Halakhah. It was
Halakhah that ruled Judaism and the Synagogue; not the Law of Moses.
I hope this is beginning to hit home with you as I realize that you have been learning almost an
entire new vocabulary and I'm sure it has been quite a challenge.
It starts to get more complex with verse 4. Paul, using the illustration and analogy of verses 1
-3 about the widow remarrying, says that Believers in Yeshua have been made dead to the
Torah (The Law). But here Paul switches and he means the Law of Moses and not Jewish
Law. How do I know that? Because the definite article "the" is indeed present in the Greek. So
Paul is indeed saying "The Law", which indicates The Law of Moses. Remember: he's not
trying to apply the ruling of Halakah of verses 1 -3 to verse 4; he's only using it as an
illustration of how to think about a Believer dying to The Law. In the case of the widow, it was
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
her husband that died. Using that illustration, in the case of verse 4 it is the Believer in Yeshua
that died to The Law of Moses.
Here's the thing; regardless of what this means, precisely, the important point is that it is the
Believer who died; The Law didn't die. However because Christians have had it drilled into our
heads for 19 centuries that The Law has died, we unconsciously read that meaning into the
passage. Please look carefully at this verse and notice: who or what died? The person or the
Law? Is there any implication that The Law has died? None.
So what can it mean for a Believer to die to the Law? What in the world is Paul getting at? We
can take his assertion to mean one of two things: 1) Believers no longer have any obligation to
follow The Law of Moses, and therefore for us any violation of The Law of Moses is not sin for
us. Or 2), Believers no longer are affected by some particular aspect of The Law of Moses.
The Institutional Church says that option 1 is correct: we have no obligation to follow God's
laws as found in The Law of Moses and if we do something that the Law of Moses prohibits, it
is not sin for us as Believers. The problem is, not only does Christ in Matthew 5 say the
opposite, so does the Apostle John. CJB 1 John 3:4 Everyone who keeps sinning is
violating Torah- indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
Option 2 is the correct one. In fact, it is the fairly obvious choice. There is some aspect of the
Torah Law that Believers are no longer under and Paul has been speaking of that aspect
throughout Romans. The focus of his letter has been God's wrath for sinners and how we can
avoid it. The issue has been the condemnation (death penalty) that comes with sinning. And
Paul has said that the Torah, The Law of Moses, details God's law so that what is sin and
what is not sin becomes crystal clear. But it also details the penalty for sin. The next chapter of
Romans, Romans 8, begins this way: CJB Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is no longer any
condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua. There it is; just
as Paul summed things up at the end of chapter 6 with: For what one earns from sin is
death; but eternal life is what one receives as a free gift from God, in union with the
Messiah Yeshua, our Lord. (Rom 6:23 CJB), now he sums up chapter 7 of Romans with the
first verse of chapter 8: Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those
who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua.
The aspect of the Torah that Believers are dead to is the condemnation that comes from
disobeying its many laws; we're not dead to The Law itself. Salvation has not freed us from
obedience to The Law; rather, Salvation has freed us from the death penalty that The Law
requires for disobedience to The Law. Where have we heard this before?
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB 17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the
Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 15 - Chapters 6 and 7
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
So according to Christ and according to Paul The Law of Moses remains in effect for Believers,
but through God's grace we are saved from the condemnation of what happens when we
break any of those laws (we sin). So since that is the case then what happens to Believers who
refuse to obey the Law of Moses? Christ says that whether we obey or don't, we are still
members of the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, we remain saved (although in other passages
Paul makes it clear that this is true only to a point). However the Kingdom of Heaven is a real
Kingdom; it will have a real King (Yeshua), it will have real rules and laws, and it will have real
citizens whose status will be arranged in a real hierarchy (the Church often refers to this
Heavenly hierarchy as jewels placed in our crowns). Yeshua says that those Believers who
strive to obey The Law of Moses will be given the greatest status in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But those Believers who say they see no need to obey the Law of Moses will be given the least
status in the Kingdom of Heaven.
So if your goal is to make it into God's Kingdom by the skin of your teeth (not a very wise
goal), then simply determine that The Law is not for you. But if your goal is to please God on
this earth, and to obey His Law to the fullest extent of your ability and circumstances (a good
goal), then a far greater experience and status in the Kingdom awaits you. I have utterly no
idea of the tangible differences between the two statuses. But I did once hear a person
describe it this way: if when you go to Heaven and you get into the line where they're handing
out transportation, which you would rather have: a Mercedes or a skate board?
We'll continue in Romans chapter 7 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 16, chapter 7
We're going to walk our way very thoughtfully through Romans chapter 7, which many
theologians consider as perhaps the most important chapter in the entire New Testament as
pertains to Christian doctrine. So let's continue with Romans chapter 7 by having a brief
review of two significant points we discussed last time.
First: the opening 3 verses of chapter 7 appear to be Paul paraphrasing a Levitical law (one of
the Laws of Moses from the Biblical Torah) about why it is acceptable to God for a widow to
remarry. He will use this paraphrase as a loose illustration to make a point about what he
means when he says that Believers have "died to the law". But upon closer examination we
discover that there exists no such law regarding widows within the Torah (the Law of Moses).
There is no specific, direct commandment that allows a widow to remarry other than in the
case of widow who has not given birth to a son. In that case then the laws of Levirate marriage
apply. This law reflects the family requirement that when a man dies without his wife having
produced a son as an heir for him, the brother of the deceased man is to marry the widow for
the primary purpose of him producing a son with her. However that son would be seen,
spiritually and legally, as actually belonging to the deceased man. The son then allows the
deceased man's bloodline to continue, along with his living essence. Of course Paul's
example in no way contemplates the Levirate marriage circumstance. And in fact the Torah
makes it an act of adultery should a widow remarry and thus in principle it prohibits such a
thing. The penalty for adultery is death by stoning.
So what source is Paul referring to as the law about widows being able to remarry? It is Jewish
law; Tradition; Halakhah. It is something that most Pharisees would have supported (Paul was
a self-professed Pharisee) but the Sadducees (the Priests) likely would not have supported it.
Not only is this an important distinction but it also reveals Paul's attitude towards Halakhah.
While he would not have supported all Halakah (lock, stock and barrel), he obviously
supported Jewish law in general, provided to his way of thinking it did not directly refute the
Torah or Christ or Paul's messianic theology. But it also signals that we have to be cautious
when reading Paul not to assume that because he purports something to be "law" that he
always means the Law of Moses. Further, English translations tend to obscure one of the
grammatical indicators that tells us which of the 4 different kinds of law Paul is referring to
because often Bible translators will insert the word "the" before the word "law" thus producing
the term "The Law". "The Law" is a standard Jewish abbreviation for The Law of Moses.
However in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the definite article "the" is not there.
So in this instance of verses 1 -3 of chapter 7, the reference is NOT to "The Law" but simply to
"law". And as we learned, in this case the term "law" means Jewish law; Halakhah.
The second important point is this: we have to examine the term "died to the law" quite
carefully. Indeed in this case the definite article "the" IS present in the Greek manuscripts, so
the term "The Law" (the Law of Moses) certainly seems to be Paul's meaning. Thus: "died to
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
the Law of Moses" is the intended sense of it. This is usually taken to mean that Christians are
no longer beholden to the Torah and so it just goes to prove that The Law is dead. However
when we back away for a moment we notice something important: who or what died in this
passage? Did Paul say The Law died to the Believer? NO! It is the Believer who died. And
since the penalty for violating a Law of Moses (sinning) is God's wrath and the sinner's death,
then Paul is explaining that through the death of Christ on the cross, worshippers who trust in
Yeshua and identify in baptism with Him have died along with Him. Thus it is the Believer who
has had a change of status, and not The Law. By symbolically dying we have paid the penalty
that the Law requires for our sins so Paul can say that we have already died to The Law. Since
all humans are destined to die only once, we owe no further penalty for our sins.
It has become quite muddled in Christianity to even define what a sin is. Most often it is this:
sin is doing anything God doesn't want me to do. However that thought is usually tempered
with the belief that what is sin for me is not necessarily sin for you and vice versa. Sin is now
individualistic and customized, Believer by Believer, and that customized definition is delivered
to us by the Holy Spirit. Thus unless God specifically tells you that such and such is a sin (as
He did with Adam regarding eating the forbidden fruit), then for you nothing is sin. Sin no
longer has any universal standard. And since you can't possibly know what God told me I'm
not to do (or even to do), then you can't judge me when I do something that to you is wrong
because God may not have told me that. I'll say it straightaway: that is the worst sort of
manmade doctrine. It defies the Bible including the New Testament. One authoritative person
who defines sin the clearest is the Apostle John. I'll quote him using the KJV since it is not
only well accepted but it also eliminates the dynamic translation that the CJB prefers to use
:
KJV 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law. Sin is the transgression of The Law....the Law of Moses. That is the
direct Biblical, New Testament definition of sin as pronounced by the Apostle John. Sin is not
whatever we choose to make it. Neither the Church nor a single Believer can unilaterally
decide that there is no longer a universal standard for sin or that every individual carries his or
her own truth, and thus is required to obey ONLY their own private set of divine rules. Those
who adhere to this erroneous doctrine then accuse those who obey any written Biblical law of
committing something called Legalism. But John says that when you or I violate one of the
commandments of the Law of Moses, that is precisely what sin is. True; Christ has paid the
price for our sin. But just as Paul has already covered a couple of times, does that mean we
just go right on sinning....right on breaking The Law.... because there's plenty of grace available
so that we don't pay the consequences for our sinning? Heaven forbid!
Wake up Believers! Our ambivalence and our long slumber are over. Just as before you first
believed, the moment you heard the Gospel of Christ any excuse you may have had before
God to plead ignorance and thus obtain mercy because of it, evaporated. You have now been
taught, and have been shown it in Holy Scripture, that even the direct words of the Savior
Himself in Matthew 5 say that The Law is anything but dead and gone and He fully expects all
of His followers to obey it. There is no more excuse. Sin has a standard and the standard is the
Law of Moses; it is not our personal standards that God uses and it is not the standard that
any particular denomination decides upon. And just as Christ pointed out, while it is not
obedience to The Law, but rather our trust in His faithfulness that brings us acquittal before the
Father, even so our level of obedience to the Law of Moses will be the determining factor for
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
the status we will hold for an eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you want to live an eternity
as the least before God, so be it. But if you want to be more than that, then obey Him. If you
keep on denying the ongoing validity of The Law, and keep on sinning as a result, it is
deliberate; you know better. You have made the decision in your free will to be disobedient; it
is conscious, it is intentional. You have decided to follow your comfortable ways and not God's
ways because you like your ways more than God's ways and see them as far easier or even
superior. The Bible labels that sort of attitude; it is called rebellion. And men, when you lead
your family that way, you take on further responsibility.
Let's re-read most of Romans chapter 7.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 7:4 – end
Verse 6 makes the case that a very important prophecy has been fulfilled. Does your Bible say
that? No, of course it doesn't; but indeed that is what Paul is alluding to. He says we have
been released or delivered from The Law, and thus we are no longer held captive because we
have died to it. Therefore we are now able to serve God in Spirit and not only in the letter of the
Law. Again notice who or what died. Did The Law die? No. Did we die? Yes. Thus our death
has released us. Released us from what? From the need to be obedient to God's
commandments? Paul has said time and again to this misunderstanding: Heaven forbid!
Rather we have been released from the aspect of The Law that the Old Testament sometimes
calls the curse of The Law. The curse of The Law is not an adjective that characterizes the
Law, and it is not the Law itself. Rather the Law consists of two fundamental parts: Blessings
(for obedience) and curses (for disobedience). The curse of The Law is death. So are we
released from the blessings of The Law? Of course not. Rather we are released from the
curses of The Law, which is death. Or as Paul says to begin Romans chapter 8: "Therefore
there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah
Yeshua." Curses, condemnation, death; these are all Biblical equivalents for the divine
consequence of our sins.
Back to verse 6. Perhaps the most important part of this verse is the words that say that now
we are able to operate in the Spirit instead of the letter of The Law. This is prophecy fulfilled.
Jeremiah 31:30-32 CJB
30 "Here, the days are coming," says ADONAI, "when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Isra'el and with the house of Y'hudah.
31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their
hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated
my covenant, even though I, for my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI.
32 "For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says
ADONAI: "I will put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
The New Testament holds the Spirit and the Letter in antithesis to one another. That is, one is
the opposite of the other. The Spirit of The Law means what the Law intends for us to
understand as the God-principle it demonstrates and from that understanding we are to act
rightly. The letter of The Law means to act upon the Law mechanically, rigidly, technically, by
looking only at its instructions but disregarding the underlying God-principles behind those
words. But it also means that when The Law is applied without the Holy Spirit directing our
thoughts and actions, it can be wrongly applied. However it is important to remember that
acting in the Spirit of The Law doesn't do away with the written Law of Moses anymore than
Jeremiah's prophecy of putting The Law on our hearts means that the Holy Spirit created and
put an entirely new and different (even opposite) divine instruction within us. It is not meant
that God replaced an old and failed Law with something new and better.
Yeshua, in His Sermon on the Mount, spoke extensively about the Spirit of the Law as
opposed to the Letter. And frankly, the Spirit of the Law is far more demanding than the Letter.
For example; as He says in Matthew 5, the letter of The Law says not to murder. But the Spirit
of The Law says that the divine intent of the law prohibiting murder means to not even be
angry with your brother. And just as Yeshua felt the need to pause in His famous sermon and
make it clear that nothing He was saying should be taken as Him suggesting that He has
abolished or changed The Law of Moses, so now in Romans 7 Paul pauses and feels the need
to say in verse 7: CJB Romans 7:7 Therefore, what are we to say? That the Torah is
sinful? Heaven forbid! Rather, the function of the Torah was that without it, I would not
have known what sin is. For example, I would not have become conscious of what greed
is if the Torah had not said, "Thou shalt not covet."
Here's the thing: does not much of modern day Christianity advocate (or at least heavily imply)
that for Believers The Law of Moses has become sin for us? That for us to "go back to The
Law" (as it is often slanderously put) is somehow an affront to God because of what Yeshua
has done for us? As an aside: many of you have no doubt been asked by well-meaning
Believers: 'Why would I want to go back to The Law"? And my response to that is: please tell
me what it was like when you were living under The Law. I usually get blank stares. Their
inference is that non-Believers, or perhaps new Believers, had been living their lives under the
Law of Moses. Right. The vast majority of non-Believers and new Believers have no idea what
the Law of Moses is (if they had ever even heard of it). As I mentioned many times when I
taught the Torah, the Law of Moses was only ever for the redeemed. First Israel was
redeemed from Egypt, AND THEN a few weeks later they received The Law. The Law is ONLY
for the redeemed; Believers. And we usually have no knowledge of it, or any awareness of its
importance to us, until AFTER we are redeemed.
So are we to think that what God described as goodness, life and protection for Israel (The
Torah) was actually in practice a defective covenant and ultimately a failure that merely led to
sin; so it had to be replaced with a better one with more bells and whistles? Listen to what the
Lord told Moses and Israel about the Torah in Deuteronomy chapter 30.
Deuteronomy 30:10-20 CJB
10 "However, all this will happen only if you pay attention to what ADONAI your God
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
says, so that you obey his mitzvot and regulations which are written in this book of the
Torah, if you turn to ADONAI your God with all your heart and all your being.
11 For this mitzvah which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond
your reach.
12 It isn't in the sky, so that you need to ask, 'Who will go up into the sky for us, bring it
to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?'
13 Likewise, it isn't beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, 'Who will cross the sea for
us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?'
14 On the contrary, the word is very close to you- in your mouth, even in your heart;
therefore, you can do it!
15 "Look! I am presenting you today with, on the one hand, life and good; and on the
other, death and evil␂16 in that I am ordering you today to love ADONAI your God, to follow his ways, and to
obey his mitzvot, regulations and rulings; for if you do, you will live and increase your
numbers; and ADONAI your God will bless you in the land you are entering in order to
take possession of it.
17 But if your heart turns away, if you refuse to listen, if you are drawn away to prostrate
yourselves before other gods and serve them;
18 I am announcing to you today that you will certainly perish; you will not live long in
the land you are crossing the Yarden to enter and possess.
19 "I call on heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have presented you
with life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore, choose life, so that you will
live, you and your descendants,
20 loving ADONAI your God, paying attention to what he says and clinging to him- for
that is the purpose of your life! On this depends the length of time you will live in the
land ADONAI swore he would give to your ancestors Avraham, Yitz'chak and Ya'akov."
Did the Lord actually pull the most cosmically monumental bait and switch operation in history
upon mankind by first giving Israel The Law of Moses, saying that this covenant meant
blessing and life, demanding that it is obeyed, but then later retracting it all as defective and a
bad idea? Was this entire thing perhaps a deception and a ruse? Because as I have said
before in all seriousness, if God would do that then why would I believe in the long term
efficacy of ANY covenant He would make? Why wouldn't He offer us all this forgiveness and
mercy through Christ, but then one day simply decide that it wasn't working out all that well
and abolish it and create something else entirely? Or even more; tell us that to continue to trust
in Yeshua is actually foolishness if not sin because He has come up with an even newer and
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
even better covenant? This is what we are asked to accept about the Covenants of Moses and
Abraham, and I deny it and condemn it in the strongest possible way. But I'm also ashamed to
admit that I believed it until perhaps 20 years ago.
But even more: do we find anything in this statement in Deuteronomy (or anywhere else in the
Torah) that its entire purpose was to merely show us what sin is? Of course not. Thus when
Paul says at the end of verse 7 that without The Law he wouldn't have known what sin is he is
only doing what Paul regularly does as his teaching and writing style: he will highlight a certain
aspect of a larger theological matter in order to make a point. He is in no way indicating that
the several other aspects of the pertinent theological principle don't exist or matter. So for
Believers to ever imagine that Paul is saying that the single and only purpose for the Torah,
The Law, to exist was for God to show humans what sin is, completely defies what the Torah
tells us about itself.
In verse 8 Paul says that apart from The Law, sin is dead. This goes along with his declaration
in verse 7 that the Torah tells us what sin is. The point of the next 3 verses is to say that while
on the one hand The Law certainly in not sin; on the other hand it can't be denied that The
Law has been exploited by sin for its own wicked purposes. Then he goes on to explain
something he also said earlier: that when God makes a law, our mere knowledge of that law
causes our evil inclinations to kick into overdrive. So what are we to think that Paul is saying
about the relationship between laws and sin? Is it truly an issue of direct cause and effect?
Much of Christianity says that Paul's solution to the problem, then, is to simply have no laws!
You can't get a speeding ticket if there are no speed limits. You can't go to jail for robbing a
bank if there is no law against robbing banks. So if we apply this mindset to civil society, we
find that God's solution to the crime problem would be to get rid of all laws and let people do
whatever they want to. No laws, no crimes; no criminals. Easy! Frankly, what is usually
proposed as Paul's solution is absurd; just get rid of all of God's divine laws and sinning
becomes impossible.
Paul then explores the reality that the same Torah that God meant to bring life also brings
death. This fits exactly with what we read in Deuteronomy chapter 30. God means for the
Torah to bring life and security to His worshippers. Blessings. However, that only happens
when one is obedient to God's laws. Disobedience to The Law brings death and chaos with it.
Curses. So because people still allow their evil inclinations to remain as their Masters, The
Law of Moses causes curses upon them in the sense that there is a deadly consequence for
breaking God's laws. Yet, as he says in verse 12, that doesn't mean that the Torah is
defective. Rather, says Paul, "So the Torah is holy; that is, the commandment is holy,
just, and good." Let me paraphrase that: the Law itself (as a Covenant and a justice system)
is just and it is good. So the problem that the death of Christ remedies is not to repair or repeal
the Torah (The Law), which is already holy and just. The problem that is solved by Christ's
death is that a divine pardon is made available for the many that disobey the holy
commandments of the Torah and thus deserves God's wrath, which amounts to curses and
death.
After all of this is explored, Paul, in rabbinic fashion, has his straw man issue a ruling, which
Paul will strongly disagree with. The straw man says: "then I guess from all you have said The
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
Law that was good somehow, over time, became instead a source of corruption and death".
To which Rabbi Paul responds: Heaven forbid! Rather the Torah remains good and pure; it is
only that because my disobedience to what is good clearly exposed that my behaviors were
wrong and my nature was bad well beyond what I ever imagined they might be. So I finally
realized that part of me (as a Believer and possessor of the Holy Spirit) was STILL bound to
my slave Master; my evil inclination. And folks this is one of those theological principles that is
so very hard for us to hear and at the same time we inherently know that it is true. It is this: as
Believers we are currently hanging, as if suspended, somewhere between Christ's death and
His resurrection. That is, we have a certain unity in Christ in regards to His death and burial
(Paul has spent much time on this aspect of our identity in Christ). But the reality is that we do
not yet share or identify in the same way with His resurrection. That is, Christ is the firstfruits of
the resurrection; He arose and then after some time on earth ascended to Heaven in a glorified
body completely free from whatever part of Him represented His old nature and vulnerable
flesh. We have not yet followed suit; we have not yet been resurrected into glorified bodies. We
still have these same corrupt, frail bodies and so remnants of our former nature complete with
evil inclinations, remain in us. We are living ironies. We are changed, but not entirely. We are
holy before God, but not every aspect of us is actually holy. We live with God's Spirit in us, yet
our evil inclinations still operate and bedevil us as well. We know what sin is, and how
destructive it is to our relationship with God and at times to our fellow humans, but sometimes
we do it anyway. So as Paul puts it in verse 17, the real me (that part of me that is the new
nature that the Holy Spirit has given to me) resides side by side with the old sin nature still
housed inside of me. So there is a constant tug-of-war going on; sometimes the new me wins,
sometimes the old me prevails.
While this probably isn't good news for us to hear, at least it explains why we at times behave
the way we do and have the kinds of thoughts we're glad no one else knows about. We can
also be comforted by knowing that the Apostle Paul openly admits that he, too, is plagued by
this uncomfortable duality in his own life; so we probably shouldn't feel too bad about it for
ourselves. I call this condition Spiritual Schizophrenia. It indeed is partially the result of our
being suspended between our own death in Yeshua that has already happened, and our
resurrection into new and glorified bodies (which has not yet happened).
Although the English masks it, we find the Greek word nomos appear in these last few verses
a number of times, and the uses can denote various things. Remember that the word nomos
is typically rendered in English as law. Usually Bible translators want us to accept that all uses
of the word nomos (law) refer to the Old Testament Law. But that is not the case and verse 21
gives us yet another use of the word. It makes "law" mean a kind a general, non-specific law
that Paul is using more as metaphor than real. It would be like a Dad who has had it with the
kids today, and says, "I'm laying down the law in this house". He doesn't mean any specific
civil law or formal Biblical law; probably not even a quotable house rule. He just means that
he's going to require his kids to do what he says and if they don't there will be consequences.
So Paul's informal "law" is that whenever he tries to do what is good (in the Jewish context
this means to let the Master of his good inclination rule), the influence of his evil inclination is
right there to cause trouble.
In verses 22 and 23 Paul speaks of his inner self versus his "other parts". His inner self is his
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
regenerated mind; it is that "spiritual" part of him that is therefore directly affected by God's
Holy Spirit dwelling with him. And this part of him naturally loves the Torah and completely
agrees with God's Torah. Let's pause for a second. Do you love God's Law or do you hate
God's Law? Do you agree with God's Torah or do you disagree with it? Do you seek to know
and do God's Law or do you seek to avoid it and keep it separate from your life? Paul uses the
inner self that loves and agrees with God's Torah over and against other parts of his body that
operate based on sin's laws. He is once again paraphrasing the standard doctrine of Judaism
of the 1st century A.D. that is called the Doctrine of Two Masters. God's Laws is one Master,
and sin's laws is another and opposing Master. But always with Paul it is The Law of Moses
that is equated to God's Laws, and also with the good inclination. Paul continues to make the
case that the hallmark of a true Believer is that God's Laws are what he or she goes by and
strives to be obedient to. When we fail, we are in reality being obedient to sin's laws.
I realize that so much of what we have talked about in the Book of Romans is The Law of
Moses. That is because Paul constantly brings it up, weaving it into his letter as a central
feature. But it is also for the same reason that most of my time for Seed of Abraham Torah
Class has been spent creating and teaching Bible lessons on the Old Testament. It is because
the Old Testament and the Law of Moses, so vital for Christian spiritual health and as a guide
for Christian living, have been neglected if not thrown into the dust bin as irrelevant mostly due
to manmade doctrines beginning with the earliest gentile controlled Church that were openly
anti-Jewish. The Old Testament and The Law is something quite unfamiliar and thus foreign
sounding and materially misunderstood by the Church in general. So a great deal of time is
needed to explain what it is and what it isn't; where it fits, how to apply its principles, and to
make clear a proposition that most Christians have been told that we must avoid: that
obedience to the Covenant of Moses, and our direct connection to the Covenant of Abraham
(as spiritual seeds of Abraham), is the missing link to our faith. It is the Rosetta Stone that
helps us to properly understand Yeshua and the New Testament, that leads us to rekindle our
brotherhood with Israel and the Jewish people, and it enables us to know God as He truly is (at
least as much as a human is capable of knowing).
Verse 24 is almost a primal scream. It comes from a righteous man, Paul, who realizes his
predicament. Some of his predicament has already been solved by Messiah (he has been
granted righteousness and eternal life with God). But the rest of his predicament is a work in
progress, as it is for us all, and there are no easy solutions. Part of him pays attention to his
evil Master; part of him to his good Master. This leads him to cry out: "What a miserable
creature I am!" Many Bible commentators, ancient and modern, are deeply troubled by what
they read here. Some go so far as to allege that this must be an addition by a person who
cannot possibly be a Believer. After all; how can a Christian be miserable and have these
internal conflicts? How can a Christian so readily admit that even after being saved there are
parts of him that are still controlled by sin? Surely this cannot be a man regenerated by the
work of Messiah Yeshua. But to think this way I believe betrays an allegation that I have made
numerous times; too often Bible commentators begin with settled doctrine and then work
backwards from it to make Scripture fit it. If only they would begin by reading and studying the
Old Testament. If only they would see the struggles (and failures) of faith in some our greatest
Bible heroes. And yet, how much God loved them and held them up as righteous. Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. Judah, son of Jacob. King David.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 16 - Chapter 7
If these great Patriarchs can fail and can have never ending internal battles between good and
evil, then so can we. And the ones I mentioned didn't have the benefit of Yeshua HaMashiach
and the Holy Spirit indwelling them, as do we. I'm not sure that outside of Yeshua Himself
there is a stronger, bolder figure than Paul. And yet he is honest enough to admit that while we
like to speak of Jesus' finished work on the cross, in fact His work is not finished and even the
effects of the marvelous things He has already done have not fully taken hold.
This is why I have urged you to listen and take to heart Paul's words in Romans when he
doesn't demand that we must somehow muster up more faith from the pit of our souls no
matter our circumstance. A greater or larger faith in us is not the issue. Rather we must have
and maintain an unshakeable trust in the perfect faithfulness of Yeshua. We must determine to
remain obedient to God, even knowing ahead of time that we won't always be. This is why
Paul ends chapter 7 by asking the rhetorical question: "Who will rescue me from this body
bound for death?" And with great relief and thanksgiving he answers his own question; God
will rescue him through Yeshua our Lord. This is not the cry of a Seeker or a man who is
walking the line between belief and unbelief. This is the cry of a man who knows God, and who
well understands where the human race currently stands. This is a cry we should all utter when
we stumble and we wonder how God could still love us after everything He has done for us.
Paul sums up his present line of thought in verse 25 with a truth that represents the condition
of every Believer no matter how together, how pious, or how nearly perfect some may appear.
It is that in his mind (his inner self), because he knows what he knows to be true, he has given
himself over as a slave to his new Master, God's Law. Yet in his sin nature that is still there,
still not fully conquered, other parts of him will follow sin's law and so this righteous man will
stumble as will we all.
Next week we'll study Romans chapter 8.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 17, Chapter 8
We have reached the (more or less) halfway point in the Book of Romans as we enter chapter
8. So it is * that the first word of chapter 8 is "therefore". "Therefore" is a word that
indicates that what follows is a conclusion of things previously said. Because Paul has been
using the Talmudic style of debate popular among rabbis (complete with straw man), then the
sentence and religious ruling that Paul makes in verse 1 is meant to sum up (at the least) what
he said throughout chapter 7. But from a higher view it is actually a ruling of the extensive case
that Paul has been building since the opening of chapter 1 for trusting Yeshua of Nazareth as
Israel's Messiah and how this solves the problem of sin and death.
So I too will begin today's lesson with a "therefore" and use this opportunity to summarize
some things we have learned in order to continue building up your general body of knowledge
about various aspects of our faith. The goal of Bible study here at Seed of Abraham is not
about study and knowledge for its own sake. Rather it is a search for divine truth as a means to
spiritual and personal maturity in the Lord, and an ever closer and more obedient relationship
with Him. Sometimes to achieve that we need to look to our own history as the body of Christ
and understand how we got here from there.
While chapter 7 of Romans is thought by many Bible commentators to be the most
theologically important chapter in the Bible (a very questionable perspective in my opinion),
chapter 8 is thought by other Bible commentators to be the pinnacle of New Testament
narratives that portrays just what it means to be a Christian. What I'd like you to take from this
is that Western Christianity finds Romans chapters 7 and 8 to be both a Bible within the Bible
and the primary source of doctrinal belief for the Church from the time of the early Church
Fathers right on up to our current era. For those who have studied with Seed of Abraham
Torah Class for a few years, learning what the Old Testament has to say, I suspect it is a little
easier for you to see that there is danger in a mindset that makes a mere 2 chapters of the
New Testament as essentially the molten core of our faith; 2 chapters that decides the most
important of Christian doctrines. When studying the Bible, at any point in either Testament, one
must look not only at the meaning of individual words but also at the entire sentence in which
the words appear. And the sentence must be understood within the context of the entire
chapter, and the chapter within the context of the entire book. But even a Bible book must be
taken within the larger context of the entire Word of God. In other words, to arrive at a well␂rounded conclusion and a proper doctrine we must look at Scripture from the near, mid, and far
view.
Some time ago I told you that many Christian Bible commentators readily admit that the
Church as we have known it for centuries, and never more so than within the last 200 years, is
not so much the Church of Christ as it is the Church of Paul. By no means am I saying that the
modern Church believes in Paul rather than Jesus as Lord and Savior. However the Church
has decided to rely more on the words of but one single highly venerated man, Paul the
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
Apostle to the Gentiles, for our doctrines and theology than all the other Biblical writers
combined. But even more, Church authorities have decided to focus on words of one particular
book in the Bible more than any other; the Book of Romans. And even beyond that, Romans
chapters 7 and 8 are regularly regarded as the epitome of doctrinal teaching above all else
written in the New Testament or Old (I'm speaking in broad generalities of course, since the
Church is not monolithic in its thoughts and doctrines). Thus whatever else is written in the
Bible, it is often made to conform to Paul's supposed thoughts of Romans chapters 7 and 8. I
say "supposed" thoughts because Paul has been miscast and poorly misunderstood over the
centuries; less so by the Bible scholars, but more so by the Church government. This leads me
to a brief comment about Church structure in order to perhaps help you gain some insight on
how it is traditionally operated.
The institutional Church within a plurality of its mainstream denominations (including
Catholicism) is usually organized into two basic branches: the academic branch and the
governing branch. The academic branch is those scholars and Bible commentators whom the
Church looks to for Biblical knowledge on the one hand, but on the other hand they also are
the scholars who devise the apologetics for accepted Church doctrine. That is, these scholars
who are devoted to a particular denomination of Christianity provide for both Biblical exposition
and for a formal rationale as to why their denomination believes the things it does. However
this branch of Church organization is visible only in books and commentaries as reference
sources. It is the governing branch of the Church that Christians are most familiar with because
it is the visible branch; it is what we see and hear when we attend a worship service. The
governing branch on the local level is the Pastor and ministerial staff. Above him, if he is part of
a recognized denomination, are usually a regional and then a national board that not only
determines Church rules and doctrine, but also enforces them. However their decisions on
rules and doctrines influence and control the academic branch far more than the academic
branch influences the governing branch. From the governing branch's viewpoint, the search
for biblical truth was concluded long ago upon the establishment of their denomination. With
their founding a set of doctrines were established by the original founders that would
henceforth be considered as immutable truth. These doctrines are not meant to be
reexamined; they are meant to be obeyed. The job of the governing branch is not to continue
searching God's Word to be certain that their beliefs are accurate; their job is to enforce the
status quo and to emphasize the validity of their doctrines upon the members. From in
institutional perspective it is imperative that the research and knowledge of its scholars
validates what the governing branch of denomination already believes.
As I have conducted my biblical studies and research I have found that the Catholic Church
seems to allow their academic branch far more freedom of thought and doctrinal expression
than any other denomination I've run across. It can be quite striking to read the works and
conclusions of some of the finest Catholic scholars that regularly run counter to Catholic
Church doctrine; even openly challenging it. However it is also self-evident how little influence
the academic side has on the governing side of the Catholic denomination. I don't wish to
communicate that other denominations don't have their mavericks as well; but my point is this:
it is always dangerous to begin a search for truth from the consensus Church doctrine and then
working backwards from it to establish it in the Bible. More times than not the doctrines will
prove out; but at other times they won't. So the typical solution for this dilemma is to either
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
ignore those passages that fly in the face of a denominational doctrine and instead highlight
those passages that seem to uphold it.
Since Paul is the primary writer of the New Testament then indeed it is nearly always Paul's
statements that are used as the basis of Christian denominational doctrines. However as
anyone who has ever carefully studied Paul knows, he can be frustrating because on any
particular subject one doesn't have to look hard to find more than one viewpoint. Thus a
denominational Church board has to pick those statements of Paul they will rely on the most
and dismiss the others as of lesser importance.
So when we take 2 chapters out of one book in the Bible as the source of the truth and beliefs
that we all ought to hold; 2 chapters out of the hundreds of chapters in the Bible as having the
most weight or even as a manual of corrections for what other parts of the Bible seem to say,
we need to be equal parts cautious and skeptical. To be clear: I am not a Paul skeptic. But
neither do I hold up Paul as the highest Biblical authority on spiritual matters. For a proper
understanding of what Paul says at any given time, it must be taken in context not only within
the particular book we find it in, but within the overall context of the several books he wrote.
And not only within the several books he wrote, but within the context of what Our Savior said
within the Gospel accounts. And not only that, but within the context of what other writers have
said in all parts of the Bible. As I have stated on more than one occasion: to take Paul as the
preeminent writer to rely on for our Christian doctrine is as wrong as taking Luke, or King
David, or John as preeminent. This is not Paul's fault; it is gentile Church authorities who have
placed him in that position. It is critical that Believers remain balanced; but if we are going to
lean especially hard on anyone's words in Holy Scripture, then it must be the Father's first,
Christ's second and Moses's third with all other biblical writers and characters falling in
behind them.
But the other thing that needs to be said at the halfway mark of our study of Romans is this:
because Paul is rightly called the Apostle to the gentiles, this is the main reason that the
gentile Church has held him above all others writers of the Bible. The thought is that Paul is
like a specialist; he is the theology-for-gentiles specialist. So we need to listen to the specialist
first and foremost and give less credence to the non-specialists (meaning all the other writers
and characters of the Bible). Yet at the same time, because of this designation Paul has also
come to be perceived as more gentile than Jew with his Jewishness very nearly disregarded.
Thus his words are stripped of their Jewish cultural and religious contexts and so are regularly
misconstrued. This is why we are crawling along so deliberately through the Book of Romans,
just as we did through the Book of Acts. For the earliest readers of Paul's letters (those to
whom his letters were addressed), the context was understood because they were living within
it. However for the early Church Fathers who were gentiles, the Jewish cultural context was
mostly a mystery, they were antagonistic towards it, and over time the Jewish component was
deemed to be irrelevant. It is this combination of mindset and circumstance that has led us, as
the Church body, to some very dubious doctrinal conclusions that are said to originate from the
words of Paul. Hopefully our lessons in Acts and now in Romans have shown you that what
Paul is supposed to have said is often terribly misunderstood due to a lack of knowledge about
Paul's Jewishness, about Judaism in his time, and thus his intended meaning.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
As we take up Romans chapter 8, I'll spend more time adding in the Jewish cultural backdrop
that I hope will aid in our taking Paul's words as he meant for them to be taken.
Open your Bibles to Romans chapter 8.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 8 all
As I stated at the outset, the first word of this chapter is "therefore". This means that what Paul
is doing is summing up (coming to a conclusion) about what he has previously said.
Remember that when Paul wrote this there were no chapters and verses, so it only appears as
though there is a break between the final verse of chapter 7 and the first verse of chapter 8;
originally it was just all one long letter. The point being that we don't have to debate whether
the "therefore" is truly Paul drawing a conclusion about what he said in chapter 7 and before; it
is. And what is Paul's conclusion as stated in verse 1? Is Paul's conclusion that the Law is
now a dead letter for Christians? He says nothing of the kind. But you'd think so if you were to
listen to most denominations and their scholars. Paul's words to open chapter 8 are very
specific and I want to give them to you in 3 English versions so that you can see that there is
no issue of different translation possibilities.
CJB Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are
in union with the Messiah Yeshua.
KJV Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
NAS Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus.
As you can see, these verses from various versions all say essentially the same thing and use
the same key word: condemnation. What Romans chapters 1 through 7 all adds up to
according to Paul is that there is no "condemnation" awaiting those who are Believers in
Yeshua as Lord and Savior. What does condemnation mean? In modern times to condemn
mostly means to judge someone, or to publically censure them, or to denounce some action
that someone has taken. That is not at all what condemn meant even a couple of hundred
years ago. In the Bible era it meant one thing only: to sentence to death. So to use modern
words this verse says: 'Therefore, there is no longer a death sentence awaiting those who are
in union with the Messiah Yeshua'. What death sentence is Paul speaking about? It is the
death sentence that all humans have coming to us due to our a) being related to Adam and
thus inheriting the consequence of Adam's original sin and b) for us, as individuals, who break
God's divine laws. As Paul has carefully pointed out in making his case during the previous 7
chapters, God's laws come in 3 forms: 1) a direct commandment given one-on-one from God
to a specific person (as when God told Adam not to eat a specific fruit from a specific tree); 2)
the Natural Law, which is inherently present within all human beings regardless of race,
culture, ethnicity or nationality; and 3) The Law of Moses.
I want to point out a couple of things to consider: if, as some Christians claim, the only divine
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
law that Believers have to obey is the law of love, then why doesn't Paul mention that as a 4th
form of God's divine law? If our only commandment is to love, then why when we don't show
love isn't that breaking God's divine laws? And of all people that might overlook mentioning it,
it would certainly not be Paul. The other thing Christians often claim is that the Holy Spirit
directly tells each person the laws he or she should do and not do and that is the sum total that
any particular individual has the obligation to follow. Or that only the things Jesus repeated
from The Law of Moses are divine laws for His followers. Do we hear a hint of any of that from
Paul? No. For Paul there's only 3 sources of God's laws and instructions; not 4, 5, or 6. And
all 3 come directly from the Old Testament, the Tanach. These other so-called sources of
"laws" that are popular in the modern Church are no more than manmade doctrines.
So it is the death sentence of God than Believers no longer face as a result of our union with
Christ. Does this mean that Believers don't die? No. This is referring to eternal or spiritual
death that is the result of sin. So biblically, and as it relates to any of the 3 forms of divine law
(including the Law of Moses), the ONLY aspect of those laws that changes due to the advent
of Messiah Yeshua is that breaking those laws does not condemn us. Or using the word that
The Law of Moses employs (but it means the same thing), Believers are no longer subject to
the "curse" of The Law. The Law itself is not done away with nor is the Law a curse; Believers
can still break the Law and sin as Paul lamented to end chapter 7. It is only that the eternal
death penalty due to us has been paid for by Messiah and so we don't suffer it.
Verse 2 can create some problems for us if we don't recognize something important. The
problem is that Paul uses different words and phrases for essentially the same thing. Why?
Because within Judaism in his day all these words and phrases were in common use, and
people understood them. Too often we try to nuance what are essentially synonyms so that we
can show some differences between those choices of words; but the differences aren't
actually there. For instance: Paul says that the "law" of the Spirit, which produces life, has set
him free from the "law" of sin and death. This is not a new kind of law he is speaking about; it
is simply a manner of speaking. In our modern English it is like saying "principle". But what
else can be confusing is the introduction of the word "spirit" into the narrative. What does he
mean by spirit in this case? If you were a Jew in his day, you would probably understand his
reference.
I've told you of the doctrine of the Two Ways or Two Masters that was common knowledge
within Judaism and how even Yeshua used this long held Jewish doctrine in His teaching (no
man can serve two masters). Throughout Romans Paul constantly falls back on the doctrine of
Two Masters in his teaching as an essential element of the effect of the Gospel. The Essenes
(the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) held essentially the identical doctrine but being the
separatists that they were, they gave it a slightly different name that they preferred: the
doctrine of Two Spirits. So they thought and wrote of the evil and good inclinations as spirits of
evil and good. Thus Paul was merely using the Essene's vocabulary when he introduces the
word "spirit" in verse 2; but it is virtually synonymous with the Two Masters doctrine and that's
how Paul meant it.
Paul says a mouthful in verse 3; enough that theologians could write entire essays just on
pieces of it. First Paul says that what The Law could not do, God did. This is definitely referring
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
to the Law of Moses, and Paul is about to tell us that there was something that the Law was
not capable of, so God accomplished it using another means. Most often this is an "Aha!"
moment for Christian Pastors and Bible Teachers. They see this as an admission by Paul that
the Law of Moses was defective and so God had to apply a patch; or perhaps it was an excuse
for God to just get rid of it for something else that worked better. All that is being said is that
God did something that The Law was never created to do. The Law of Moses was not
designed as some kind of universal redemption devise that solved all of mankind's problems
with sin and death. It served a limited but critical set of purposes that will remain needed until
we have the new heavens and earth that we are promised will eventually come. The thing the
Torah, The Law, was never created to do was to change the nature of humans. It could not
effect the evil inclination that dominates what Paul calls "our old nature". The Law defines sin,
it characterizes God's nature, it explains how to live a righteous life, and it tells us what to do
to make peace with God when a law is broken. But The Law could not cause a person to love
God or obey God; it could only instill a fear of God in them due to harsh consequences for
disobedience.
Yet in a certain, very real, sense The Law was God being accommodating towards His people.
He knew that His people needed a rather detailed roadmap on how to live as His redeemed
people; the Natural Law was very broad and left much for humans to determine for ourselves
(always to our detriment). But the moment He issued The Law His people would need help for
when they did not follow God's road map as they knew they should; they would need to be
rescued from God's wrath when they sinned. So in a marvelous act of grace, God instituted
ritual animal sacrifice. Why is this grace? Because when one of His people broke a law,
instead of them facing the spiritual death penalty (which is permanent separation from God)
the life of an innocent creature (an animal) could be substituted. That is the essence of the
purpose for the sacrificial system and it is important to remember that the God-principle behind
this system is exactly what has saved us. Yeshua's death was nothing more nor less than
substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.
In the second half of verse 3 Paul says something that has caused enormous debates within
Christianity. He says that the way God accomplished doing this thing that The Law of Moses
was never designed to do, was by sending His Son as a human being with a nature like our
own sinful one. Notice that Yeshua was sent as a human being; He was not an apparition who
only appeared to be human; He was fully human. In fact, says Paul, Yeshua had the same
nature as all humans; a sinful one. That is another never ending doctrinal battle within
Christianity; the idea that Yeshua had the same sinful nature as all of us is not universally
accepted within the Church.
In most English versions the word "likeness" is present to modify the words about Yeshua
having sinful flesh. Here is an example of other English versions of this verse:
KJV Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh:
The word "likeness" is indeed there in the Greek; but what does it indicate? Does it mean that
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
while Yeshua looked like He was made of the same stuff as regular humans (flesh), in fact He
wasn't an actual human? Was his physical presence merely an illusion? Was he like the
Terminator? Flesh stretched over a non-human frame? If the word likeness was not there, then
it would unambiguously indicate that God sent His Son in typical human sinful flesh; but the
word is there. So what's the answer? I think the most logical answer that fits with the context
of the chapter, with what Paul says elsewhere, and within the context of what we read about
Messiah Yeshua in the Gospels is this: indeed He came in sinful flesh, but as we find out later,
He never succumbed to it. That is, He had within Him an evil inclination so that He could be
tempted and feel what all the rest of us feel; but He also had God's Spirit in Him and with the
power of the Spirit He was able to resist His evil inclination.
So Yeshua, theoretically, could have lived to a ripe old age and died (as do all humans). But,
He never sinned; He never once allowed Himself to be a slave to the Master of His evil
inclination. Yet He could suffer, He could feel pain and cold and heat; He could feel hungry and
thirsty; He had emotions including fear and anxiety; He could bleed and He could die.
Matthew 26:38-39 CJB 38 and he said to them, "My heart is so filled with sadness that I
could die! Remain here and stay awake with me."
39 Going on a little farther, he fell on his face, praying, "My Father, if possible, let this
cup pass from me! Yet- not what I want, but what you want!"
Or, in this even more dramatic version:
Luke 22:42-44 CJB 42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, let not
my will but yours be done." 43 There appeared to him an angel from heaven giving him
strength, 44 and in great anguish he prayed more intensely, so that his sweat became
like drops of blood falling to the ground.
So I can only conclude that Paul added the term "likeness" to make it clear that the Word had
become flesh; real human flesh.
CJB John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God...........
14 The Word became a human being and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, the
Sh'khinah of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.
That is, the Word that was with God from the beginning remained Himself even when He
became flesh and blood (Jewish flesh and blood), was brought into this world through a human
mother as are all humans, and was given the human Jewish name of Yeshua. And since it was
the Word of God who was the author of the Torah, then what else could He do but fulfill what
Christians always say is impossible; He did The Law and never once broke it.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 CJB
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
11 For this mitzvah which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond
your reach. 12 It isn't in the sky, so that you need to ask, 'Who will go up into the sky for
us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?'
13 Likewise, it isn't beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, 'Who will cross the sea for
us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?' 14 On the contrary, the
word is very close to you- in your mouth, even in your heart; therefore, you can do it!
So since Yeshua had an evil inclination, then it means He also had free will. He could have
chosen to avoid the cross and clearly as He was in the Garden of Gat Shemanim
(Gethsemane) He was battling His own will that wanted to live and not die. But, His good
inclination again won as He virtually defined the difference between the good and evil
inclinations....between the evil Master and the good Master....when He said: Matthew 26:39
CSB Yet not as I will, but as You will." Because the good inclination is doing the Father's
will, while the evil inclination is doing our own will.
The Good News is that once arisen, Christ no longer suffered with an evil inclination. And that
is one of the things that we Believers can look so forward to; when we arise from our rest upon
our resurrection we will no longer have to battle an evil inclination. It is gone, forever, never
again to afflict us because as Paul said, we have died in Christ. Through our baptism we have
identified ourselves with Christ's death, burial and resurrection. We have already achieved the
likeness of His death and burial; but now we await the End Times and His return, and for the
likeness of His resurrection.
I want you to appreciate why Paul spends all this time and ink speaking about the same two or
three principles that were already well known and taken for granted within Judaism. Please
hear me: as much as Paul's teaching has crossed the boundaries of time and space to affect
us in the 21st century, he was by no means thinking in terms of speaking to gentiles in the 3rd
Millennium A.D. He was writing this letter to the Roman congregations and addressing matters
directly pertinent to them, using terms they generally understood. But at the same time it is
important to understand that because these principles that Paul quotes were well established
and operating within 1st century Judaism, then of course Believers in every age need to
understand them within that same Jewish context. I think one of the better ways to help bridge
this difficult gap is to hear what the renowned 12th century Jewish sage RamBam
(Maimonides) had to say about the limitations of the Torah. In his work the "Guide for the
Perplexed" he says that The Law of Moses indeed has no power over the human nature, and
so no power to affect change to the human nature, and nothing ever will. This belief was a core
doctrine of Judaism in Paul's day and so this is why Paul was going into such depth and
essentially repeating himself a number of times, or better, saying the same thing a number of
different ways to get this difficult point across especially to his fellow Jews (the gentile
Believers would not have known much if anything about this Jewish doctrine). He was refuting
this 1st century doctrine of Judaism that there is no way to change our human nature and be rid
of the evil inclination. Paul was explaining that while that may have been true at one time, it is
no longer. Yeshua is able to do the impossible; He can change human nature. Listen to the
RamBam:
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 17 - Chapter 8
What was there to prevent (God) from causing the (human) inclination to accomplish
acts of obedience willed by Him....to become a natural disposition fixed in us? God does
not change at all the nature of human individuals by means of miracles.....it is because
of this that there are commandments and prohibitions, rewards and punishments. We
do not say this because we believe that the changing of the (human) nature of any
individual is difficult for Him. Rather it is possible and fully within His capacity. But
according to the foundations of the Law, of the Torah, He has NEVER willed it, nor shall
He EVER will it. For if it were His will that the nature of any human individual be
changed because of what He wills from that individual, the sending of prophets and all
giving of the Law would have been useless.
What an amazing admission from Maimonides. First that the human nature is untouchable by
any earthly device, including The Law of Moses. And second, that IF God decided to change
the nature of humans (to get rid of the evil inclination), then the RamBam couldn't understand
what the role of The Law would become. If only he would have read what Paul had to say here
in Romans.
Again: in his letter to the Romans Paul was not establishing some distant, ethereal, theoretical
systematic theology. He was directly addressing real issues of his time. It was a firm and
settled belief within Judaism that God, although fully capable, would never undertake the task
of changing the human nature.
We'll continue with chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 18, Chapter 8 continued
We'll continue to work our way through Romans chapter 8 today and I'll tell you in advance
that we'll be knee deep in some important theology. Since chapter 8 sums up what Paul has
been teaching and presents the conclusion to be drawn from it, I'm going to do some of the
same. Even though we're only at the halfway point, we've studied enough of Romans that we
should do this.
Thinking back to what I told you in the introduction to the Book of Romans, I remind you that
the most common position held by Christian Bible Commentators is that the Book of Romans is
aimed primarily at gentiles (this is why the Book of Romans has grown in stature to become
preeminent in Christian theology and doctrine). The assertion is that in his letter Paul is
speaking mainly to what today we'd call "the Church" (since the Church is generally
envisioned as a nearly exclusively gentile religion) and considerably less to Jews (Believers
and non-Believers). I hope our journey through Romans is demonstrating that this traditional
viewpoint of Romans being mostly gentile oriented simply cannot be supported. Paul's choice
of words reflects unique Jewish idioms and expressions, common Jewish cultural norms for his
day, typical approaches as used by early rabbis to explain and debate Scripture, and even
comments such as the first verse of chapter 7, which makes it explicit that in several parts of
his letter to the Romans he is aiming mostly at Jews. The first verse of chapter 7 said: "Surely
you know, brothers.....for I am speaking to those who understand law.....that law has
authority over a person only so long as he lives?" Clearly "those who understand law" are
Jews and not gentiles, especially since "law" in this case is referring to Jewish Law;
Halakhah.
So most everything Paul says in chapter 7 is aimed at the Jews in Rome (although the
principles he elucidates apply to gentile Believers as well). Thus in chapter 8 Paul tells his
readers what conclusions they ought to draw from what he has previously said (mainly
pertaining to chapter 7 but also to the underlying principles of his letter up to this point) as it
begins: "Therefore, there is no longer condemnation awaiting those who are in union
with the Messiah Yeshua". So this comment is (as is all of chapter 8) also equally aimed
primarily at Jews who know law (Halakhah), and this can be deduced because chapter 8 is but
an uninterrupted continuation of chapter 7. We can get lulled into a false notion that Paul has
begun an entirely new thought pattern in chapter 8 merely because we have changed
chapters. But Paul didn't write in chapters; chapters were artificially added by others 11
centuries after Paul's day. Paul didn't write using modern English literary and grammar
conventions; he wrote using the standard Jewish literary and grammar conventions of his time,
which did not include chapter breaks and verse numbers.
The point is this: while on the surface (especially to gentile Christians) it seems to be that Paul
is instructing only the new Believers in Yeshua, Jew and gentile, just under the surface we find
that he is also addressing Israel and the Jewish people as a whole; as a nation of people, if
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
you would. The nation of people is God's original chosen people (Israel), which is why he has
used the promise given to Abraham as a foundational premise for his doctrines. But back in
Romans chapter 3 he also alluded to the exclusive advantages given to Jews by God (such as
being entrusted with God's Word) and he also says something else that can easily escape our
attention.
Romans 3:1-4 CJB
CJB Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? What is the value of being
circumcised? 2
Much in every way! In the first place, the Jews were entrusted with the
very words of God. 3
If some of them were unfaithful, so what? Does their faithlessness
cancel God's faithfulness? 4
Heaven forbid! God would be true even if everyone were a
liar!- as the Tanakh says, "so that you, God, may be proved right in your words and win
the verdict when you are put on trial."
When Paul's straw man asks the question in Romans 3:3: does the Jews' unfaithfulness to
God cancel God's faithfulness to the Jews, Paul immediately answers and refutes his straw
man by saying "Heaven forbid!" But what, exactly, does Paul have in mind when the
discussion turns to God's faithfulness to the Jews? He is speaking of God remaining faithful to
the covenants He has made with Israel; covenants that set them apart from all other nations.
What every Jew in the 1st century would have understood is that the main point of God's
covenants with Israel is that they are what make Israel, Israel. Those covenants are what set
Israel apart as God's chosen. In fact in Matthew 15, in the famous story of Yeshua venturing
outside the Holy Land and up to Tzor and Sidon, he met a Canaanite woman who begged
Yeshua to exorcise a demon from her daughter. Although Yeshua eventually agreed to do so,
His initial response is one that ought to * the ears of the Church and cause us to take
notice. 24 He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Isra'el." Oh my! To
whom did Our Lord Yeshua say He was sent? ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Yeshua, in theory, was Israel's Savior because the Lord's purpose in sending Christ was to
solve the deadly problem of sin among His chosen and set apart people, Israel. In fact in
Matthew 10 Yeshua explicitly instructed the 12 Disciples to go ONLY to the house of Israel with
the Gospel and to avoid gentiles. Much later, of course, we find the risen Yeshua confront Paul
on the road to Damascus and instruct him that the time has come to take the Gospel to the
gentile world.
So if Yeshua was really only the Messiah for Israel, then on what basis could gentiles be
included? There would be two basis for this: the first is that in Romans 4 we learn that gentiles
who trust God through Yeshua become spiritual seed of Abraham and thus co-inheritors of the
Kingdom of God; and second is what we'll study when we get to Romans chapter 11: gentile
Believers have been divinely grafted into the covenants of Israel and thus effectively become
part of Israel (from a spiritual, not a physical, perspective).
Here's where I'm going with this. Especially in chapters 7 and 8 Paul is not only addressing
Believers, Jew and gentile, but on a secondary level he is also addressing Israel in general:
national Israel. That is, from the near view that we discussed last time (it is necessary to study
Scripture from the near, mid, and far view to obtain proper context), Paul is speaking to
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
Believers. But if we pull back from the few verses we've read and see it in the wider context of
the entire Bible (the far view) then Paul's inclusion of Israel-in-general comes into focus. At the
same time that he has been explaining why the Gospel works, and what exactly it does for
humanity, he has also been defending Israel's election as God's set apart people (especially
for his Jewish audience but also as a reminder to gentiles). So part of Paul's underlying
message to his audience is that despite Israel's unfaithfulness to God and to the covenants
meant to bind them to Him, God has remained faithful. And the chief way God is showing His
faithfulness is 1) by not abandoning or rejecting Israel, and 2) this continuing love and concern
for Israel is proven by God sending His only Son to give Israel a way out from the death
penalty that they have earned for themselves by being disobedient to His covenants
(especially as it applies to Covenant of Moses; The Law). So there is a dual meaning going on
here; one meaning that many Jews would recognize as being about their Israelite heritage, and
another meaning that explains why the Jews would have to begin to share that heritage (from a
spiritual standpoint) with Believing gentiles. The part about Israelite heritage would mostly have
flown right over the heads of the Roman gentile readers of Paul's letter, just as it does to this
day within the Church. But many Jews in Rome would have immediately understood these
thoughts in the perspective Paul intended because his choice of terms and his recounting of
Israel's history centered on Abraham, and his constant mention of the role of The Law, would
have resonated with them.
So now that you are informed, keep this dual purpose of Paul in mind as we continue our study
of Romans chapter 8. Since we only addressed the first 3 verses of this chapter in our last
lesson, we'll re-read the entire chapter for the sake of continuity.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 8 all
If you listened carefully you noticed that the word "spirit" is front and center in this chapter,
being used 21 times. This is an important indicator because in the previous chapters of
Romans it was the term "law" that Paul used so very often. So Paul is now moving on from his
explanation of the effects of The Law and what God has done to counteract the curse that
comes from disobeying it (which Paul sums up in verse 1), to explaining that it is the indwelling
of the Spirit of God that marks and characterizes a Jew or gentile as having been righteoused
(justified) by his or her trust in Yeshua's perfect faithfulness. Thus in Paul's summation of
verse 1 about the case he has been building for the last 7 chapters, he says that those who are
in union with Messiah Yeshua are no longer under the condemnation (the death sentence) that
is the consequence of breaking The Law of Moses.
In verse 2 he explains why this works as it does. And it is that the law of the spirit has set the
Believer free from the law of sin and death. We talked about this last time but I'll expand it a
bit. The term "law" as used here is an expression (perhaps even a metaphor); it is not meant
in the legal sense or is it used to identify some particular holiness code or regulation. In our
modern English this use of "law" more means something like "principle"; something that
regulates. So the principle of the spirit has set the Believer free from the principle of sin and
death. Most importantly it must be understood that the meaning of "the law of sin and death"
does not mean "The Law of Moses whose substance is sin and death". So this statement is
not setting The Law of Moses over and against the Spirit of God. Rather it is setting life over
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
and against death ("the law of the spirit, which produces life, has set me free from the law of
sin and death").
This interpretation is backed up when we read in verse 3 that what the Torah could not do was
to change the human nature (because it was never designed to do it). It is our human nature
controlled by our evil inclination that is the problem. The Law, because it is essentially words
on scrolls, doesn't have any inherent power to reach in and affect the inner self and thus resist
the evil inclination that is the Master of human beings (remember: this Mastery of the evil
inclination is the result of everyone being related to Adam). So God sent His Son to deal with
the problem of sin and death that resulted from disobedience to The Law, because God's Son
DID have the inherent power to reach inside the inner self and change our nature. The irony is
that in addition to having divine power, Yeshua also had the same flawed nature that ordinary
human beings had. This was necessary because God's plan was to execute (put to death)
that sinful human nature....to destroy it.....and God did so by allowing His Son Yeshua and the
sinful nature that He carried to be literally executed with Christ behaving as a substitute to
represent our sinful nature. It worked just as the Levitical sacrificial system operated and
prefigured. Hebrew humans sinned (they broke The Law). But instead of them receiving the
eternal death penalty (the curse of The Law), innocent animals could be substituted. The
principle was that God allowed the sin that the human committed to be imputed upon the
otherwise innocent animal, and then the animal was "executed" as a substitute or a
representative for the guilty human. Likewise our sins were imputed upon the otherwise
innocent Christ, and then He was "executed" as a substitute for us.
But we must be honest; while Paul says Believers have been set free from the law of sin and
death and instead we are now under the law of the spirit, the reality is that Christians still sin.
Our lives remain an illicit mixture of sinning and God-imputed righteousness. This unwelcome
phenomenon was well recognized by Paul within himself such that he cries out in angry
frustration near the end of Romans 7: "What a miserable creature I am!" So we are not
entirely free from the power of sin and don't let any pious-sounding minister tell you that you
are. However we are entirely free from the power of the consequence of sin, which is death.
Thus we have to think of this freedom we have gained from the power of sin and death as not
so much an event as an ongoing process. Just as we have not escaped the reality that no
matter we are Believers, our fleshly bodies will still die and decay in the earth just as anyone
else, on the other hand the other aspect of death (spiritual death) we already HAVE escaped
thanks to Yeshua. It is not in process, it is finished. Thus while we have a new Master in the
Spirit that empowers our good inclination, that doesn't mean that the residue of our old
Master, our evil inclination to sin, has fled; we still have to contend with it. But through the Spirit
we do have a power in us that is able to fight it effectively. CJB 1 John 4:4 You, children, are
from God and have overcome the false prophets, because he who is in you is greater
than he who is in the world.
So what are we to do in this present state whereby we are far better off than before we knew
Yeshua; yet still we hang in suspension, seemingly neither fish nor fowl? We're saved and our
spirits already have eternal life; yet our flesh still succumbs to sin as though we weren't saved.
Back in Romans chapter 6 we read of Paul's approach to this problem that in some ways is a
pleasant fiction, but in other ways is quite practical considering the fallen state of the world,
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
and the condition in which we live: CJB Romans 6:11 In the same way, consider yourselves
to be dead to sin but alive for God, by your union with the Messiah Yeshua. Notice the
use of the word "consider". In Greek it is logizomai, which means to infer or to count oneself
as something. So to paraphrase: Paul says that even though it is not actually so, count
yourselves as though you are dead to sin. In other words, our mindset as Believers.....the way
we should understand this strange conundrum we find ourselves in....is to think of ourselves,
and to do our best to behave, as though we are completely dead to the power of sin while at
the same time we are more alive than ever to God's will. We play a sort of game with
ourselves while we are waiting for the reality of it to be actually true.
Don't discount this. There is an old saying about how to change behavior: fake it until you feel
it. That is, you know what you ought to do (the right thing) even though you sure feel like doing
something else (the wrong thing). So do the right thing, even if not entirely sincere, until doing
the right thing is what your inner self WANTS to do. Look: this frustrating position we finds
ourselves in is exactly what Paul was lamenting in verses 15 – 24 of Romans 7. This is why
perseverance MUST be part of every Believer's life, and we must pray for this perseverance
every single day.
But now let me assure you: I'm not suggesting a self-help program of positive thinking. What
Believers are doing by "counting" ourselves as dead to sin is less a matter of "faking it" and
more a matter of steadily dying to self. God's Law has revealed our sin, and now the Spirit
gives us the power to fight against our former propensity to sin. Believers are in the process of
learning how to disobey our old nature and instead to obey the new nature God has given to
us. We are learning how to discern when something is our will versus God's will, and how to
choose to do God's will. This is a hard and lifelong process; but immensely worthwhile. Paul
says this in 1Corinthians:
1Corinthians 15:16-19 CJB
16 For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised either;
17 and if the Messiah has not been raised, your trust is useless, and you are still in your
sins. 18 Also, if this is the case, those who died in union with the Messiah are lost.
19 If it is only for this life that we have put our hope in the Messiah, we are more pitiable
than anyone.
Indeed; if our eternal future is no better than this present life that we live as Believers (which is
actually a constant struggle to do what we know is right despite how we might look to others)
then we are to be pitied by others and not emulated. I'm not talking about a struggle for wealth
and abundance in terms of the earthly economy; some of us may have plenty of that and
others may not. I'm talking about our internal struggles, which no Believer will escape. The
struggles of conscience when looking at ourselves in the mirror after doing what is wrong, and
knowing better, and feeling defeated and ashamed, and asking ourselves how God could
possibly continue to love us. But the Good News is that there is a divine power that Yeshua's
sacrificial actions have given to us that is so much greater than our old sinful nature. The Holy
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
Spirit has been given to guide us, instruct us, comfort us, forgive us, give us hope and
perseverance, and show us the greatest mercy so that despite it all, we can live a life of joy
and hope. This is the only real source of hope that mankind has. But it is also a source of hope
that we can trust and depend upon because Our Creator has guaranteed it.
Verses 6 and 7 are a continuing midrash (discussion, exposition) on the doctrine of Two
Masters or Two Spirits that Paul has used constantly throughout his letter. So he says that the
mind controlled by the old nature (the mind that is a slave to the Master of the evil inclination)
is death; but the mind controlled by God's spirit (the mind that is a slave to the Master of the
good inclination) is life. And this is because our old nature is naturally hostile to God. Our old
nature is virtually incapable of co-operating with God. Thus those who continue to willfully
identify with their old nature (that is, those who have not accepted Messiah Yeshua and thus
become identified with Him) cannot please God. Again: it is impossible to please Two Masters.
We can't please our old nature and at the same time please God. We can't split time with
each and we can't compromise between them.
Paul continues to expand his emphasis on the spirit in verse 9. He essentially equates the term
Holy Spirit with the term Spirit of Messiah and with the term Spirit of God. In one sense Paul is
making all three terms synonymous. But in another sense he is speaking of the mysterious
nature of God, which is unity (the echad of God): Father (Spirit of God), Son (Spirit of
Messiah), and Holy Spirit.
Whereas Paul has been speaking in a duality to Israel in general and to Believers in specific
(at the least since Romans chapter 7), in verse 9 he is addressing only Believers because only
Believers actually have the Spirit of God living in us. And he is also laying down a doctrine: if
we don't have the Spirit in us, then we don't identify with Messiah. And if we don't identify
with Messiah, then the only alternative is that we identify with our old sinful nature. There is no
in-between. I don't wish to create a theological debate (but I probably will). Some Believers
think that the New Testament envisions a process whereby first we are baptized into an
identity with Christ and then sometime later we are baptized into the Holy Spirit. Essentially this
means that we first identify with Messiah (that is we first come to believe in Yeshua), and then
later at some point, if we believe correctly, the Holy Spirit will indwell us. If I am interpreting
correctly what Paul seems to clearly say here in Romans 8:9, then such a thing cannot be
accurate. Paul says that if you have the Holy Spirit you are identified with Christ; and if you
have identified with Christ you have the Holy Spirit. So to me this destroys any thought that a
new Believer can, for a time, be "saved" (identified with Christ) but has not yet received the
Holy Spirit. This is because Paul sets up the dynamic that the one validates the other. Or to put
it negatively: you can't have one without the other. In other words it operates like sin and
death. Sin and death come as a fused pair; you can't have one without the other. So it is that
identity with Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit come as a fused pair; you can't have
one without the other.
Let's move to verse 11 because I think Paul says something quite plainly that for some reason
some Believers (or at least some denominations) have a hard time with. There is a belief
among some versions of the Trinity doctrine that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal. That
is, one has no authority or pre-eminence over the other. There is no hierarchy. However I find
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
that mindset is the result of the desire of the New Testament Church to shove God the Father
to background in order to pull God the Son to the fore. Or to allow God the Father to remain
the God of the Jews, but to make God the Son to become the God of Christians. So the
solution is to simply make Father, Son and Holy Spirit co-equal if not virtually identical. Yet in
verse 11, according to Paul, there was a specific one of these 3 identified and named Spirits
that raised Yeshua from the dead (that is, the Spirit of Yeshua didn't raise Yeshua, it was a
different spirit). And it is this same Spirit (the same one who resurrected Messiah) that lives in
us as Believers. But the last half of verse 11 causes controversy. What does Paul mean that
the same spirit that raised Yeshua from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies? Calvin says
this is speaking of life in the sense of an ethical renewal of our bodies. David Stern says it is
life in the sense of the Holy Spirit giving Believers hope. I find these both to be a reach. Rather
in its plainest textual sense, since the topic is who or what raised Yeshua from the dead, then it
is comparing our mortal bodies to Christ's mortal body that died. And just as it is the work of a
certain Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, so it will be the work of the same Spirit that will
raise us from the dead (resurrection). So Paul is speaking of a future time at the End of Days.
And, by the way, the Believers of Paul's day thought that the End of Days was imminent; not
hundreds or thousands of years into the future.
Verse 12 presents us with another point of summation for Paul. All that he has said in the first
11 verses of chapter 8 leads him to conclude what he states in verses 12 and 13. He
introduces that summation by saying, "So then, brothers". And what he does is actually to
speak of our relationship to our old nature in terms of debt. That is, we don't owe any kind of a
debt to our old nature that would force us to keep giving it our allegiance and labors. On the
contrary: by switching our allegiance to the Spirit then we are essentially killing our old nature
who still thinks we owe it something. We should take this as but a rough illustration in the same
way as Paul used the illustration of the widow remarrying in Romans chapter 7.
Verse 14 says that a Believer is God's son because anyone led by God's Spirit is a son to
Him. This is a Jewish expression that reflects a universally understood Jewish cultural concept
of the value of a son over a servant. Although several Bible characters will be called servants
of God (a high status), those called sons of God are even higher. Thus while priests were
called servants of God (a high status), Israel's kings were called sons of God (a higher status).
Prophets were called servants of God; but Yeshua is called the Son of God. Thus the typical
Levitical priests, although indeed properly serving God, do not have God's spirit in them so
they can only be called servants. But any Believer is elevated above Levitical priests because
we have God's spirit in us, so we are sons of God. And ladies, don't let this bother you. The
issue is not a gender issue (son versus daughter). The issue is a status issue. From a status
issue you gain the status as sons of God just as does a male if you trust Yeshua.
Next Paul explains that it is not a spirit of slavery that we get from God when He puts His spirit
into us, but rather it is essentially a spirit of adoption that we gain. The notion here is that the
character of God's indwelling spirit is not one of coercion that works by putting a Believer into
a state of fear as it would be for a slave. That is, the reason that a slave is loyal to his master
and does the master's bidding is because the master could severely harm him or kill him if he
didn't. The slave has few rights and no choice so it is the fear of his Master that compels his
loyalty. Instead, says Paul, the character of God's indwelling spirit operates more the way an
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
adopted son does towards his father; he operates out of love and gratitude, and not out of fear.
The son obeys his father not from a fear of bad repercussions if he doesn't; but rather from a
motive of sincere desire to reciprocate the love his father shows him by pleasing his father.
This is reason that Paul employs the term Abba. Abba means father but it is a term of
endearment and affection.
In verses 16 and 17 the other status benefit of being a son instead of servant to God is brought
to bear. A son inherits from his father; a servant does not. So since God's spirit bears witness
that Believers (those who have His spirit in them) are His sons, then there can be no doubt. In
the biblical sense a witness is someone who attests or confirms the truth of a statement.
Biblically (and in Tradition) is usually takes two witness to confirm. So here we have our own
spirits and God's Spirit as the two witnesses. Therefore the proof of our being God's children
means we have the right be heirs. Heirs to what? To the Kingdom of God. Yeshua was the first
heir, and those who trust Him are now fellow heirs with Him.
I love the way that C.E.B. Cranfield speaks of the next several verses beginning with 17:
".....the subject with which this subsection is concerned (is) Christian hope. The life
which is characterized by the Spirit of God, which is a life in which God's Law is
established, is a life characterized by hope".
A Believer must have God's Law (which is of the same substance and principles as the Law of
Moses) established within him. This happens by an act of God: the indwelling of the spirit. It is
a fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:30-33 CJB
30 "Here, the days are coming," says ADONAI, "when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Isra'el and with the house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I
made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the
land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for my
part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant I will make with
the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will put my Torah within them
and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 33 No longer
will any of them teach his fellow community member or his brother, 'Know ADONAI'; for
all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest; because I will forgive their
wickednesses and remember their sins no more."
Since Yeshua has put an end to the death sentence of the Law for His worshippers, all that
remains is the Laws themselves....for worshippers. But my brothers and sister, if we should
think to ourselves: if there is no eternal death sentence for disobedience, why would I, as a
Believer, obey The Laws of God? That my friends is the attitude of a servant; that is the
question a slave of the evil inclination would ask. For as Paul rightly says, a slave must be
mastered through fear. However since the spirit of God indwells the Believer, and the spirit of
God has written God's Law on the hearts (minds) of His worshippers; and since His
worshippers have, by grace, been elevated to the lofty status of sons of God, we have the right
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 18 - Chapter 8 cont.
to call God Abba (Father). Therefore the Believer's following of God's Law comes not from
fear of consequences if we don't (the death sentence, which Yeshua has already borne for
Believers) but rather from our love of Our Father and the desire to please Him.
We'll stop for today and finish up Romans chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 19, Chapter 8 cont. 2
Last week in Romans chapter 8 we concluded by discussing the status of Believers before
God during our lifetimes. We also discussed that Yeshua (as recorded in Matthew 5) explained
how He will determine our status in the future during His reign over the Millennial Kingdom.
That is, what will be our position in the Kingdom of Heaven, on earth, once it has been fully
realized and what are the criteria for determining that status? Christ defined it in terms of our
assignment to one of two basic groups that He labeled as the greatest and the least. If one
strove to obey The Law of Moses and taught others to do so, you would be made part of the
group called "the greatest". If one determined not to obey the Law of Moses and taught others
that The Law is irrelevant to them, then you would be assigned to the group called "the least".
But since that is for the future, after Christ returns, what determines your status before God in
the here and now? I'm not speaking of saved versus not-saved but rather of our status before
God as Believers. And while this is not nearly as cut and dried as Yeshua explained it
regarding future times, it is clear that as a worshipper of Yeshua we can harbor one of two
possible attitudes, and therefore have one of two possible relationships before God during our
lifetimes: one in which we are seen as a servant, or the other in which we are seen as a son.
Each of these are a good status; but, just as with Yeshua's definition of status in His Millennial
Kingdom in Matthew 5, so we see a hierarchy of a lesser and a greater status for Believers in
the here and now.
In the world of the 1st century A.D., and especially within Judaism, there was a distinct
understanding of the inherent advantages of a son over a servant. A servant was essentially a
slave, and a slave usually obeyed out of fear of his master. On the other hand a son was
family; he loved his father, his father loved him, so the son wanted to please his father and
obeyed out of love and gratitude. However biblically and within Judaism, there was a class of
people called servants of God and another class called sons of God. Both a servant of God
and a son of God were of high and preferred status. Nonetheless a servant of God was a lower
status than a son of God thus the attendant privileges were different. The pattern for the
difference between the two classes was established, and can be demonstrated, with the
pattern of the Levites.
The Levites were set apart from the other tribes of Israel at Mt. Sinai to be servants for God;
they were God's designated priests. And interestingly we find out that there could be no land
inheritance for Levite Priests (for God's servants). In fact, from Mt. Sinai onward they were not
to be considered as part of Israel in the sense of having the same advantages and rights that
all the other tribes of Jacob held; the most important advantage the Levites lost in the bargain
was the right of inheritance.
CJB Deuteronomy 18:1 The cohanim, who are L'vi'im, and indeed the whole tribe of Levi,
is not to have a share or an inheritance with Isra'el. Instead, their support will come from
the food offered by fire to ADONAI and from whatever else becomes his. 2
They will
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
have no inheritance with their brothers, because ADONAI is their inheritance....
Thus the servants of God, the Levite Priests, would receive only a spiritual inheritance and not
an earthly inheritance. However in Israelite culture, among all tribes other than Levi, the sons
of a father had inheritance rights, with the firstborn receiving an extra allotment. So following
the pattern, sons of God will receive both heavenly AND earthly benefits because they are
legal heirs. Servants have no legal rights to land and property and so will get primarily
heavenly benefits. If you had a choice, which would you rather be, before God? A servant or a
son? Interestingly Paul explains that the advent of Yeshua has given us all a choice. Romans
8:14 says: CJB Romans 8:14 All who are led by God's Spirit are God's sons. So since all
Believers are given God's Holy Spirit upon their trust in Yeshua, why then aren't we all given
the status as God's sons? First I want to say that essentially, from a spiritual perspective, son
status is available for the taking. But as Believers we have to trust God that we actually are
sons and respond accordingly. Otherwise if we do no apprehend our position as sons then we
will be seen as servants due to our lack of faith. The key words in this verse are "led by". We
must be led by God's Spirit; not just HAVE God's Spirit.
Paul has spent the last few paragraphs explaining the frustrating conundrum that Believers
face: we live with both God's Spirit and the spirit of an evil inclination living side-by-side within
us, so we find ourselves constantly pulled in opposite directions. That is, at times we disobey
God and sin even though we know better; even though God's Spirit is dwelling within us and
we have The Law written on our hearts. Thus as Believers we have the challenge of more or
less retraining ourselves. We must learn to be led by God's Spirit rather than to be led by the
spirit of our evil inclination; the spirit of our former Master. Such a thing is an ongoing process
that requires determination and perseverance. Thus just as it is obvious that any clear thinking
Believer ought to strive to be greatest rather than least in the Kingdom of Heaven (even though
either way we will be members of the Kingdom of Heaven in good standing), we also ought to
strive to be sons of God rather than servants of God (even though both are good things, and
both indicate that we are redeemed).
The irony is that we ought not to strive for the higher statuses ("son" and "greatest") purely
because it benefits us. Rather the benefit should come as a natural outcome of wanting to
please God by obeying Him. Seeking a greater status is the wrong motive for obedience.
Frankly, we rather taint the outcome if our main purpose for striving to obey God is what we get
for ourselves in return. Such a wrong attitude is at the heart of what propels the Prosperity
Doctrine of our day.
Thus, concludes Paul, since because of Christ there is no condemnation (no death sentence)
for those who trust Messiah Yeshua, then we should set fear on the shelf; we should not take
on the attitude of a servant who obeys his Master out of fear. Rather we should take on the
attitude of a son who obeys his Master out of love.
Let's re-read a portion of Romans chapter 8.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 8:18 – end
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
Paul speaks of the "sufferings" they were enduring. Does he mean to indicate some sort of
tribulation (hard times, persecution)? Perhaps; but the context of the dialogue more seems to
be about suffering with the dilemma of having God's spirit within us and yet retaining remnants
of our old nature that pull at us and frustrate us as we strive to behave and think as God wants
us to; but we fail. And he probably also means "suffering" in the sense of personal identity with
our suffering servant Yeshua in that we are willing to take on the hurt and pain of others in
order to show mercy and tell them of God's love for them. As of the time of Paul's writing of
the Letter to the Romans, which is some years before his journey to Rome as a prisoner, there
was no organized persecution of Jews going on in the Roman Empire. Yes, in some cases
there was bigotry against Jews (as there always has been and always will be against various
races and ethnic groups). However the Roman Empire operated on the premise of religious
tolerance and cultural diversity (to a point) and in fact it is recorded that the Jews were given
special dispensation by the Roman government because some elements of their religion were
quite demanding. The evidence is that neither the traditional Jews nor the gentile and Jewish
followers of Christ were being systematically persecuted at this time as they soon would be
under Nero. So we probably shouldn't think of Paul's reference to "suffering" as any kind of
dangerous tribulation beyond some non-Believing Jews giving Paul and other Believing Jews a
hard time occasionally.
There are a couple of things we must always keep in mind as we read any letter from Paul.
First: while Paul believed in an End Times that involved the return of Christ, he didn't see it as
something in the far future. Rather, he thought it was imminent; virtually something that could,
and likely would, happen within his lifetime. This is why he had such a great urgency to
evangelize, and why in Romans chapter 9 we'll see him express a willingness to forsake his
own salvation in exchange for bringing Israel in general to salvation (this, of course, is an
expression of his passion; not something that was possible in reality). The second thing is that
Paul's understanding of what glory means (as it pertains to the future of Believers in the world
to come) is grounded upon the notion of endurance of sufferings and persecution as proof of
faithfulness to Yeshua. This notion is very much the same perspective that the Essenes held
(the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and it is expressed in terms they used to refer to
themselves. Terms like "poor in spirit", "paupers of grace", and "desperate of justification"
(among others). These were common terms found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to express the
Essenes' determination that suffering was the lot of those who sought righteousness as they
waited for their deliverance from the sons of darkness. With the translation and release of the
Dead Sea Scrolls it is clearer than ever that there was great agreement and interaction
between the Essenes and Yeshua, and no doubt Paul was keenly aware of their views, some
of which integrated well with the beliefs of the Pharisees.
What interests me most about this verse is the statement that we will eventually be heirs to a
glory that will be revealed in the future. That is, the reward for our perseverance of our current
state of spiritual conundrum that comes because of our firm trust in Yeshua will be revealed at
a later time in the future (in the world to come; the olam ha-ba). And the reality is that to this
day we really don't know what our heavenly future looks like (although there is no end of
speculation from the pulpit and from books). We must simply have faith that the general
characterization of our future with Christ will be as wonderful as promised and greater than
anything that is even possible on this earth as it stands today.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
Verse 19 is a bit difficult to deal with because Paul speaks of "the creation" as a living entity of
some sort. I think what is really happening is that he is speaking of "the creation" in grammar
terms that we call personification. That is, things that are not human are spoken of as though
they had human characteristics. So when Paul speaks of "the creation" it is my opinion that he
is referring to everything in existence that is not human: plants, animals, rocks, the oceans, the
stars in the sky, and so on. And that all of these things that God created are frustrated because
humans have ruined everything. And they know that a restoration is coming, and they're
growing wearing waiting for it. Again; these terms like frustrated and waiting are not meant to
be taken literally; these words of emotion applied to non-human things are personification. The
creation also seems to know that God's work towards the redemption of His creation is
predicated upon the revelation of the sons of God: Believers. The appearance of Believers is
the signal to the creation that restoration has begun. So folks, even though you may never
have thought of yourselves in this way, you yourselves, as Believers, are a sign that God is in
active process of restoring His creation to its original perfection and even greater.
Why is the creation in such an anxious state? Because as Paul says in verse 21, it is decaying;
its condition worsens, and decays more, hour by hour. This decaying was not supposed to
have happened to the creation; it is a result of Adam's arrogance and sin. And further, says
Paul, the same freedom from death that God's children (another synonym for sons of God or
for Believers) have now attained, will also happen for the creation in general at the appropriate
time. In other words, when the creation is redeemed, it will stop decaying and be saved from
death.
Suffering birth pains is mentioned as describing the condition of the creation. The illustration of
birth pains was a common one in Judaism; it was usually used to describe the sufferings of the
creation as it awaited the beginning of the Messianic Age (the rule of Messiah) and what was
loosely called the entrance into the world to come. So Paul is not inventing anything new; the
term birth pain he uses was not only common, it was meant in Judaism precisely in the same
context he means it in this passage. It is an End Times expression.
Verse 23, then, says a mouthful. First, it is said that we "have" the firstfruits of the Spirit. A
Jewish Believer would have well understood the reference; likely few gentile Believers would
have. First let me comment that the words are NOT that we ARE the firstfruits of the Spirit but
rather that we HAVE the firstfruits of the Spirit. Let's consider this statement from the Jewish
cultural perspective. Even the Diaspora Jews were well aware of Bikkurim, the Festival of
Firstfruits, and also of Shavuot, which although known as The Feast of Weeks was actually a
2
nd Firstfruits festival (Bikkurim concerned the barley harvest, Shavuot the wheat harvest that
came some weeks later). In both cases, the firstfruits is the sign that the harvest is ripening
and soon it will be time for the reaping. As used here, firstfruits is a metaphor that is simply
another way of saying that Believers, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, are the sign or pledge
that harvesting time is at hand. In Judaism, firstfruits and harvesting are symbolic of
redemption.
But in verse 23 Paul also expands on his assertion of Believers being sons of God. He says
that since we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we groan inwardly as we are waiting to be made
sons of God; and then he defines the phrase "being made sons of God" as having our entire
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
bodies redeemed and set free. This goes back to what we discussed earlier; becoming a son
of God is more a process than an event. In fact redemption is a process and little about it is an
all-at-once event. It is similar to the concept of the Kingdom of God. Yeshua said that with the
coming of John the Baptist, the Kingdom of God has arrived on earth; it is here, now. And yet,
it is in no way fully manifested; it is in its infancy. The Kingdom of God then, and even today, is
but a fraction of what it will eventually become. So even though we can be called sons of God
today, as Believers we have a long way to go before all the privileges and honors and
manifestations of what it means to be sons of God are fully realized. We are currently
experiencing but the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
In verse 24, Paul explains that it is the hope of this full completeness of becoming sons of God
that we wait for with such great expectation. And that it is our salvation that gives us reason for
this hope. But he ends this verse by having us remember that as of now our hope remains a
faith-based hope. Yet, from philosophical viewpoint, we can't call what we hope for "hope"
once it comes to full realization. So we should rejoice in our hope, just as we will rejoice when
it is no longer a hope but reality.
It has always been interesting to me that some parts of Christianity want to paint a rosy picture
of what life becomes when we finally believe. The idea more or less being that once we come
to faith, our troubles are over. And if we do have trouble, it is because we just don't have
enough faith, yet. In other words: struggles, failures, and woes in our life indicate a Believer of
little faith. None of these matches with what Scripture tells us; and the brutally frank Paul is
regularly warning Believers (and Seekers) that coming to faith in Christ brings with it
obligations, duties, and suffering.....not utopia. Thus our waiting for our hope to be fully realized
will need much perseverance. And because we are still not perfected....and especially our
fleshly bodies are not perfected.....we are full of weaknesses that can make persevering all the
harder. But Paul says that the Holy Spirit of God is fully aware of this and is here to help.
I bring this up because it is among my pet peeves that some Christian leaders think that God
and the Christian life must be presented to their congregation as super appealing; as a sort of
divine welfare system that not only fixes all our problems but fulfills all our dreams. My peeve is
that not only is that not true, but especially when immature, new Believers buy into this lie, and
the harshness of life comes along to dash this false hope, they fall away from the faith, either
blaming God or renouncing Christ altogether. So let me be clear: our hope is not in daily
happiness. It is not in getting the job we want, the perfect spouse we seek, not even in finally
getting that 70 inch 4K flat screen Smart TV with surround sound. Our true hope is more future
than present. Our salvation has secured our eternal future; not our temporal present. Oh,
without doubt, life is so very much better in the present with God than without. We can go to
Him in prayer, He will offer us comfort, and give us peace in impossible circumstances. He is a
God who will heal, protect us in many instances, and give us guidance and wisdom when we
choose to listen to Him. In fact, Paul says that often we won't know how to pray, so God will
even help us with that. The Holy Spirit living in us knows our needs and sufferings and
longings and will pray for us in the way proper worship and prayer, in God's will, ought to
happen.
As you think about what I've said, what God has promised, and your current circumstances I
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
ask you to face a stark reality: we are redeemed, but we live in an unredeemed universe. And
there are times when we can feel overwhelmed by not just what comes our way, personally,
but by what we see happening all around us. We can become full of fears, foreboding, and get
depressed and anxious. Our faith doesn't insulate us from the growing darkness of the world;
in fact it makes us all the more aware of it. The wickedness and deprivation so prevalent all
around us, which used to go unnoticed by us, suddenly becomes alive in vivid color and all too
apparent. It also becomes apparent that there is little we can do about most of it. Yeshua's
advice is don't worry and fret; turn to God in prayer. So I submit to you that part of the God␂ordained process of our becoming perfected in Him is when we have our eyes opened to how
God actually sees this fallen world, and how it pains us because it pains Him; and so we learn
how to be more dependent upon God, and that means to pray effectively and earnestly.
The concept that begins in verse 27 flows into verse 28: it is the concept of intercession. That
is, the Holy Spirit intercedes....He plays an active role as He sees fit.....in the lives of Believers
even including helping us to pray. Paul begins verse 28 with "we know"; it is meant in the
sense of taking something for granted as common knowledge. Without doubt he is expressing
some kind of traditional declaration that was well known among Jews. In fact, whereas
Christianity has adopted this verse as among the most memorized and quoted, noting correctly
that this is the beginning of Paul speaking of the concept of election, the reality is that Paul is
speaking more about the election of Israel as God's chosen people than about the election of
gentiles to form a new group of people called Christians. It is not that it can't apply to
Christians; but we must realize that God's election of Israel and His ongoing faithfulness to
Israel has been an underlying theme of the Letter to the Romans up to this point.
When Paul says that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love
God, he means "good" in the sense of favor. And when he speaks of those who love God,
while it certainly can apply to Believers, it more aptly applies in this context to Israel. Again;
throughout Romans an underlying message has been that God created a set apart people
called by His name, then God gave this set-apart people His covenants and since doing so has
not rejected them and replace them with somebody else. God has remained faithful to His
chosen people despite their unfaithfulness to Him. Paul continues that the Lord has an
irresistible, unstoppable purpose for His people; and while this is referring to Israel in the main,
it certainly on another level can include gentile Believers in Yeshua. The next several words
about knowing these people in advance and determining in advance who they would be and
who would be conformed to Yeshua, bring us into the controversial topic of predestination. The
idea that Calvin holds about predestination is that before any of us were born God not only
foreknew but chose those who would trust His Son for salvation. And those whom God decided
would become sons of God, he called to be righteous at the right time. In other words, all has
been predetermined about our lives before we were born. We didn't choose salvation; the
Savior chose us. Free will in this sense, then, is very limited. I don't want to get off track on the
issue of predestination; because like with the Doctrine of the Trinity, there is not only one
doctrine of Predestination, there are a few with differences of among them. Just know for now
that it is this passage that influenced Calvin's doctrine of Predestination the most.
I want us to pause and reorient ourselves. It is close to universally agreed among Bible
scholars that Romans chapters 7 and 8 are fully linked (I completely agree with them....it is
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
obvious). They are very nearly a single unit and if we want the best sense of it we should
mentally erase the chapter and verse markers and read chapters 7 and 8 as the whole that it
was originally written and so intended. Chopping it up with chapter and verse markers (that
never existed until a 1000 years after the NT was written) obscure its unity. So, let's remember
back to the opening words that started this long unified section, spoken by Paul in verse 1 of
chapter 7: CJB Romans 7:1 Surely you know, brothers- for I am speaking to those who
understand Torah- that the Torah has authority over a person only so long as he lives?
Or as in the KJV:
KJV Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that
the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Who does Paul say he is directly speaking to? Those who, in this context, he calls his brothers.
How does he define his brothers in this case? He says it is those who understand the Torah;
those understand the Law. Clearly he says he is speaking to his Jewish brethren and so
throughout chapters 7 and 8 he continues to tie what he is saying back to this verse by
regularly calling those he is addressing his brothers. He is addressing primarily the Jewish
Believers because since chapter 1 he has been defending God's election (His choosing) of
Israel to be His set-apart people, and the Gospel itself is proof of this because the Gospel is
how God is rescuing His people from the hole of sin and death they have dug for themselves.
The inclusion of gentiles as additional recipients of the Gospel (especially by Paul) has caused
some Jews to ask why God is bringing gentiles into the fold. And in turn, some gentiles have
wondered if God accepting them means that He is turning His back on His ancient people and
choosing a new people. It was complicated and confusing and so Paul has been walking a
delicate line. But my point is this: the election of God's people (those from Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob), and defending their continuing election, has been an important theme of Romans; one
that gentile Christian Bible students and teachers seem to overlook. And it is in that continuing
context of Paul primarily addressing Jews that we should read chapter 8 and especially so the
difficult words beginning at verse 28.
Thus in verse 31, after saying all these things, Paul then asks in typical rabbinical fashion:
"What then are we to say?" This introduces us to the standard format whereby a Halakhic
ruling (a Jewish religious ruling) is about to be made. And Rabbi Paul's ruling is this: if God is
for us, who can be against us? The question, then, is: who is "us"? Who is it that God is for?
Where in any of Paul's narrative has there been some overriding concern that people in
general are against Believers (Jew or gentile) and so Paul is trying to convince them that God
is for them, so don't worry about what "people" are saying or doing to you? In fact, whatever
opposition there has been (although we've not found any in the Book of Romans) has been
from Jews, not gentiles, and it has been against Paul specifically as an instigator of trouble.
So as to what we just discussed, "us" is Paul and his Jewish brethren as he stated to start
chapter 7. Here is what Paul is arguing for: it is self-evident that if God is for His chosen people
("us") then God has not and will not reject His people. In fact, as we'll see in Romans
chapters 9-11, Paul will vigorously defend Israel on God's behalf because of the accusation
that since Israel has rejected their Messiah, then God has decided to reject Israel. And by the
way before we get to those chapters: it is not that there is any historical or biblical evidence
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
that some wide scale or even meaningful protest from gentile Believers that Jews should not
be regarded as God's people because most of Israel rejected their Messiah has surfaced yet.
Rather it is that Paul anticipates that due to the controversial nature of gentile inclusion in
partaking of Israel's covenants that it is an accusation that is bound to come up so he is going
to deflect it right now. As Paul will argue, Israel's election as God's chosen people (His elect)
has not been, will not, and will never be revoked by God. And no power, no principality, and no
human king have the authority or ability to do so. But guess what: the Bishop of the Church of
Rome in the 4th century decided that he could declare that the Church has replaced Israel, and
a large portion of Christianity to this day has declared that God revoked Israel's election and
has replaced it with the gentile Church.
Here's the thing: although Paul is speaking directly to Israel, at the same time these same
principles apply to all Believers. Redeemed Israel and Believers (Jew and gentile) essentially
belong to the same group (spiritually speaking), have been delivered by the same Messiah, are
under the same covenants, and are the fulfillment of the same prophecies. And Paul is going to
go to some lengths to speak on this complex matter in chapters 9 – 11. It is complex enough
that it is difficult for the many denominations of Believers to come to an agreement on the
subject. I maintain that it is a lack of understanding of 1st century Judaism and Jewish culture
that is the culprit. We're going to work to sort that out over the next several weeks.
Verse 32 seems to be Paul widening his scope back to including gentile Believers by saying:
CJB Romans 8:32 He who did not spare even his own Son, but gave him up on behalf of
us all- is it possible that, having given us his Son, he would not give us everything else
too? By saying "us all", the indication is that he is no longer speaking mainly to his Jewish
brothers and he makes it clear, therefore, by saying "us all" that regardless of racial or ethnic
heritage, God giving up His only Son shows that His love extends to everyone and not just to
Jews. Thus, reckons Paul, if God is willing to do all that, He's not going to suddenly throw in
the towel and reverse course. He's not going to send His Son to the cross and then turn
around and punish (meaning condemn) those who His Son died to save!
So the meaning of the statement of verse 35 that asks us who will separate us from the love of
Christ; and then is followed with a list of hypothetical circumstances that theoretically could be
the cause of separating Believers from Messiah's love......trouble, hardship, persecution,
hunger, poverty, danger and war.....is that while all these listed circumstances could certainly
happen to a Believer, neither the Messiah nor The Father will pull back their love and cause
the separation. Paul then quotes Scripture to support his doctrine. "For your sake we are
being put to death all day long, we are considered sheep to be slaughtered". This
passage is from Psalm 44:23 and it is about Israel being persecuted by her enemies and exiled
to the nations, yet remaining faithful to God's covenant under the harshest of circumstances.
Thus the Psalm writer is appealing to God to come and deliver His people from their tribulation.
This is to back up what he has just said about trouble, hardship, war, etc., of itself not being
able to separate God from His chosen people. And since Believers have been included as
among God's elect, then this is to say that hardships and persecutions are nothing new for
those who love God and that we can not only withstand it when it happens, we should expect it
TO happen. Paul does not own a pair of rose colored glasses.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 cont. 2
Thus to end this long line of thought that begins with Romans 7:1 and concludes with Romans
8:39, Paul says that nothing dead or alive, not God's own loyal spiritual beings like Angels,
nothing that currently exists nor will ever exist by any means, no type of wicked spiritual force
or power that refuses to take their direction from God, and nothing that God will create by
means of His own will, will be able to snatch us away from God's love, shown through His
Messiah.
Paul is fully convinced that neither God nor any other thing whatsoever can stand between us
and Him. But notice that all of these things that theoretically could, but won't be able, to
separate us from God's love are external to us and out of our control. Also notice that never is
there an implication that as Believers we have lost all freedom of our thoughts, our bodies, and
our choices; that once saved we somehow are blocked by God from walking away from His
love at our own choosing. In fact, in a dire warning some passages earlier, Paul says this:
Romans 8:12-13 CJB 12 So then, brothers, we don't owe a thing to our old nature that
would require us to live according to our old nature. 13 For if you live according to your
old nature, you will certainly die; but if, by the Spirit, you keep putting to death the
practices of the body, you will live.
We'll take up Romans chapter 9 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 20, Chapter 9
I'll keep reminding you that even though we are moving today from Romans chapter 8 to
chapter 9, Paul certainly was not thinking in terms of "chapters". The chapters were put there
over a millennia after Paul's day as an honest attempt to merely break the Bible up into bite␂sized chunks that we could digest a little easier. Chapters and verses give us a way to
communicate to one another more precisely which passages in the Holy Scriptures that we are
referring to. Chapters and verses are tools, and nothing more.
Thus keep in mind that when we open chapter 9 in a few moments that Paul is not completely
altering his previous line of thought; the subject is not changing, the scene is not changing, and
Paul is not ending one message to begin another. Chapter 9 is not only a continuation of
chapter 8 in a very real and literal sense, but chapter 9 also re-exams and nuances some of
his thoughts from even earlier chapters of Romans. So to open Romans chapter 9, Paul is
going to continue along the lines of defending Israel's election as God's chosen people, and
he is going to return to the theme of the advantages that Israel enjoys over gentiles that he
spoke about back in chapter 3.
Romans 3:1-4 CJB
CJB Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? What is the value of being
circumcised? 2
Much in every way! In the first place, the Jews were entrusted with the
very words of God. 3
If some of them were unfaithful, so what? Does their faithlessness
cancel God's faithfulness? 4
Heaven forbid! God would be true even if everyone were a
liar!
Even so, since Israel's election as God's people is a critical underlying issue for the letter to
the Romans, this brief statement about the problem of Israel's lack of faithfulness to God
needs more explanation. Where does Israel's lack of faithfulness leave them in relation to their
covenants with God and thus their status before Him, and especially as concerns the Gospel
since Paul says that the Gospel is an Old Testament promise? Therefore we should take the
opening of Romans chapter 3 as the background for the opening verses of Romans chapter 9.
That is, according to Paul God gave and continues to give Israel a favored status above all
other nations. However Israel has admittedly failed in their God-given purpose despite their
advantages and the majority of Israel has become unfaithful to God....at least unfaithful as Paul
measures it. Thus with all of Paul's talk about gentiles being able to partake in Israel's
Messiah, the logical question that Jews especially, but also gentiles, might ask is: why, if God
is faithful, would He suddenly include some outsiders (gentiles) and exclude some insiders
(Jews) in His covenants with Israel? Might this mean that God has abandoned His old people
Israel and replaced them with His new people: gentile Believers in Christ? Or to use modern
Christianeze: has the Church replaced Israel as God's chosen? Unfortunately a major portion
of the institutional Church answers that question with a resounding yes! As we have read in
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
Acts and now Romans, Paul repeatedly answers that question with a "no", or more literally,
"Heaven forbid".
Open your Bibles to Romans chapter 9.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 9 all
When Paul begins by saying that he is "speaking the truth" it is more of an expression than an
important piece of information that he wants to add (after all his readers would have expected
Paul to have already been telling the truth). It is an expression of special emphasis on what he
is about to say, not unlike the expression "behold" is also a Biblical expression of special
emphasis. What he is about to say is also sort of a pause in the action to interject a statement
to make sure that anything he has said to this point is not misconstrued. It is very similar to
Yeshua's pause in the action during His sermon on the mount, and then His interjection of a
special statement about the continuing validity of The Law of Moses, which we find in Matthew
5:17 – 19.
Paul uses kind a judicial motif to draw attention to the importance and sincerity of what he is
about to express by invoking the commandment that 'thou shalt not lie'. He frames himself as
a witness in a trial and the number one duty of a witness is to tell the truth; in fact there are
major penalties for not being truthful. But all trials must have the testimony of two witnesses to
verify the truth so the second witness Paul personifies as his own conscience that is under
Holy Spirit control. Therefore now that the bonafides of the two witnesses have been
established Paul goes on to give his testimony.
I want to pause to frame Paul's concern to make himself as clear as is possible (concerning a
very challenging subject, so full of mystery) by putting it this way: if God gave the Jews a
"forever" covenant, and through this "forever" covenant brought a Messiah into the world
whose job was to deliver the Jewish people from the eternal death penalty that their sinning
bought them; then what does God do with the Jewish people when they become unfaithful to
Him? Does he throw them back into the pool of common humanity and pluck out a new people
for Himself? Because that should not only be terribly concerning to the Jews, but also to the
new gentile Believers in Yeshua who have been made a very similar promise. That is,
Messiah's sacrifice on the Cross is said to be sufficient to save them from eternal
death.....forever. And yet, simple observation says that Israel will stumble and fall at times, and
continue to sin occasionally. So does this mean that God could just as easily throw the new
gentile Believers back into the pool of common humanity (just as He supposedly did to the
Jews) and start all over yet again?
You see, Believers, this is the problem with the terrible and arrogant doctrine that the Jews are
stiff necked and a disobedient people who were at one time God's "forever" chosen people,
but the Lord grew tired of their sinning and thus cancelled His covenants and revoked His
promises to them. And, to our good fortune, He turned instead to the millions of gentiles who
came to believe in Yeshua as Savior. But if God would do that to the Jewish people, by what
rationale would He not do the same to gentile Christians? Just how assured of our position of
eternal security before Him ought we to be if He is a God who promises and then reneges at
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
will? Can we truly rely on God's promise that His actions on our behalf through Jesus Christ
are forever when He made a similar promise to Israel but took it back because they continued
to sin? So my mindset as a gentile Believer must be that I hope and pray to the high Heavens
that God did NOT revoke His promise to Israel; because if He did that, then you and I are at
the mercy of an unethical God who makes promises and takes them away at His option. The
good news is that God did not cancel His covenants and revoke His promises to Israel; He is
always faithful to His Word. It is merely some anti-Jewish gentile Church leaders who have told
the big lie loud enough and often enough that it has been believed. But it is also billions of
naïve and disinterested Christians over the past 2000 years who have never thought to ask
themselves the simple questions about God's character that I have just set before you. Paul
is, of course, unafraid to confront these questions head-on.
Not as much by Christian scholars, but certainly more so by Christian Pastors and educators,
the Book of Romans is regularly characterized as Paul's criticism against His Jewish brethren
and his justification for welcoming potential gentile Believers. But such a notion is destroyed
time and again by merely believing Paul and taking him at his word rather than applying
heaping helpings of allegory to his statements. What Paul says beginning in verse 2 and
continuing through verse 5 is such a powerful testimony against Christian anti-Semitism and
Replacement Theology that it is hard to overstate it. Here Paul once again identifies Jews as
his dear flesh and blood brethren; not as his former brethren or even as his opponents.
Appealing to the Messiah as the guarantor of truth, Paul says in all sincerity that if somehow
giving up his own personal salvation, and instead being cursed by God and cut off from His
identity in and relationship with, Christ would bring his Jewish brothers (who reject Yeshua)
into a state of righteousness before God, he would gladly do it. Does this sound like a man
who has turned his back on his Hebraic heritage and Jewish people and instead virtually
become identified as a gentile?
Paul's statement of grief, devotion and identification towards his fellow Jews echoes back to
another Hebrew who, after witnessing a great apostasy by his people, offered the same
personal sacrifice on their behalf.
Exodus 32:31-33 CJB
31 Moshe went back to ADONAI and said, "Please! These people have committed a
terrible sin: they have made themselves a god out of gold. 32 Now, if you will just forgive
their sin! But if you won't, then, I beg you, blot me out of your book which you have
written!"
33 ADONAI answered Moshe, "Those who have sinned against me are the ones I will
blot out of my book.
Nevertheless Paul, of course, couldn't take his people's sin as his responsibility and suffer the
consequences for it anymore than could Moses. But he above most others recognized the
eternal danger his people were in while they, themselves, were oblivious to it. So Paul was
willing to suffer whatever slings and arrows from his own people that he might have to endure
for their sake. But once more notice: although he was Christ's designated Apostle to the
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
Gentiles, that hardly meant that the gentiles were the only people Paul evangelized or cared
about; he regularly dealt directly with the Jewish people. However because he was assigned to
go forth into the gentile world to evangelize then the Jews he encountered were the Diaspora
Jews, who were quite different in attitude and customs than the Holy Land Jews that James,
Peter, and others of the Apostles mostly dealt with. It was a mixed audience that he dealt with
so he had to speak to them in that context.
Starting in verse 4 is a list of advantages and favor that God showed to Israel. First, the people
of Israel were made God's children. This once again opens up the issue of election so Paul
begins his list by declaring Israel's election as God's own people (His children). Remember; a
child of God, sometimes being synonymous with a son of God, means that this child's father is
Yehoveh, God of Israel. And if one is a child, one can expect an inheritance from their father.
Notice that they were "made" as God's children; this means that they were not God's natural
born children but rather were adopted. Adopted means they were chosen out of a bigger group
(so in the negative, all the other people were NOT chosen). So Paul once again confirms
(using Jewish cultural terminology) the concept election; Israel was specially chosen by God
from all other people on earth. A great honor indeed.
The next advantage for Israel is that God's Sh'khinah (glory) has been with them. We must
grasp that in the context of defining the substance of God that the Sh'khinah is one of God's
attributes. In rather standard Trinity Doctrine terminology the Sh'khinah is one of the
"persons' of God. Although there is no single, universally agreed to Trinity Doctrine, they all
say that there are 3 persons of God and only 3. I won't take the time to go deeply into it but I
don't find the Bible supporting that notion. I certainly subscribe to the concept of the Father,
The Son, and the Holy Spirit of God as legitimate attributes or persons or elements or
components (whatever inadequate term we might choose) that together make up the
Godhead. However the Bible is all too clear that the Sh'khinah speaks as God and bears
God's authority, as does another and different manifestation of God called the Angel of the
Lord. It is the custom in Christianity, however, to simply roll the attributes of the Sh'khinah and
the Angel of the Lord into the person of The Son. There is absolutely no Biblical hint of such a
thing; however if one is going to unflinchingly uphold the manmade Doctrine of the Trinity in its
most rigid definition (that allows only 3 persons or 3 attributes of God to exist), then what
choice does a theologian have but to roll other named manifestations of God in the Bible into
one or the other of the Father, The Son, or the Holy Spirit? If not, then of course we wind up
with more than 3.
To remind you: the Sh'khinah took on the form of the fire-cloud that led Israel in the
wilderness for 40 years. It is also said that God's Sh'khinah is what filled the Temple when it
was completed by Solomon and ordained into service. There is no biblical record of the
Sh'khinah having been with any other people than Israel and it was a sign of Israel's election
as God's children. It served to lead Israel and to confirm God's ongoing presence with them.
The next advantage the Jews enjoy and Paul lists is that the covenants are theirs. This is the
one that ought to grab our attention the most. Folks, God ONLY made covenants with the
Hebrews; no one else. The covenants are theirs. And the covenants, while meaning all the
covenants, mostly points towards Abraham's and Mosses' covenants from Paul's
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
perspective. Even the so-called New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 that is commonly said to have
established the Church did no such thing; it, too, was a purely Hebrew covenant because a
gentile covenant with the God of Israel does not, and has never, existed. I realize that may
sound like heresy to much of Christianity so I'll prove my point.
Jeremiah 31:30-32 CJB
30 "Here, the days are coming," says ADONAI, "when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Isra'el and with the house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I
made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the
land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for my
part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant I will make with
the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will put my Torah within them
and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people.
First: who did God say He would make the "new" covenant with? The House of Israel and the
House of Judah. Anyone else? Any gentiles mentioned here? No.
Second: After Israel has broken the earlier covenant God had with Israel, made when He
brought them out of the land of Egypt, who did God say He was going to make this "new"
covenant with that Jeremiah speaks about? The house of Israel. Anyone else mentioned? No.
And third: upon whom will the effect of this "new" covenant be? It will be that the "new"
covenant will be written on their hearts and they will be God's people. Who are "they"?
Israel. Anyone else? Some other nations listed? No.
Paul has waxed eloquently in the Book of Romans that it is the Covenant of Abraham (a
Hebrew covenant) that established the promises for future "seed of Abraham". And that it is
the seed of Abraham who will be the inheritors of God's Kingdom. So, Believing gentiles, if
you trust Christ then you are seed of Abraham and you are an inheritor of God's Kingdom;
that's the promise. But what specific group of people held that promise in the form of a
covenant given to them by God? The Hebrews. So how did gentiles get into a position to be
seed of Abraham? We were grafted into the Hebrew's covenants by our trust in Messiah
Yeshua (Paul will discuss that at length in Romans 11). That is, if we trust in the perfect
faithfulness of Jesus Christ then we will be included in the promises and terms of the
Covenants of Abraham and Moses even though we are not physical Hebrews.
The next advantage is the Jews' possession of the Law of Moses, which Paul calls the giving
of the Torah; another covenant with the Hebrews. It is the Torah and nothing else that defines
sin according to the Apostle John in 1John3:4. The Law of Moses was given to Israel at Mt.
Sinai to God's elect AFTER God had redeemed Israel from Egypt by means of the 10 plagues.
According to Yeshua in Matthew 5, all who follow Him are to obey the Law of Moses; and this
is because the Law of Moses is ONLY for the already redeemed (the Law is not a means of
redemption). Are you a gentile following Yeshua? Then obey His command to obey the Law of
Moses; Yeshua says it is your duty and that your status in the Kingdom of God will be
determined by how well or poorly you obeyed The Law.
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
Gentile Believers: we indeed have a covenant relationship with God. But the covenants are not
ours; they were given to, and they belong to, Israel. This is why we are called "grafted-in". We
can only be grafted into something that already exists, and it must be into something alive and
well. It does no good to be grafted into a dead stump because a graft gets its nourishment from
the roots of the tree it has been grafted into. And since the stump is strictly Israel's stump, it is
another advantage for Israel.
Paul next lists the Temple services. What is so important about the Temple services for Israel?
It represents the true worship of the only true God. The Temple services included the altar
sacrifices that atoned for Israel's sins. The Temple services included the daily burnt offering
that honored the God of Israel. The Temple sacrificial services were what the sacrifice of
Yeshua was patterned after. The Temple was the only place on earth where God put His holy
name. The Temple services were given ONLY to the Hebrews, through the Hebrew tribe of
Levi that would be God's authorized priests. The Temple services were to be where the
people gathered to observe several of God's especially holy appointed times; and the Temple
services were where the Law was to be taught to the people of Israel.
Next on Paul' list are The Patriarchs of Israel who belong to Israel. Abraham is the first person
to be called a Hebrew in the Bible. Genesis 14:13 CJB 13 Someone who had escaped came
and told Avram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Emori, brother of
Eshkol and brother of 'Aner; all of them allies of Avram. Hebrews are defined as those
people who are part of the line of covenant promises made by God to Abraham.
Isaac was the next person to be called Hebrew, and after him his son Jacob. These 3 are the
Biblical Patriarchs and they are all Hebrews....as apart from gentiles. But even more important
Paul finalizes his list of advantages for the Jews by stating that it is from the lineage of the
Hebrew Patriarchs that Yeshua the Messiah came. Yeshua was not a generic human being;
He was not the universal man; He was specifically a Jew just as the ancient prophecies said
the Messiah must be. Jesus Christ was not a gentile.
Paul has set the record straight. He said that this is the truth, and has made it clear that while a
way has been made for gentiles to join into the covenants that the Hebrews have enjoyed with
God, all the advantages and privileges as God' elect belong to the Hebrews (the Jews). Case
closed.
Now that Paul has balanced the ledger so that no one thinks he has thrown the Jews under the
bus when it comes to holding their place in redemption history, and he has emphatically shown
that Israel continues in their special position as God's elect, he throws out one of the most
difficult statements that Christianity has ever had to deal with. He says this: 6
But the present
condition of Isra'el does not mean that the Word of God has failed. For not everyone
from Isra'el is truly part of Isra'el.
By the present condition of Israel he is referring to the fact that the bulk of Jews have refused
to accept Yeshua as their Messiah. But, says Paul, by no means does that indicate that what
God has ordained for Israel has failed. Let's stop here for a second. If you asked almost any
Christian if God's Word can ever fail I think I can safely say that all Christians, with but the
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
rarest exceptions, would say "Of course not!" And yet, when asked if The Law of Moses is still
relevant, and if not why not, they would first say that it is no longer relevant, and second is that
it had to be replaced because it was a covenant that failed and thus had to be replaced with
the New Covenant. The Covenant of Moses was, and is, the Word of God. So we can't have it
both ways; either God's Word never fails or it does sometimes fail. If it never fails then the
Covenant of Moses did not fail either; it remains alive and well. Paul says that it did not fail and
then explains why it might appear to some, on the surface, of having failed.
Paul is referring again back to what he had to say in Romans 3:3, 4: 3
If some of them were
unfaithful, so what? Does their faithlessness cancel God's faithfulness? 4
Heaven
forbid! God would be true even if everyone were a liar! As we talked about earlier, Paul is
well aware that some Jews and gentiles could question Paul's doctrines about gentile
inclusion into the faith because for them it seems like in order for Paul's theology to work God
would have to be unethical in His actions by not fulfilling his promises to His covenant people.
But Paul insists that it is not a conflict to say that on the one hand Israel has failed God, but on
the other that even so God has remained steadfast in His faithfulness to Israel. It would seem
that this violates the foundational principle of a covenant; that is, if one party violates the
covenant then the covenant can be terminated. But even more, if not every Israelite has been
redeemed by the Gospel of Christ that Paul preaches, then how can that not be construed as a
failure of the Gospel? How is that not a failure of the Word of God that promises to redeem
Israel?
Part of the reason that this is even coming up is this: Judaism in Paul's day (and to this day for
the most part) saw redemption quite differently than Christianity sees it. Judaism saw
redemption (salvation) as a national matter. Christianity sees redemption as an individual
matter. Judaism believed that God dealt with the Jews as a collective of people (a group) when
it came to redemption. Christianity believes that God deals with people on a one by one, case
by case, basis and what nation we belong to has no bearing on the process. And in a sense,
both are right and both are wrong because God deals with humanity on two levels: one
regarding the issue of personal sin and thus personal salvation and the second level on the
basis of His wrath being poured out upon nations for their collective rebellion against God. All
members of a nation can suffer calamity for the actions of a nation's governmental leaders
since the leaders represent the nation.
So as an answer to this problem regarding Israel's failures Paul says: "For not every one
from Israel is truly part of Israel". Some translations will say: "For not all who are
descended from Israel are of Israel". Christians have stumbled over this passage since
Romans was first included as part of our Bibles. Here is what Paul is doing: he's making a
play on words. Recall that Jacob, the founder of the tribes of Israel, was given a personal
name change by God: Jacob became known as Israel. But a very long time later Israel also
became the formal name of the nation of Hebrews. So in this verse the first use of the word
Israel is referring to Jacob the person; the founder of the 12 tribes. The second use of the word
Israel is referring to Israel nationally; it is the name of the nation of Israel (but even then only in
a certain sense). So a better translation that begins to help us sort out this verse is: "For not
every one from Jacob is truly part of Israel". Trust me: Paul has not really helped the
situation very much. This must have caused great confusion among most who read this letter.
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
But what he has actually done is to describe Israel as consisting of two levels. He is saying that
essentially there is an Israel within Israel. There is a true Israel within a nation of descendants
of Jacob. Paul now goes on to explain who this true Israel is.
In order to explain his confounding statement Paul reconnects his argument to Abraham and
his seed as he discussed by in chapter 4. He uses Abraham as a historical illustration of what
he is getting at when he says that not all from Israel are truly part of Israel, by saying that not
all descendants of Abraham are seed of Abraham; rather, those who can be called "seed"
must come through Isaac. Let's review this. Abraham's first child, a son, was Ishmael.
Ishmael was the child of Abraham's wife's servant girl, Hagar. But God rebuked Abraham for
thinking that Ishmael would be the heir to the covenant that God had made with Abraham
because God had told him that it was Sarah, his wife, who would provide Abraham with an
heir. Abraham didn't believe God because Sarah was far past child bearing age. But in time
Sarah did get pregnant and have a child: Isaac. Sarah quickly grew jealous of Hagar and her
son and ordered her to leave the clan and take Ishmael with her. Abraham was devastated as
he thought of Ishmael as his beloved firstborn. But the Lord told Abraham that it would be
Isaac who was to be considered as Abraham's firstborn and heir to the covenant, so it was
right for Ishmael to be banished.
Ishmael went on to found the Arab tribes.
The gist of the matter is that it was God's will that Isaac was considered to be Hebrew, while
Ishmael was NOT to be considered Hebrew even though they had the same biological father.
Thus as Paul points out, while Ishmael and Isaac can both claim legitimate blood relationship
to Abraham and both can call him father, only one can be considered seed of Abraham: Isaac.
Thus, says Paul, as it concerns the promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenant, it is not
that simply being a physical descendant (flesh and blood descendant) of Abraham that makes
one a seed of Abraham. It is only those flesh and blood descendants of Abraham who also
come down through his son Isaac who can be considered as seed.
So after drawing this illustration of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael to help explain how only some
of Israel can be considered as true Israel, Paul takes it one step further and uses the
illustration of Isaac and his wife Rivka (Rebecca). In this illustration Isaac fathered a set of twin
boys with Rivka. So here we not only have a case of the same father and mother, but both
boys are the product of the same pregnancy. The two boys shared every possible common
biological ancestry. Yet, God was going to divide, elect, and separate them. One would be
elected to the line of promise of Abraham's Covenant and thus be called Hebrew. The other
twin would not and he would be considered an outsider: a gentile. So how did God choose?
Even more, when did God choose? Paul points out that the "how" couldn't have been by
merit, or that one was sinful and the other not, because the decision as to who would be
elected to the line of promise (which one of the twins would be a Hebrew?) was made in the
womb before either were born and had an opportunity to be either good or bad.
God had elected the second twin to come out of the birth canal (Jacob) as the inheritor of the
covenant's promises; but even more, the first to be born, Esau, would serve his younger twin.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 20 - Chapter 9
Perhaps the most important point being made by Paul (but there are others that we'll get to) is
that God is completely sovereign in the most absolute sense possible. That is, His decisions
are completely independent from what human beings think or do. God does not make His
choices according to human social conventions, or human philosophies of fairness, or human
governmental standards of right and wrong. By human social convention Ishmael was
Abraham's firstborn son and had every right to inheritance. By human social convention Esau
was the firstborn of Isaac and had every right to inheritance. By the human philosophy of
fairness, how could God possibly judge Jacob as the righteous one and Esau as the "hated"
one, when they were still in the womb?
So while Paul tells us through his historical reminders of the story of the Patriarchs' births that
God can do anything He wants to in His sovereign will that still leaves us with no firm answer,
yet, to the riddle of why God would judge only some of Israel as truly Israel and the remainder
as not. And we'll address that subject next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 21, Chapter 9 continued
One of the great theological questions within Christianity is: why did God judge only some of
Israel, and not all, as being part of His "true" Israel? Or even more basic: what is "true" Israel
(to use Paul's terminology) as contrasted to the common or ancestral Israel that most of the
Old Testament is about? Today, we will work towards attempting to answer those questions.
Along the way the Apostle Paul is really going to meddle with your minds. Some tough issues
and the obvious questions they raise among reasonable, thinking people are going to confront
us head-on. Some of these questions are things that serious God-seekers (those who are not
yet Believers) might ask, and if not given a proper answer they could just fold up their Bibles
and walk away. So let's focus today and learn how to understand and respond to these tough
issues so that we can be the good and effective ambassadors for Messiah that we're
supposed to be.
Paul has spent a good portion of his time in penning this letter to the Roman congregations,
addressing the issue of Israel's election as God's chosen people because clearly, as he
explains salvation and the place of gentiles and why Jews must accept Yeshua, he didn't want
anyone to get the idea that somehow God had rejected all of Israel for the disobedience of
some of them. He also didn't want a false conclusion drawn that even though some of Israel
(in fairness, probably most of Israel) refused to accept the Messiah that God had sent them,
which opened the door to gentiles being offered the salvation of Yeshua that gentile Believers
had (as a religious group) therefore replaced Israel (as a religious group) as God's chosen
people; His new elect versus His old elect, if you would.
So Paul uses the well known Jewish history of the Patriarchs to show a pattern for how God
operates in His sovereign election of individuals and also groups of people to be His own, and
as an illustration of what "true" Israel is as opposed to merely common or ancestral Israel. I
want to pause, here, to say that the proofs and illustrations he uses once again make it self␂evident that while Paul is certainly not excluding Roman gentiles, he has been for some time
much more addressing himself to the Jewish Romans. I say self-evident because for one
reason Paul referred to the Patriarchs as belonging to the Hebrews, and he referred to Isaac
as "our" father (clearly a reference to his own Jewish heritage). For another reason Jewish
history would not have been common knowledge or seem terribly relevant for gentiles.
Although for Believing gentiles who studied the Torah they certainly would have at least heard
of these Hebrew Patriarchs, the Patriarchs were in no wise part of their gentile cultural
heritage. And, by Paul's day, since it was the Synagogue where Jews met and where gentile
Believers attended, then it was far more Jewish traditions and regulations (Halakhah) that
were taught and discussed there rather than the Scriptural Torah. I think it is also an invaluable
lesson for the modern Church to take Paul to heart and actually hear him in Romans 9
because Paul is using his own family history (the history of the Jewish people) as taken from
the Torah to explain how salvation works and through whom God created the pathway to
redemption. And redemption certainly did not come through chosen gentiles.
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
Let's re-read part of Romans chapter 9.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 9:10 – end
Since the main issue for the moment remains election, then the core question about election
becomes: how, exactly, does God choose? How did God choose Isaac but not Ishmael?
That's not too terribly hard for us to grasp because Abraham's two sons were born at different
times to different mothers (one a slave girl, the other Abraham's legal wife). But how about
Jacob and Esau? How did God choose Jacob over Esau, especially since they had the same
mother; they even shared the same womb because they were twins. And, by all cultural
custom, Esau was the firstborn since he emerged from the birth canal first. So how did God
choose Jacob over his twin brother? After all; such a choice was not only irrevocable but also it
would have far reaching and permanent effects on the lives of those children and their
descendants. It gets even more dicey because, as Paul rightly points out, the choice was made
while the children were still in the womb before either had a chance to sin or to prove their
merit.
Then, using Jewish cultural terms, Paul says that in the case of Jacob and Esau, the older
(Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob). It is hard for Westerners to understand in the ancient
culture of Paul's day (and well before) just how upside-down and shocking the notion was of
an older brother being given less authority and status than his younger brother. It simply is not
something that is done; it is against all custom and tradition, and it is offensive and demeaning
just to contemplate it. But Paul takes it even a step further by invoking the prophet Malachi to
show that God made the decision to "love Jacob" but to "hate Esau". I want to point out a
couple of things about this passage. First: it was common rabbinic methodology to invoke a
short Scripture passage to back-up what they were saying. Or better, what they were saying is
but a midrash, an interpretive discussion, of the quoted Scripture passage. At first blush we
might say that this sort of sounds like how modern day Pastors tend to give sermons: they
issue forth a verse or two of Scripture and then apply it to their subject. But that is not at all the
same thing as we find the Rabbis, like Paul, doing. In modern Church sermons short portions
of Scripture passages are regularly lifted from the Bible and used regardless of the actual
Biblical context. It is only that the words chosen seem to somehow back-up what the Pastor
wants to communicate. However the rabbinic method was that rather than spend the time and
ink to write down the several OT verses to form the entire passage they are associating to their
argument, they quote only a short portion of it that is familiar enough for a listener to recognize.
The idea is that everything that is said about that passage (that is, the entire context) is
supposed to come to mind. It is a rabbinical short cut as a means of identifying a section of
Scripture. Why do that? Because in Paul's day and before, there were no chapter and verse
divisions or markers. They couldn't say: "As it says in Malachi chapter 1 verses 1 through 5......"
Rather, their only real choice was to quote a short passage as a reference point and expect the
listener to know the rest of the passage. But my second point is about what, exactly, Paul was
communicating with his quote of: "Ya'akov I loved, but Esav I hated".
Malachi 1:1-5 CJB
CJB Malachi 1:1 A prophecy, the word of ADONAI to Isra'el through Mal'akhi: 2
"I love
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
you," says ADONAI. But you ask, "How do you show us your love?" ADONAI answers,
"'Esav was Ya'akov's brother. Yet I loved Ya'akov 3
but hated 'Esav. I made his
mountains desolate and gave his territory to desert jackals." 4
Edom says, "We are
beaten down now, but we will come back and rebuild the ruins." ADONAI-Tzva'ot
answers, "They can build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Land of
Wickedness, the people with whom ADONAI is permanently angry. 5
You will see it and
say, 'ADONAI is great, even beyond the borders of Isra'el.'"
In Bible-speak, in this context to "love" means to accept and embrace; to "hate" means to
reject and separate. So the issue of the twins in Rivka's womb was not that God had decided
upon a beautiful fondness for unborn Jacob, but an intense dislike for the unborn Esau. Rather,
Esau would be separated from his twin Jacob (as far as concerns his destiny and inheritance
to the line of covenant promise that his father, Isaac, was given from his father, Abraham).
Jacob was given the inheritance of the line of promise; Esau was separated from the line of
promise. But as we see what happened historically, Esau became embittered because he felt
insulted since he was the older brother, the firstborn, and by every human custom he and not
Jacob should have inherited the line of covenant promise from his father. Esau fought God's
decision by bedeviling Jacob's descendants thus bringing God's anger and wrath upon
himself. This is a big lesson for us when someone else gets what we think we had every right
to (and by human standards it may, indeed, have been unfair).
Paul, in typical rabbinic fashion, anticipates the response from his straw man for God's
election of Isaac and then Jacob. "So", says the straw man, "It is unjust for God to do this".
That is, it is not fair for God to choose Isaac over Ishmael since by human custom Ishmael is
the legitimate firstborn. It is not fair for God to choose to accept Jacob as the heir to the
promise but to reject Esau as the heir while they are still in their mother's womb. None of
those who were rejected had done anything wrong to deserve such a rejection, and none who
were accepted had done anything right to earn such an acceptance. What is Paul's response
to this accusation from the straw man? "Heaven forbid!" Folks, I sure hope you see the
implications for us and for all humans when we begin to see where Paul is going with this line
of thought. God makes sovereign decisions about us based on some criteria known only to
Him. Often, no matter how positively or negatively it might affect us, what we have done or
what we think has nothing at all to do with God's decision as concerns us.
To continue his response to the straw man's accusation that God is unjust and unfair for
choosing in the manner He does, Paul quotes a passage from Exodus. There God says to
Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will pity whom I pity". So, to better
understand what Moses is getting at, let's do what Rav Sha'ul expects his readers to do: recall
the Scriptural context for the passage he has just cited.
Exodus 33:14-20 CJB
14 He answered, "Set your mind at rest- my presence will go with you, after all."
15 Moshe replied, "If your presence doesn't go with us, don't make us go on from here.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
16 For how else is it to be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people,
other than by your going with us? That is what distinguishes us, me and your people,
from all the other peoples on earth." 17 ADONAI said to Moshe, "I will also do what you
have asked me to do, because you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by
name." 18 But Moshe said, "I beg you to show me your glory!" 19 He replied, "I will cause
all my goodness to pass before you, and in your presence I will pronounce the name of
ADONAI. Moreover, I show favor to whomever I will, and I display mercy to whomever I
will. 20 But my face," he continued, "you cannot see, because a human being cannot
look at me and remain alive.
This entire passage is so interesting to go over, but I'll resist the temptation. What is pertinent
to our subject is this: in verse 16 Moses says, "I have found favor in your sight". And, since
Moses figures he has found favor in God's sight, he decides to ask something from God that
he knows God has not granted to others. He asks God to show him His glory; and sure enough
God does not grant that to Moses. However as a compromise God says He will show Moses
His "goodness". Even more, God will show Moses how to pronounce His holy name, YHWH (I
know the CJB says "Adonai", and other Bibles say "Lord"; but the original Hebrew says
YHWH.....Yehoveh). Then God addresses Moses' statement that he has found favor in God's
sight by saying: "I show favor to whomever I will, and I display mercy to whomever I
will". In other words: Moses', don't get a big head over this. You say you have My favor, but
you haven't done anything to deserve it. I simply choose whom I do and show mercy to whom
I do for reasons that have little to nothing to do with the person involved. Paul's point is this:
even Moses, the father of the Torah and The Law...God's Mediator....was elected due to God's
mercy and sovereign will; it had nothing to do with any outstanding quality of Moses or
anything Moses merited.
OK. Moses was a good guy; a righteous man. In fact from an election standpoint only Yeshua
stood above Moses among all humans ever born. But what about the other end of the scale?
What about for the bad guys; the unrighteous? So Paul addresses that matter beginning in
verse 17. This illustration that Paul uses is about God's confrontation, through Moses (the
biblical epitome of a good guy), with Pharaoh (the biblical epitome of a bad guy). And God
says to Pharaoh, the bad guy: "It is for this very reason that I raised you up, so that in
connection with you I might demonstrate my power, so that my name might be known
throughout the world". But it is not until we do what the good Rabbi Paul expects us to do
(look at the passage in its fuller context) that we more deeply understand what he's getting at.
Let me pause for just a moment. I hope you Bible students, American and international, see
that you need a good study Bible that has similar attributes to the CJB in that the many New
Testament texts, which are actually Old Testament quotes, are highlighted for you and you are
given book, chapter and verse. Each time you come to an OT quote in the New Testament,
you should turn your Bibles to that passage in the OT and read it in full; you should read all
around that brief portion given in the New Testament to get the entire context. That was the
expectation of the NT author because that was the norm for those days. Reading what little bit
has been put down in our New Testaments and moving right along is not proper study. You
must stop, look up the OT passage, and read it. Therefore, let's look at this passage in its
larger context.
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
Exodus 9:10-18 CJB
10 So they took ashes from a kiln, stood in front of Pharaoh and threw them in the air;
and they became infected sores on men and animals. 11 The magicians couldn't even
stand in Moshe's presence because of the sores, which were on them as well as on the
other Egyptians. 12 But ADONAI made Pharaoh hardhearted, so that he didn't listen to
them- just as ADONAI had said to Moshe. 13 ADONAI said to Moshe, "Get up early in the
morning, stand before Pharaoh, and say to him, 'Here is what ADONAI says: "Let my
people go, so that they can worship me.
14 For this time, I will inflict my plagues on you, yourself, and on your officials and your
people; so that you will realize that I am without equal in all the earth. 15 By now I could
have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with such severe plagues
that you would have been wiped off the earth.
16 But it is for this very reason that I have kept you alive- to show you my power, and so
that my name may resound throughout the whole earth. 17 Since you are still setting
yourself up against my people and not letting them go, 18 tomorrow, about this time, I
will cause a hailstorm so heavy that Egypt has had nothing like it from the day it was
founded until now.
Paul, in verse 18, goes on to say that this passage in Exodus demonstrates that not only will
God have mercy upon whom He will, but He will also harden whom He will (both ends of the
scale). Wow. That's not how we like to think of God, is it? Want to know how God chooses?
He's not telling. He just decides. So I'm just standing around, minding my own business, and
God suddenly decides to harden my heart? Before we address that difficult matter, notice
something else. Look at the OT passage that Paul quoted as it appears in your New
Testaments (that is, verse 17). Where does that passage say one word about God hardening
anyone (it doesn't)? And yet in verse 18 Paul acts as though he HAS said something about
God hardening people and so Paul responds with: "God hardens whom He wants". See; this
only works if we go to this passage in the Old Testament and read it more fully because indeed
the brief Scripture passage Paul uses is Exodus 9:16. But when we take the time to go look up
the entire chapter, we see that in direct relation to the passage Paul quoted, in Exodus 9:12,
we read: "And Adonai made Pharaoh hard hearted". So THERE is the hardening that Paul
was getting at (and expects his readers to understand), and this is a fine example of why we
are to look up the entire passage.
Now to address the obvious question that, if you're paying attention, ought to have invaded
your mind. God could just as easily harden my heart as He does show me mercy? And either
way it seems often to have little to nothing to do with my actions. What does God do: flip a
cosmic coin? So, Paul's straw man asks that very question (only a little more cleverly than I
just did). The straw man asks: "Then why does he (God) find fault with us? After all, who
resists His will?" Excellent question! If it is God who hardens us so that we have little choice
but to let our evil inclinations be our Masters, and then the end result is that invariably we do
wrong in God's sight (we sin), how can this be reasonably seen as OUR fault? After all; if God
has the power to harden our hearts against our will (or at least without our knowledge), then
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
we are utterly powerless to do anything about it. So why do we bear responsibility?
And in an answer to that question that hardly reassures us, Paul says this in verse 20: "Who
are you, mere human being, to talk back to God?" Those are Paul's words and they sound
pretty arrogant. His response to his straw man is to not actually answer the question but to
shame him: how dare you even ask the question? And just to make it clear that there is no
misunderstanding in just how strong Paul is in his reply, he quotes Isaiah: "Will what is
formed say to him who formed it, why did you make me this way?" Let us again go to the
fuller text of Isaiah to understand Paul's reason for using this passage.
Isaiah 45:1-13 CJB
CJB Isaiah 45:1 Thus says ADONAI to Koresh, his anointed, whose right hand he has
grasped, so that he subdues nations before him and strips kings of their robes, so that
doors open in front of him, and no gates are barred: 2
"I will go ahead of you, leveling
the hills, shattering the bronze gates, smashing the iron bars. 3
I will give you treasures
hoarded in the dark, secret riches hidden away, so that you will know that I, ADONAI,
calling you by your name, am the God of Isra'el.
4
It is for the sake of Ya'akov my servant, yes, for Isra'el my elect, that I call you by your
name and give you a title, although you don't know me. 5
I am ADONAI; there is no
other; besides me there is no God. I am arming you, although you don't know me, 6
so
that those from the east and those from the west will know that there is none besides
me- I am ADONAI; there is no other.
7
I form light, I create darkness; I make well-being, I create woe; I, ADONAI, do all these
things.
8
"Heavens above, rain down justice; let the clouds pour it down. Let the earth open, so
that salvation springs up, and justice sprouts with it. I, ADONAI, have created it." 9
Woe
to anyone who argues with his maker, like potsherds lying on the ground! Does the clay
ask the potter, "What are you doing?" or, "What's this you're making, that has no
hands?"
10 Woe to him who asks a father, "Of what are you the father?" or who asks a woman,
"To what are you giving birth?" 11 Thus says ADONAI, the Holy One of Isra'el, his Maker:
"You ask for signs concerning my children? You give orders concerning the work of my
hands? 12 I am the one who made the earth! I created human beings on it! I- my hands␂stretched out the heavens, and directed all their number.
13 I am stirring up Koresh to righteousness, I am smoothing out all his paths. He will
rebuild my city; and he will free my exiles, taking neither ransom nor bribe," says
ADONAI-Tzva'ot.
The person this passage is about is King Koresh; we know him better as Cyrus, the Persian
king who defeated Babylon thus ending the exile of the Jews. Here is a King who has no
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
knowledge of, or relationship with, the God of Israel, and yet God is using Koresh and giving
him great power. But.....notice that this entire passage in Isaiah centers around the continuing
election of Israel as God's people: 4
It is for the sake of Ya'akov my servant, yes, for Isra'el
my elect, that I call you by your name and give you a title, although you don't know me.
But even more, woe to anyone (Jew or gentile) who would dare to ask God why he is showing
such favor to Cyrus (a gentile pagan), and why He is showing such mercy to Israel since they
have been so unfaithful to Him that God finally exiled them to a foreign nation (Babylon) for
their rebellion. The Lord makes it about as clear as it can get that He is sovereign over
everyone and everything because He made everyone and everything that exists. We have no
right; we are in no position, as His created to question any of the Creator's decisions. Why do
bad things happen to good people; why do good things happen to bad people? None of our
business; the Father of all things has decided and that's that. In Isaiah, do we hear the tone of
a patient daddy lovingly answering His children's naïve questions? Or do we hear the tone of
a powerful God who is in no mood to have His choices and decisions questioned by mere
humans, who are little more than lumps of clay that God, in His mercy, has chosen to give the
gift of animation?
And, we continually read that there is very little God won't do to other nations for the sake of
Israel. Don't like that? Doesn't sound fair? Too bad; you don't get a vote. God's Kingdom is
not a democracy.
And by the way: what we are hearing is exactly how Judaism in Paul's day saw it. Even in the
Synagogue prayer book that is called the Siddur, in the regular weekday morning prayer we
find this: "Who is there among all the works of your hands, among those above or among
those below, who could say to you: What are you doing?"
I suppose it might be time to remind us all of something I taught about a long time ago: to love
God is to obey God. All of our nice warm fuzzy feelings about God; all the nice things we say
about Him; the way we defend Him when we talk to non-Believers; our prayers; walking
through the doors of our congregation every time they are opened; that is all well and good.
But God does not count any of those things as loving Him. Loving Him is when we are actively
obeying Him. The second thing we haven't talked about in a while is asking God "why"
concerning His decisions. "Why" is Greek thought, not Hebrew thought. "Why" says that we
have a mindset that we have the right to know. "Why" is fundamentally arguing with God. As
we just heard from Isaiah: 9
Woe to anyone who argues with his maker, like potsherds
lying on the ground! Does the clay ask the potter, "What are you doing?" or, "What's
this you're making, that has no hands?" 10 Woe to him who asks a father, "Of what are
you the father?" or who asks a woman, "To what are you giving birth?"
So what Paul is saying is that we must acknowledge God as fully free and sovereign to assign
to various humans different functions as He sees fit for the on-going fulfillment of the
redemption of humanity and the world that is His purpose. Every function we're assigned will
not be ones that we seek or ones that give us benefit in this life. Every function won't make
sense to us. Every function won't be lovely, and many will be painful; some will feel most
unfair.
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
But Paul is never very far away from the issue of validating God's ongoing election of Israel
has His set-apart people. So in verse 22 he asks the rhetorical question: what if God, although
He was quite willing to show His wrath to Israel so that they and their enemies both saw God's
limitless power, nonetheless the Lord pulled His punches and with love and patience didn't
destroy Israel when they deserved nothing less? Implied in this rhetorical question is: whose
business is it other than God's why He is doing what He is doing?
But then Paul shifts course in verse 23. Now Paul asks the question: So what if God showed
Israel both His wrath and His loving-patience in order to show the people who were outside of
His elect (outside of Israel) what they could have if somehow they could become His people?
And what could they obtain by becoming part of His people? His great mercy. And what if
those people to whom He wanted to show His glory were a mix of both Jews and gentiles?
Again, implied is: who has the right to say He should or He shouldn't purpose to do this even if
the humans involved weren't particularly comfortable with it?
As the proof text of God's intentions, and that His calling out of common Israel and out of
common gentiles a hybrid group, a remnant, that represents what Paul calls "true" Israel, a
purified Israel that operates upon the ideals that God had always intended for those who
worship Him, Paul uses the Book of Hosea. However he doesn't use this OT passage as he
has with the other passages he has chosen. Rather, he uses it more allegorically since the
entire subject of Hosea chapter 2 is Israel. That is, here Paul uses a passage that is purely
about the Jewish people but reframes it to demonstrate that at some point God's people will
not only consist of the physical descendants of Jacob (Israel) but will also include some
number of gentiles. Hosea chapter 2 is so powerful that we would not be wise to pass it by.
READ HOSEA CHAPTER 2 all
Clearly these verses from Hosea serve a dual purpose for Paul. One: they continue validating
his underlying theme in Romans of the ongoing election of Israel as God's people. And that
despite God's wrath upon them, and His at times turning His back on Israel, He never
abandons or rejects them completely. And two: that what is happening to and for Israel can
also be applied to gentiles. Gentiles who were always lo-ammi (not my people) become,
thanks to God's mercy, part of "my people". Without doubt the build up in Romans 9 that Paul
has made to this point, making it clear that no one has a leg to stand on to question God's
purpose and plans, is to bring us to the point of Hosea's prophecy whereby Paul is applying it
both to the whole House of Israel and to gentiles. God's mercy is available to every human
being on planet earth. Yet; who among Israel and who among the gentiles are elected to be
"true" Israel is another question. The bottom line is that not all will be elected. There is some
mysterious divine paradox at work because at one time there is an element of
predetermination operating, and yet there is also another element of human freedom of choice
involved. There is a redeemed Israel that consists of the descendants of Jacob on the one
hand, and yet there is also another level of redemption for Israel that is Jewish Believers in
Yeshua on the other hand. Then there are the gentiles who remain gentiles and have decided
to worship the God of Israel through Messiah Yeshua, and yet God elects them as part of a
purified "true" Israel even though they (we) are not Jews.
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 21 - Chapter 9 continued
So Paul's message to us is this: at the end of the day, when all is said and done, it is God's
sovereign will and God's unmerited mercy that are the twin drivers of human history, human
destiny, and the divine plan of redemption and restoration of the world.
We'll conclude Romans 9 and get into chapter 10 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 22, Chapters 9 and 10
Last week we concluded by reading Hosea chapter 2, which is the proof text that Paul used in
Romans 9:25 and 26 to help to explain how it is that on the one hand Israel is (and remains)
God's elect, and yet on the other hand God's plan was always to show mercy to the gentiles
and offer them the same redemption He offered Israel. Yet as we read Hosea 2 it is clear that
the chapter was explicitly referring to Israel and Judah (together forming the whole House of
Israel) and not gentiles. It was about Israel becoming unfaithful to her spiritual husband,
Yehoveh, and as a result Yehoveh removing Israel from His presence by means of exile; even
going so far as to label Israel lo-ammi meaning "not My people". There was also a second
label that the Lord gave to faithless Israel and it was lo-ruchamah meaning no pity. However
God said a time would come when the people of Israel would recognize their unfaithfulness
and sincerely repent. God would in turn show pity to Israel and shower them with His mercy.
From being a people who, because of their rebellion, God viewed as "not My people" God
would take them back and they would again be His set-apart and favored people. So the
question for us is: what right does Paul have to apply these Hosea passages to gentiles when
clearly this is all about Israel?
In order to answer that important question we need to take a little detour. In modern Christian
Bible study there are several approved ways to approach studying, interpreting and applying
Holy Scripture; this is known among academics and Church government as hermeneutics. I
won't go into the several ways to interpret and apply God's Word except to say that allegory is
one of the approved hermeneutical methods. Allegory is, in modern Church settings, hands
down the most widely employed method of Bible interpretation and study because in the hands
of a trained or naturally skilled orator it can be used to lead his or her audience to wherever the
orator wants to take them. Allegorical interpretation and presentation means that a story is told
about some Bible passages that expresses a hidden or underlying meaning of those passages,
but which also doesn't reflect the plain meaning of those same words. There is nothing wrong
with allegory in principle; the problem comes when Scripture is taken completely out of context
and/or the plain meaning of the passage is said to have been replaced or overridden by the
teacher's take on an underlying, hidden meaning. That, for instance, is how Christianity is able
to interpret many direct mentions of Israel in the Bible as actually meaning "the Church".
Jews, too, employ hermeneutics when studying the Bible and so it is nothing new; Christians
didn't invent it. When Paul went to the Academy of Gamaliel for his religious training he would
have been taught in depth what I'm about to teach you in brief. Jewish Bible interpreters have
numerous well-thought-out and long established ways to dissect Bible passages in order to
extract meaning. I'm going to give you the 4 best known ways, but be aware that there are a
number of other Jewish study and interpretation principles that I won't be sharing with you
today. These 4 methods of study and interpretation are known as Peshat, Remez, Derash,
and Sod. Peshat means to interpret and teach in the plainest most straightforward sense of
the Scripture text as taken within its context. The passage says what it means and means what
it says. Remez means that the Scriptures hint at something more, something deeper than the
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
plainest sense of the words seem to mean. It goes beyond the elementary level to the
philosophical level. Thus Remez most closely resembles the allegorical style of preaching
seen in modern Western churches (although it is not precisely the same thing and I'll show
you the difference shortly). Derash is more like a discussion or exposition of the pertinent
Bible passages that often brings in various external sources like Rabbinical rulings, historical
records, long held customs and debate. It more closely resembles what we might call
exegetical Bible study, which is what we do here at Seed of Abraham. We are more familiar
with this form of Bible interpretation when it is called Midrash. And finally there is Sod; Sod
means secret. Sod is the preferred way of Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) with its numerology
and multi-level spiritual planes. Paul would have been familiar with all of these methods and in
his letters he uses different methods at various times in his interpretations of Bible passages.
My point is this: Paul's method of interpretation of Hosea chapter 2, making what in the plain
sense is entirely about Israel also apply to gentiles, is easily identifiable as Remez (that is, the
Scripture passage hints at something deeper). However much of what we have been reading
in the last few chapters of the Book of Romans has been Paul interpreting and teaching in the
Derash method of study. Recall how I've shown you that Paul's straw man, and Paul's way
of having his straw man state a theological principle (usually a Jewish Tradition) and then Paul
refuting it using standard Rabbinical terms like "Heaven Forbid" or "may it never be", is a well␂established method used by Rabbis and is comparable to what we find in the Jewish Talmud.
But most commonly in Romans Paul seems to use the Peshat method of Bible interpretation
(the plain sense meaning) when he quotes and then comments on OT Scripture.
Here's the thing to understand: when reading any of Paul's letters, and especially in Romans,
he tends to quote Old Testament Bible passages and then interpret them according to one or
the other of the 4 interpretation methods I've just told you about. That is, Paul is all about
demonstrating that everything to do with redemption, including the nature and purpose of
Messiah, comes from the Old Testament because that is what he had (the OT WAS the Bible
for Paul; no NT existed). He is using the Torah and the Prophets as his primary reference
sources to prove the validity of Yeshua of Nazareth as the God-sent Messiah, and to explain
that now that He has come what it means. But an even bigger challenge for Paul is to prove
that gentiles are included in this redemption, and that is how God had always intended it.
One of the several reasons that Paul can be so confusing to Christians (and especially to
gentile Christian scholars) is that they are either unaware of, or unfamiliar with, the various
Jewish Bible interpretation methods and principles in vogue in Paul's day. One time Paul is
interpreting an OT passage in its plainest sense; the next time he is interpreting it more
philosophically (even allegorically) and another time he is using other sources of evidence than
the Bible (such as Jewish Tradition, Halakhah) and rolling it all together to make and prove his
point. Most Jews in his time perfectly well knew the differences and could better understand his
intent (although due to Paul's intellectual level it was often very complex and challenging). But
gentiles were nearly hopelessly lost and overwhelmed and depended on their Jewish friends to
help them with it. We do NOT see this same writing style or biblical interpretation with any
other New Testament writer because Paul was the only classically trained Jewish Theologian
among the several New Testament Writers; and he was formally trained in the ways of the
Pharisees (the Rabbis) at an elite school. Peter was just a common fisherman. Luke was
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
intelligent and educated, but it was as a Physician and writer; not as a Theologian. James, like
his brother Yeshua, was a country boy and a blue collar craftsman (a carpenter's son). John
was the son of a family of fishermen and in time he became more of a Jewish holy man (of
which there were many in his day).
So if our intent is to actually understand Paul (and not just try to prove a doctrine we believe in)
we have to begin by understanding how to READ Paul. These various methods of Bible
interpretation that Paul used were like tools in his tool box. He had a wrench, pliers, a
screwdriver, a hammer, a paint brush and a few more tools at his disposal. He would choose
the right tool at the right moment to help explain his theology. He switched interpretation tools
rather naturally just as a skilled craftsman would; it was second nature to him due to his
extensive religious training. As Bible students we need to be able to recognize and identify
which of the several different Bible interpretation methods Paul is using at any particular
moment in his letters because he bases his entire understanding of Christ upon those Old
Testament Scriptures. Why is that? Because the Gospel is, itself, an Old Testament Gospel.
There is no such thing as a New Testament Gospel; that designation is the invention of a
gentile Church system that is partly anti-Semitic and partly ignorant of the New Testament
culture, which was 100% Jewish.
So; understanding, now, that in Romans chapter 9 verses 25 & 26 Paul is using the Remez
Bible interpretation method to interpret Hosea chapter 2, let's continue with Romans 9:27 and
see how he interprets yet another Old Testament Scripture passage; this one is taken from the
Prophet Isaiah.
RE-READ ROMANS 9:27 – end
Verses 27 and 28 are a passage taken from Isaiah chapter 10, and verse 29 is a passage
taken from Isaiah chapter 1. Because I'm spending some time today showing you the
importance of learning some techniques about how to read Paul, and also how to identify
which of the 4 basic methods of Scripture interpretation Paul has chosen to use, we'll take the
time to read more of these chapters from which these short OT Scripture passages were
taken. Remember: one of the principles of Bible interpretation and communication as used by
Jewish teachers, Rabbis and scholars was that when a person was debating or instructing on a
subject and used a Scripture passage as his proof text, he would only use a brief portion of the
Scripture passage and expect the reader to know, or to find out, what the rest of the passage
said because all of it applied. The entire passage was the intended context; not merely the
abbreviated portion that was written for reference. However know that the abbreviated passage
we see in Paul's letter was from Isaiah 10:22 & 23. So let's look at Isaiah chapter 10. Open
your Bibles.
READ ISAIAH 10:1 – 25
Once again, as with Hosea chapter 2, this entire Scripture passage in Isaiah is about Israel.
The only involvement of gentiles has to do with Assyria, which God is using to bring His wrath
upon Israel for their rebellion against Him. Rabbi Shulam makes a great point about this
section of Romans chapter 9: it is that when we back away and look at it from the mid-
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
distance, we see that in Romans 9:14 -23 Paul is making it clear that neither God's election of
Israel (or of anyone for that matter) nor His rejection of Israel (or of anyone for that matter) is
dependent upon the human will or human activity, but rather it is always dependent upon
God's mercy. But then in verse 24, we see that because of the way that God elects those to
His Kingdom (that is, God has full liberty to elect whomever He chooses according to whatever
criteria He chooses) that it is not only Jews but also gentiles who can be elected. Thus, Paul is
showing through OT Scripture that the elect are now composed of certain gentiles and a
"remnant" of Jews. The bottom line is an unexpected one: Israel was elected NOT for the
purpose of excluding all other people (gentiles) from election, but rather they were elected to
facilitate the inclusion of all the peoples of the world in conjunction with God's plan of
redemption for the entire earth.
This reality, however, causes Paul another difficulty; he has to tell his readers and listeners
that while all that he just said is true (that only some of Israel, a remnant, will be saved at this
time), this does not change God's plan for the final and complete salvation of all of Israel at a
later time. This Paul deals with starting in Romans Chapter 10, but mainly deals with it in
Chapter 11.
But back in Romans 9:27 &28, which refers to Isaiah 10, we see that the "remnant" of Jews
that Paul is saying will be saved as a result of trust in Messiah, he is equating with the remnant
of Israel that will return to the Holy Land after the Assyrian exile. So once again Paul is
interpreting these Old Testament Scriptures NOT in the plain sense (Peshat) but rather using
the Remez interpretation method. He sees the remnant of Israel in Isaiah 10 that was saved by
God's mercy from death and destruction at the hands of the Assyrians, as a hint at an even
deeper level that is referring to the remnant of Israel that will be saved from death and
destruction at God's own hand (God's wrath) at a later time, and has to do with their rejection
of their Messiah.
Now is when I want to point out the difference between usual Christian allegorical preaching
and the Jewish Bible interpretation method of Remez, which on the surface look more similar
than different. The difference is this: in Remez both the plain sense of the text (the Peshat)
just as it is written AND the deeper meaning (the Remez) are assumed and retained. Digging
beneath the surface of the text does not eliminate the surface meaning. It is not an issue of
one or the other. Often, however, when a Christian teacher or Pastor allegorizes a Bible
Passage it is meant to overturn or replace the plain sense as it was originally written. So, for
instance, since the Church allegorizes the blessings given to Israel as now belonging to the
Church, then every positive mention of Israel in the Bible is now said to actually mean
"Church". Thus Israel no longer means Israel; Israel is eliminated and replaced by the Church.
But for Paul, it can be, and should be, seen as both. In the case of Israel it is meant in two
different ways, on two different levels, both valid, both continuing to exist. Thus it is with Paul's
point concerning a remnant of Israel being saved. From the plain sense of the words of Isaiah
10, only a remnant of Israel will be saved from the destruction of the Assyrian exile. But ALSO,
from the Remez sense, only a remnant of Israel will be saved from another and different
destruction for not accepting God's Messiah.
The common point between the two events, then, is this: both the destruction of Israel at the
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
hand of Assyria (a past event in Israel's history) and the destruction of Israel at the hand of
God (a future event) are due to God's wrath. Assyria was merely the instrument of God's
wrath on Israel. Further, the reason that a remnant will survive is NOT because the remnant of
Israel is somehow better or more moral nor has more merit than those who were destroyed.
Rather in both the case of the Assyrian remnant and the case of the later remnant that will be
saved by trust in Christ, it is as a result of God's mercy that they survived.
Paul in Romans 9:29 backs up his use of Isaiah 10 to prove his point by referring to Isaiah 1.
But before he does that there is an interesting little sentence there at verse 28 that we mustn't
overlook. Still part of Isaiah 10, this verse says (in paraphrase) that this destruction of Israel by
God's wrath and allowing only a remnant to survive, is not only certain but it will be without
delay. The reason Paul included this verse is because he truly felt that God's wrath, the
destruction of Israel, the creation of the remnant of Israel and the return of Yeshua were very,
very near; imminent. At any moment Paul expected this to happen. This belief heavily
influenced his thinking and his message in all of his letters. No doubt Paul died a bit surprised
that Christ had not returned yet; and if we could speak to him right now, he'd probably tell us
that he's stupefied that 2000 years later Christ still has not returned.
Let's expand on Isaiah 1, the proof text Paul uses in verse 29 to back up what he has just
explained.
READ ISAIAH 1:1 – 14
The context of this passage is Israel's rebellion and God's disgust with them. God is intent to
destroy most of unfaithful Israel leaving only a remnant to survive. Part of the reason for His
disgust with Israel is that they have polluted His God-ordained Feast Days and Sabbaths with
their own way of doing things (they have involved paganism in their traditions) and so God will
not accept their burnt offerings.
But notice that there is a difference between what Paul has quoted in Romans 9:29 (as
representative of Isaiah 1:9) versus what Isaiah 1:9 actually says. In Romans 9:29 Paul speaks
of a seed that God allowed to survive, while the actual verse he is supposedly quoting (Isaiah
1:9) says that it will be a "remnant" that God will allow to survive (the word "seed" doesn't
actually appear in Isaiah 1). So Paul is switching up on us; he now is using the Derash Bible
method for interpreting Isaiah 1:9 and not the Remez that he's been using the last few
verses. Derash makes Paul free to substitute a word to make his point. He substitutes "seed"
for "remnant" because those Israelites who survive God's wrath (the remnant) will indeed be
"seed" (as in seed of Abraham). Paul, earlier in Romans chapter 4, established the Halakhic
principle (a Tradition or a religious ruling, if you would) that all real (or "true") Israelites are
seed of Abraham. And he defines seed of Abraham as those who trust God and so trust in
Messiah Yeshua. Thus the remnant of Israel plus some number of gentiles will form God's
elect and all of God's elect are seed of Abraham. The identifiable characteristic that makes the
remnant the remnant, and that separates some gentiles from all other gentiles, is their common
trust in Yeshua as Messiah, and nothing else.
Verse 30 is Paul anticipating an objection to his contention that God's elect will henceforth
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
include only some Jews (but not all Jews). Even more, the elect will include some gentiles.
Remember: while Christianity rightly sees salvation as an individual by individual issue,
Judaism in Paul's day (and today) sees salvation as a collective national issue. All the Jewish
people or none of the Jewish people. And what sticks in the craw of the Jewish people in
general is that while for millennia they have been striving, as individuals and as a nation, to
obtain righteousness, the gentiles have done no such thing; they are new to the party. So even
though the gentiles had put forth no effort whatsoever to attain righteousness, God in His
mercy gave it to them anyway! And it wasn't because gentiles tried to keep The Law of Moses
that they obtained this righteousness; it was ONLY because of God's mercy upon them based
upon these gentiles' trust in Yeshua.
On the other hand, says verse 31, the Jews kept pursuing The Law that offers righteousness,
but they never reached what The Law offers. If we stopped reading right here, we'd assume
that Paul is speaking of a works-righteousness way to salvation that the Jews had open to
them (or at the least, they tried for). In other words it sort of sounds as though keeping The
Law of Moses indeed would have given righteousness to those Jews who properly did the Law.
But that isn't what it is saying. Rather, says Paul, the issue is that while pursuing The Law is
good, it must be done based on trusting rather than on one's own merit from performing The
Law flawlessly. I think David Stern's CJB captures the essence of what Paul is saying
perfectly: CJB Romans 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness as being
grounded in trusting but as if it were grounded in doing legalistic works. They stumbled
over the stone that makes people stumble.
It is rather interesting that years later Isaiah 28:16, which is what Paul is quoting as verse 33 in
Romans 9, came to be understood among the Rabbis as a messianic prophecy. And indeed it
is because this stone Israel stumbled over is identified as Immanuel, God is With Us, that we
can believe that the stone is Yeshua.
Matthew 1:18-23 CJB
18 Here is how the birth of Yeshua the Messiah took place. When his mother Miryam
was engaged to Yosef, before they were married, she was found to be pregnant from the
Ruach HaKodesh. 19 Her husband-to-be, Yosef, was a man who did what was right; so
he made plans to break the engagement quietly, rather than put her to public shame.
20 But while he was thinking about this, an angel of ADONAI appeared to him in a dream
and said, "Yosef, son of David, do not be afraid to take Miryam home with you as your
wife; for what has been conceived in her is from the Ruach HaKodesh.
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI
saves,'] because he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this happened in order to
fulfill what ADONAI had said through the prophet, 23 "The virgin will conceive and bear a
son, and they will call him 'Immanu El." (The name means, "God is with us.")
Let's move on to Romans chapter 10.
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 10:1 - 4
The opening of chapter 10 not only expresses the reason for Paul giving up every desirable
thing in life in order to travel and put himself in danger, and to live a life of poverty and
uncertainty when he didn't have to, but also explains why Israel has put itself in danger when
they didn't have to. Paul is a man of action; he believes so strongly in the power of the Gospel
and that Yeshua is the righteousness that the Gospel points to, that little else in life matters to
him but that his brethren of Israel would be accept that message and be delivered from the
curse of The Law, which is eternal death.
He notes why Israel has put itself in such danger and it is NOT because they didn't care to
know God. In fact he personally testifies to Israel's zeal for Yehoveh. This zeal for God is not
merely Paul's personal opinion; the leader of the Messianic Movement, James, the brother of
Yeshua, testifies to it as well.
Acts 21:18-20 CJB
18 The next day Sha'ul and the rest of us went in to Ya'akov, and all the elders were
present. 19 After greeting them, Sha'ul described in detail each of the things God had
done among the Gentiles through his efforts. 20 On hearing it, they praised God; but
they also said to him, "You see, brother, how many tens of thousands of believers there
are among the Judeans, and they are all zealots for the Torah.
So Israel falling short of what is required of God for righteousness is not because of lack of
effort or sincerity on their part. In some sense Paul shouldn't even have had to say such a
thing because it is self-evident. If Israel was admittedly so zealous for God, and zealousness
brought righteousness, then why was a Messiah necessary at all? If being fervent Believers in
the God of Israel was the requirement for salvation, then why would any typical Jew who
observed Sabbath, endured travel to the Temple from far away for Passover, circumcised their
sons, prayed 3 times per day, brought their firstfruits to the Priests and sacrificed at the Altar
need a Savior? Paul answers that question in verse 2. He says that all this zeal of his brethren
is not based on correct understanding. Zeal and devotion and commitment only have value if
they are connected with the correct goal. Please note that nowhere here or anywhere else in
Romans or any of Paul's letters does Paul ever imply that doing The Law of Moses is wrong or
a misdirected zeal. Rather, as Paul continues in verse 2, the problem is that the people of
Israel are unaware of God's way of making people righteous and instead they throw all their
effort into attaining righteousness in their own way. What is Paul meaning by "doing it their own
way"? By doing the Law? Not exactly.
Let's back up a second to review the matter of Judaism in Jewish society in this era. Jewish
Tradition, Halakhah, was the driver of Jewish Society. For the religious leadership that
operated the synagogues and that the Jewish people regularly interacted with, Halakhah was
considered as the proper interpretation of The Law of Moses and thus reflected proper
behavior for Jews. It is the equivalent of Christian denominational doctrines. However in reality
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
any actual legitimate connection between The Law of Moses and Jewish Tradition was a weak
one. It was so weak that Yeshua on more than one occasion reprimanded the synagogue
leadership, the Pharisees, for their Halakhah that had gone far afield from both the letter and
the spirit of the Law of Moses. It was Halakhah that Jews followed in their quest for
righteousness.
Matthew 15:1-9 CJB
CJB Matthew 15:1 Then some P'rushim and Torah-teachers from Yerushalayim came to
Yeshua and asked him, 2
"Why is it that your talmidim break the Tradition of the Elders?
They don't do n'tilat-yadayim before they eat!" 3
He answered, "Indeed, why do you
break the command of God by your tradition? 4
For God said, 'Honor your father and
mother,' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5
But you say, 'If anyone says to his father or mother, "I have promised to give to God
what I might have used to help you," 6
then he is rid of his duty to honor his father or
mother.' Thus by your tradition you make null and void the word of God! 7
You
hypocrites! Yesha'yahu was right when he prophesied about you, 8
'These people honor
me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me.
9
Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were
doctrines.'"
Paul says that the proper pursuit of righteousness is contained in the Torah (The Law), but
righteousness is not the Torah itself. He puts it this way in Romans 10:4: CJB Romans 10:4
For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to
everyone who trusts. This English translation of the Greek captures the truest essence of
Paul's statement. However Believers are more used to seeing it in this form: KJV Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, the gold standard among Christian academics for
commentary on the Book of Romans is the one created by C.E.B. Cranfield. However his (and
the fine works of other Christian scholars) tend to go unheard by Church governments
especially when it comes to issues about the Law of Moses. Here is Cranfield's commentary
on the meaning of the phrase "Christ is the end of the Law" in this verse:
"The (Early) Church Fathers seem generally to have tended towards (it meaning) a
combination of fulfillment and goal. Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Bengel all understood
the verse as expressing a positive relationship between Christ and The Law.......So we
conclude that the Greek noun (telos) should be understood in the sense (of) Christ is
the end of the law in the sense that He is its goal, aim, intention, real meaning and
substance; apart from Him it cannot be properly understood at all."
This is the sense that I know to be the truth, and that Seed of Abraham stands by, because no
other sense of it is warranted grammatically or is intellectually honest. Nor does any other
sense of "Christ is the end of the law" match with Christ's own words and admonitions as
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 22 - Chapters 9 and 10
concerns the Law of Moses.
In modern English especially, the word "end" almost always means to terminate or abolish.
But "end" has historically also meant something else; goal. We still memorialize this sense of
the word "end" in a well worn expression in the Western Word: The end justifies the means.
"End" certainly does not mean to abolish or terminate. End means goal. The purpose. The
aim. And this is precisely the sense that is meant in Romans 10:4.
We'll continue with Romans 10 next time we meet.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 23, Chapter 10
Paul opened Romans chapter 10 by saying this: CJB Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart's
deepest desire and my prayer to God for Isra'el is for their salvation; 2
for I can testify to
their zeal for God. But it is not based on correct understanding..."
Lots of zeal for God, but it is: "Not based on a correct understanding". Some translations say:
"But not according to knowledge". Others say: "Not enlightened". The Greek word that is
being translated by these various phrases is epignosis and it means precise knowledge. In
other words, the problem is not the Jewish peoples' passivity, stupidity, wickedness, or
disinterest in God; they actually have it at least partially right. Rather it is that on the one hand
the meaning and purpose behind what they know about the Law and the Prophets is missing
from their knowledge; and on the other hand the Synagogue leaders and Traditions of the
Elders have made the people so focused on manmade minutia and trivialities that they have
missed the bigger picture and it has led them off course. And the bigger picture is Messiah.
How is it that the Jews are so firmly devoted to the God of Israel, and know so much; but have
so much of it wrong? According to Paul they are pursuing the right goal, righteousness, but in
entirely the wrong way. It isn't just the less educated and lower end of the Jewish social scale
that has it wrong; it is every level of Jewish society including the leaders of the most
prestigious rabbinical academies and even the Priesthood that is supposed to be God's
servants and the ultimate experts on the Holy Scriptures.
So here stands Paul saying essentially: all of you are wrong and I'm right. Sounds rather
arrogant, doesn't it? But this is exactly what Yeshua sent Paul to do: straighten people out.
This is what Yeshua is sending all of us, His followers, to do in a world that has made science
and economics our gods. Even in non-democratic societies (as in the Jewish society of the
New Testament era) when the majority of people and their leadership hold a common
worldview and accept a certain way or agenda, someone who comes along to challenge it
usually isn't welcomed with open arms. Martin Luther faced such a thing when he challenged
the self-serving doctrines of the Catholic Church. Dr. King faced such a thing when he dared to
challenge the American status quo and demanded equal rights and respect for people of color.
But long before them the Apostle Paul challenged the entire Jewish religious establishment
and said: your conclusions about following God and the purpose of The Law are not based on
a correct understanding. We all know the results of Paul's stand; scores of thousands came to
belief in Yeshua. But in a handful of years from when he wrote these words he would be
martyred for those same beliefs.
Today there is a movement within the Christian faith that goes by a number of names, which
seeks to challenge the doctrines of the religious establishment. You and Seed of Abraham
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
Torah Class are part of that movement. Like Paul we stand together and say to our brethren of
the faith: you have much of it right, but you also have much of it wrong. Your traditions have
undermined the Word of God, tainted the truth and made the Body weaker. And like Paul who
called upon God's written Word to plainly prove his allegations and to re-establish the divine
truth at a critical juncture in human history, so do we. And like for Paul, a relative few who
listened to him had their eyes opened and they believed; but the majority turned a blind eye
towards the Scriptures that were shown to them (the Scriptures they claim to be
knowledgeable of and devoted to) because long held, cherished customs and traditions are
very hard to give up no matter how erroneous the Bible might prove them to be.
Our zeal and devotion to a particular denomination or congregation or person isn't evidence of
having it right. And neither does it impress God. What impresses God is to search for and
accept the correct understanding, as evidenced by His Word to us, and then with the guidance
of the Holy Spirit to act upon it regardless of the personal cost. I realize that all I've said to you
so far today comes from the examination of but a single Greek word that Paul uttered:
epignosis.....precise knowledge. But just as the implications of that one word were enormous
in Paul's day so are they in ours.
Paul claims that the problem for worshippers of the God of Israel is not the lack of interest, but
rather the lack of precise knowledge. It is the lack of correct understanding, which inherently
means that an incorrect understanding has been accepted and this dangerous situation must
be resolved. Essentially, in all of his letters that we find as Bible books in the New Testament,
that is what Paul is trying to do but it is a monumental task; it is complex and controversial and
he will have to face never ending criticism and opposition. Paul was both a courageous and a
stubborn man. But he was also fully sold out to the Lord and to the divine truth. Christ knew
what he was doing when He chose Paul.
Let's read Romans chapter 10 from the beginning.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 10 all
Paul says that despite "their" great zeal for God, "they" have incorrect understanding. Who is
"they"? Who has incorrect understanding? Clearly it is Jews because gentiles do not have a
heritage of worshipping the God of Israel nor do they begin with a knowledge of The Law of
Moses and the Prophets. Bottom line: as we discussed in earlier lessons regarding chapters 7
and 8, much of what Paul says is directly aimed at Jews and here is another case in point to
begin Romans 10. What does Paul say that the incorrect understanding revolves around? It is
an ignorance of God's way of making people righteous as opposed to the way that the Jewish
people are currently seeking righteousness. And even the type of righteousness they are
seeking is not sufficient to deliver them from eternal death. The proper (the only) way to a
saving type of righteousness is God's way; and God's way is through trust in His Son Yeshua.
So since we know that at this point in Romans 10 he is addressing Jews, primarily, and the
issue is righteousness, then the serious matter Paul has thus far been concerned about in his
letter to the Romans is Israel's general state of unrighteousness and especially as it relates to
their election as God's chosen people. There is nothing more dangerous to Israel, and nothing
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
more dangerous to us, as believing (for all the wrong reasons) that we are right with God.....but
we're not. So Paul has set two foundation stones: first is that Israel (in general) is in a
condition of unrighteousness before God even though they believe that they have striven for
righteousness. And the second is that even though this unrighteousness is the result of
unfaithfulness to God and an incorrect understanding of God's ways and purposes, due to
God's character of always keeping His promises and because of His unfathomable mercy,
God has not rejected Israel.
So Paul is going to continue to discuss the relationship between Torah observance (obeying
The Law) and the righteousness gained from trust in God through Christ. And despite a
widespread attitude and doctrine within the Church that there is NO relationship between
Torah observance and righteousness in Christ, Paul has at every turn refuted that notion
usually by exclaiming: "Heaven forbid!" However explaining exactly what that relationship is
and how it works in the lives of Believers has been quite a challenge for Paul for two reasons:
first, as concerns Jews, what Paul is explaining flies in the face of the Jewish Traditions
(Halakhot) and the many accepted interpretations of Scripture as taught by the religious
leadership. And second, as concerns gentiles, by nature they have little understanding of
Jewish Traditions OR Holy Scripture and so it is difficult to find a context and vocabulary from
which to explain these important matters of sin, salvation, repentance, trust, and redeemed
living. The Jews have much to unlearn before they can re-learn the correct understanding; and
the gentiles have much to learn so that they can have any actual understanding at all!
So in verse 4 Paul tells his readers what God's way is to obtain righteousness: it is to
pursue the goal of The Law of Moses; and the goal is Messiah. However the CJB reads a little
differently in verse 4 than most English versions (even though it is the superior translation).
The usual way we are used to seeing it is more as it is in the KJV: KJV Romans 10:4 For
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. We had a brief
discussion about this verse to end last week's lesson, and I quoted the eminent Bible Scholar
C.E.B. Cranfield from his Commentary on Romans to make the point that this verse has been
terribly misquoted and misunderstood over the centuries. The misunderstanding has to do with
that little 3-letter English word: "end". In Greek the word is telos. And while a valid English
translation of telos can be "end", it does not mean "end" in the sense most common to
English speakers today; the sense of terminating or abolishing something. Rather the word
"end" is meant in the same sense as in our well-known Western expression: the end justifies
the means. That is: the goal justifies whatever it takes to achieve it. So the English words goal,
aim, purpose, and intent are probably better choices to express the meaning of telos than the
word "end" in this verse according to our use of the English language in our day. Finish,
terminate, and abolish are simply misunderstandings of the Greek telos in this context. Thus
despite the insistence of much of Christianity to the contrary, this verse is Paul explaining that
Christ, Messiah Yeshua, is the goal of The Law to attain righteousness. However while indeed
righteousness in Messiah is the goal of the Torah (the Law of Moses), the type of
righteousness that is the goal is a very unique type; it is a saving type. Let me be clear in what
I'm saying: not all types of righteousness are created equal. And the saving type, the supreme
type of righteousness for humans, is available only by trusting in God through His Messiah.
Once again: this verse has nothing to do with terminating anything; and especially has nothing
to do with terminating The Law because the idea of terminating doesn't appear here.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
Let's break for a moment and discuss the issue of righteousness as the Jews saw it and why it
presented such a difficulty for them, and why they viewed Paul with such skepticism. Jews did
NOT imagine righteousness in the same way as Christians do. Jews imagined righteousness
as but doing what God demands and thus as pleasing Him. So a righteous Jew was a Jew who
had a great zeal to please Yehoveh by obeying the Law of Moses and thus his goal was God's
favor. For all practical purposes this righteousness only had to do with the time period while
that person was alive, beginning at the age of accountability and terminating upon his death.
It is also important to remember that Jews had no thought of "dying and going to Heaven",
which has in modern Christianity become perhaps the prime (if not the only) reason to be
righteous in God's eyes so that when we inevitably die, we're assured of our place in Heaven.
Jews in the 1st century A.D. didn't have much of a developed idea of an afterlife. And what
little they did have was not something that was universally agreed to within Jewish society.
Rather it more resembled ancestor worship (although it wasn't exactly that). Thus we hear a
hope about a person dying that they will go to be with their ancestors. Where this reunion of
the recently deceased and his ancestors took place was believed to be on earth; or better,
under the earth. In Hebrew this was Sheol. Sheol was the grave, but depending on exactly
how one thought of the afterlife, Sheol was also the entry point into the place of the dead; or it
was actually the place where the dead existed in some unspecified form. The righteous dead
(those who obeyed the Torah) had a more pleasant afterlife than the unrighteous dead who
were usually envisioned as being eaten up by worms (although most Jews acknowledge that
this was the fate of all humans) and their existence ceasing.
So for a Jew to be righteous was to follow God's laws and commands and to strive to remain
ritually clean. There was nothing beyond that. However because of the development of the
Synagogue after the Babylonian exile, and because the Pharisees were the Synagogue
teachers (not the Priests), then the Traditions developed by the Pharisees (the Halakhah) that
was purported to derive from the correct interpretations of the Torah, was what the average lay
person was taught, believed and lived by. So in reality Jews followed Halakhah and not the
actual Law of Moses (although they saw them as more or less the same thing). Oddly enough,
in some cases this Halakah actually reflected the concept of the goal of The Law as
righteousness in Messiah; so what Paul was preaching was hardly new and innovative.
However, different Pharisees saw such matters differently and so on this subject there was no
consensus. The Essenes (the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls), interestingly, believed and
wrote that righteousness was less an issue of works and more an issue of God's mercy.
Listen to this excerpt taken from scroll 1QH, from what is called the Thanksgiving Hymns of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Essenes at least 100 years before Christ was born. The truth
of this theology sounds like something Christ Himself would have taught.
".....and I have no fleshy refuge; and man has no righteousness or virtue to be delivered
from sin and win forgiveness. But I, I have leaned on Thy abundant mercy and on the
greatness of Thy grace..........and thou has created me for Thy sake to fulfill The Law, and
to teach by my mouth the men of Thy council in the midst of the sons of men, that Thy
marvels may be told to everlasting generations and Thy mighty deeds be contemplated
without end. And all the nations shall know Thy truth and all the peoples Thy glory. For
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
Thou hast caused them to enter Thy glorious Covenant with all the men of Thy council
and into a common lot with the Angels of the Face...."
So it is important for the average Bible student to understand that never did the Essenes teach
that obeying The Law brought a saving righteousness; and yet they also saw that continuing
obedience to The Law was still required by God. Not Paul, Christ, or any other New Testament
author, or person quoted in the New Testament, are found fighting against a belief among
Jews that obeying the Law of Moses brought a saving righteous with it (salvation) and thus a
trip to Heaven upon death as a reward. That is because such a belief did not exist within
Judaism (except perhaps in some isolated instances). So the usual Christian condemnation of
Jews and so-called Judaizers as teaching folks to "follow The Law in order to work their way to
Heaven" is a fantasy, if not a slander.
Part of Paul's challenge, and mine and yours as well, is simply in the definition and use of the
word "righteous". Biblically, indeed there was and remains a type of righteousness that comes
from being obedient to God. And yet there is another type of righteousness that comes ONLY
from God's mercy and grace, and this is the kind that saves us. Paul addresses this dilemma
of explaining and understanding the types and sources of righteousness in another of his
letters, the letter to the Philippians. I'm going to give this to you from the KJV because the CJB
obscures the point I'm making.
Philippians 3:8-9 KJV
8
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of
Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count
them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9
And be found in him, not having mine own
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith:
The point is this: Paul is saying that there are two basic and legitimate types of righteousness;
both of which remain relevant. There is the righteousness that comes from obedience to The
Law; and there is a different and saving kind of righteousness that comes from trust in Christ.
They are both properly called "righteousness" but it is meant in two different senses. One type
does not replace the other. Righteousness from our trust in Christ is a merciful act of God.
Righteousness from being obedient to God's commandments is something we earn and is an
act that we do ourselves. Both types are true righteousness, and both types are valid, but each
is for a different purpose.
Let me give you an analogy. As living creatures we must have food to eat or we will starve and
die. So without doubt, food is necessary to sustain life. But we must also have air to breathe or
we will suffocate and die. So without doubt, air is necessary to sustain life. If we are lost in the
wilderness without food, we still have air and so have life.
Thus in a sense air is superior to food for life. But at some point we must have food or even
with plenty of air we'll die. When we finally find that food and eat it, does that replace our need
of air? Obviously not. Rather both are needed; they are complementary, each serving entirely
different but necessary functions. It is the same with the kind of righteousness that comes
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
from obedience to God's commandments, and the different kind of righteousness that is a free
gift from God because of our trust in Christ. One type is indeed superior to the other but both
are needed as they each serve different but necessary purposes in our faith walk with God.
Our trust in Christ does NOT substitute for obedience (air does not substitute for food); and our
obedience does not substitute for trust in Christ (food does not substitute for air).
As always, Paul depends upon the Holy Scriptures to make his case. Verse 5 quotes a portion
from Leviticus 18:5. But as is the standard way that a Rabbi expounds upon a Scripture, he
only quotes a small portion that brings to mind for the listener or reader the entire passage.
And here Paul reminds his readers that Moses wrote down the Torah and made it clear that
the person who does the Law will attain life by doing so. This fact is God-given and not a
Tradition.
Leviticus 18:1-5 CJB
CJB Leviticus 18:1 ADONAI said to Moshe, 2
"Speak to the people of Isra'el; tell them, 'I
am ADONAI your God. 3
You are not to engage in the activities found in the land of
Egypt, where you used to live; and you are not to engage in the activities found in the
land of Kena'an, where I am bringing you; nor are you to live by their laws.
4
You are to obey my rulings and laws and live accordingly; I am ADONAI your God. 5
You are to observe my laws and rulings; if a person does them, he will have life through
them; I am ADONAI.
So here is Paul saying that the Lord made it clear through His Mediator Moses that His elect
are indeed to obey God's laws and commands and if they do, the elect will have life through
them (life as opposed to death....a positive life experience as opposed to a negative life
experience). Please note: either what God said to Moses, and Moses wrote down here in
Leviticus 18, is true or it is not true. Assuming it is true, then either it remains true or God has
changed His mind and (according to some Christian doctrine) obedience to The Law has been
flipped on its head and now such obedience brings death and darkness. If that is the case,
then just how trustworthy is our God? The good news is that it is not the case; God still expects
His worshippers to observe His Torah and through the obedience to the Torah we will have life.
But now Paul switches and shows the other side of the coin regarding Scriptures that speak of
how a worshipper gains and sustains life. He quotes several verses from Deuteronomy 30.
According to Rabbi Joseph Shulam, what Paul is doing is a standard rabbinical technique for
examining a Bible passage. That is, in this case two different biblical approaches are taken to
explain something; in this case it is to explain how one gains life. So Paul is going to quote and
compare the two approaches from the two sets of Scripture. Let's read several verses to find
the intended context that Rav Sha'ul wants to present to us.
Deuteronomy 30:10-19 CJB
10 "However, all this will happen only if you pay attention to what ADONAI your God
says, so that you obey his mitzvot and regulations which are written in this book of the
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
Torah, if you turn to ADONAI your God with all your heart and all your being.
11 For this mitzvah which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond
your reach. 12 It isn't in the sky, so that you need to ask, 'Who will go up into the sky for
us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?' 13 Likewise, it isn't beyond
the sea, so that you need to ask, 'Who will cross the sea for us, bring it to us and make
us hear it, so that we can obey it?'
14 On the contrary, the word is very close to you- in your mouth, even in your heart;
therefore, you can do it!
15 "Look! I am presenting you today with, on the one hand, life and good; and on the
other, death and evil- 16 in that I am ordering you today to love ADONAI your God, to
follow his ways, and to obey his mitzvot, regulations and rulings; for if you do, you will
live and increase your numbers; and ADONAI your God will bless you in the land you
are entering in order to take possession of it.
17 But if your heart turns away, if you refuse to listen, if you are drawn away to prostrate
yourselves before other gods and serve them; 18 I am announcing to you today that you
will certainly perish; you will not live long in the land you are crossing the Yarden to
enter and possess.
19 "I call on heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have presented you
with life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore, choose life, so that you will
live, you and your descendants..."
Clearly Paul is not quoting Deuteronomy 30 in order to disagree with it! He is not using this
Torah passage to dispute God or Moses or to say that God has changed His mind or that
Moses was wrong. Rather Paul is using it in a positive way to make his case about the
challenging issue of righteousness and trusting and how one gains life. Notice verse 14: it says
that the Word (God's Word, His instruction) is in your heart. This is referring to faithfulness as
the motivating factor for obeying God. And God makes the same bargain time and again with
Israel; do My commandments because of your faith and trust and this will gain you life.
Disobey my commandments and go follow other gods (that is, show a lack of faithfulness and
trust in the God of Israel) and gain death.
Also notice in Deuteronomy 30:19 that the classic Hebrew couplet is used; that is, two sets of
terms are compared side by side. In this case God says that life and death are synonymous
with the blessing and the curse. Life equals blessing; death equals curse. And this is what Paul
is speaking about in this and others of his letters when he speaks about "the curse of the
Law". The curse of the Law stands as opposed to the blessing of the Law. The curse comes
from disobedience; the blessing from obedience. The curse comes from lack of faith and trust;
the blessing comes from faithfulness and trusting. Yet still many Believers claim that Paul says
the Law itself is a curse! Nothing could be more slanderous towards God or un-Scriptural in its
principle than holding such a position. To contend that the Law of Moses is a curse upon
human kind is to call God a liar and a fraud and Paul has gone to great lengths to say just the
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
opposite.
Paul now connects what Moses said in Deuteronomy 30 with the person of Yeshua. After
quoting from Scripture, "Do not say in your heart, who will ascend to Heaven", Paul says that
this is about how it is not necessary to go to Heaven to bring down the Messiah because it is
already done. And then next after quoting more Scripture, "Who will descend into Sheol (the
grave)" he says that is not necessary to bring Christ up from the dead because it is already
done. Here is Paul's point: he is demonstrating the direct connection between Yeshua and the
Torah. They are not two separate unrelated entities but rather they are as fused as the
hydrogen and oxygen atoms that together make water. Even more than being fused together,
within The Law itself Christ is its very essence, goal, purpose, and meaning. Messiah Himself
said the same thing in the Book of John.
John 5:46-47 CJB 46 For if you really believed Moshe, you would believe me; because it
was about me that he wrote. 47 But if you don't believe what he wrote, how are you going
to believe what I say?"
What Moses wrote was the Torah. But Yeshua says that from the bigger picture it was actually
about Him that Moses wrote (so tightly interconnected are Messiah and The Law). So Paul is
merely echoing this same thought as found in John 5. But even more, Yeshua makes this
startling statement (and I paraphrase): how is it possible for you to believe what I tell you if you
won't accept what Moses says is the truth?
Believers: here is yet another statement from our Savior that makes it plain that we are to
believe and take to heart what Moses wrote; not wad it up and throw it in history's dust bin.
There is no other reasonable way to spin what Yeshua said. If we can't accept what Moses
wrote (and how can we know what Moses wrote without accepting its validity and carefully
studying it?), Christ questions how we are in any way capable of understanding and believing
what He says. The Torah is the foundation for what Christ proclaims. Take away the
foundation and the house will quickly collapse.
Here's the thing: when we read Paul's writings honestly and without prejudice, there is an
obvious tension between the type of righteousness that comes by obedience to the Law and
the type of righteousness that comes by trusting in Messiah. Where one kind of righteousness
begins and the other ends, there is not a stark line because there is overlap. As Christ says,
even His own essence and purpose is contained within The Law of Moses and in fact is its
goal. Not surprisingly because of this close inter-relation between Christ and The Law, The
Law of Moses from its inception required trusting and doing, just as salvation in Christ requires
trusting and doing.
Matthew 7:21-22 CJB 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants. 22 On that Day,
many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel
demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in your name?' 23 Then I will
tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of
lawlessness!'
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 23 - Chapter 10
Thus for The Law and for Christ, while doing the Word is commanded (following The Law) it
must be done in the context of trusting God; otherwise it is hollow and legalistic. But the next
question is, what is trusting? What, exactly, is this trust that Moses, Yeshua, Paul and others
say is a mandatory element of our relationship with God? In verse 9 Paul breaks it down into
two key components. Trusting is 1) a sincere inner belief in the nature and character of the
God of Israel, and 2) a sincere outer belief that is confirmed by proclaiming this belief in public
by means of confessing it. The Bible uses the metaphor of the heart as the location of this
sincere inner belief; and our mouth as the instrument to speak and profess the truth of The
Gospel outwardly. What are we to sincerely believe? First, that Yeshua is Lord and second that
God raised Him from the dead. And what happens when we do this? We are saved.
Continuing with the theme of heart and mouth as found in Deuteronomy 30, in Romans 10:10
Paul says the heart is involved because it is the repository of this trust that we have and thus it
is the engine that keeps our trust alive and well and functioning. Our mouth is used to continue
to make it known to others because it is the organ of communication among humans; we are
not to keep the Word of God, and the way to saving righteousness, only for ourselves.
We'll continue with Romans 10 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 24, Chapter 10 continued
Sometimes it is important to pause and take in the panoramic view of the landscape that we
have wandered by much too quickly. So as we all take a deep breath, it is my fervent hope that
by now in our study of the Book of Romans, even if you haven't yet fully embraced the Hebraic
Heritage approach to understanding the Bible, that it has become clear that the more standard
way that Romans has been taught over the centuries has a number of shortcomings. Sadly it is
not because the fine scholars who wrote these commentaries were not sufficiently educated or
because they intended to pass along incomplete or incorrect information. Instead it is that
some of them (sometimes without even realizing it) held a deeply ingrained anti-Jewish and
anti-Law worldview that was and remains as a fundamental belief and core doctrine of Western
Christianity; and it greatly colors not so much the details of their Scripture research but rather
their conclusions.
Thus most of what I have presented to you as Bible history and as proper translation of the
original Greek and Hebrew Bible manuscripts would in no way bother these great scholars and
commentators; however my conclusions would, of course, cause passionate disagreement
because these conclusions necessarily confront Church doctrines that they consider long ago
decided, untouchable, and sacrosanct. It takes much courage and fortitude on the part of
Believers like you to be open to hearing God's Word with some of the filters removed, and
thereby adding back in the natural Jewishness that was the inherent culture of the Bible; a
Jewish culture that has been intentionally downplayed and filtered out in order to impress upon
Christians that our faith is (allegedly) a thoroughly gentile one.
Because of our venture into the New Testament after spending so many valuable years in
God's Old Testament, we have many new listeners and readers so I want to reiterate a couple
of points so that no one misunderstands my intention or goal for how and what I teach. For
those who have studied the Torah and other parts of the Old Testament with me, I ask your
patience as you are already well aware of what I'm about to say. Seed of Abraham Torah
Class insists on a Hebraic Heritage approach (or Jewish Roots as you may prefer to call it) to
teaching the Bible because without it the all-important societal backdrop of the events it
records, and the mindset of the writers of the Bible who did the recording, is lost; and all the
writers except for probably Luke, were Hebrews. After being a rather garden variety
Evangelical Christian for the first 4 decades of my life, I became fully convicted that if one
reads and believes the Bible as God's divine Word to mankind, one cannot help but be led to
love Israel, recognizing God's limitless faithfulness and concern for them, and to embrace the
Jewish people as our elder brothers and sisters in the faith. Also it is immensely helpful to
finally comprehend that the Bible is a 100% Hebrew source-document. But when we accept
that then we must wrestle with just what that means for those of us who are gentiles.
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
Because of that reality (and more) Israel and the Holy Scriptures cannot be separated; they are
fully and permanently intertwined and dependent upon one another. Remove Israel from the
Holy Scriptures and they are gutted of context and humanity. Remove the Holy Scriptures from
Israel, and they are just another nation of people like all other nations; gentiles, worshipping
gods that don't exist and taking their cue from whatever despot might be leading them at the
time.
Yet God asks no gentile to become a Jew, or any Jew to become a gentile in order to partake
of His Word, of His covenants, and to worship Him as the one true God. And so that is the
position of this ministry. While we spend much of our funds and efforts and time comforting,
teaching and tangibly helping the people of Israel, and we spend a modest amount of time
studying the Judaism of Yeshua's and Paul's day along with learning about its colorful
traditions, by no means do we advocate Christians turning to Judaism or to living a modern␂day Jewish lifestyle in order to attain some hoped-for higher level of spiritual growth. That said
we have no issue with Judaism or Jewish lifestyle other than its blindness towards the advent
of their Messiah, Yeshua the Christ. In fact, we have adopted some Jewish traditions that we
find lovely, highly symbolic and meaningful, and most appropriate for celebrating many of the
Biblical holy days in light of the coming of our Jewish Savior.
So as we continue in our study of Romans, keep this in mind. The reason that I teach
somewhat different conclusions than most of the other Bible commentators is because we
have dared to unearth the authentic Jewish ways, meanings, understandings, and common
everyday expressions of 1st century Jewish society, and how they studied and worshipped in
Christ's era and how all of this shaped what they meant by what they said. These ways and
meanings both Yeshua and Paul would not only find familiar, but in fact they too operated
mostly the same. I maintain that with such understanding perhaps we can be ambassadors of
our Messiah who can help our brothers and sisters in the Church to repent of its anti-Semitism
and insistence upon maintaining ancient traditions created by gentile Bishops; traditions that
the writers of the Bible actually taught against.
I pray that even if you aren't certain that you can agree with what I just said you would give me
an opportunity to prove to you the merit of such an approach to God's Word. And the proof will
be this: what I tell you will be backed up with the Scriptures, in context, and it will glorify
Yeshua as our Lord and Messiah. If I'm telling you the truth it cannot help but do that. This is
because as an honest and informed reading of Romans has already shown us, Christ and the
Law of Moses cannot be seen as anything but two closely related and connected entities. Paul
insists that Christ is the goal, the essence, the underlying and overarching substance of The
Law of Moses. Why is this? Because Christ is the Word: the logos. And while since the
mid-3rd century the Bible has been expanded (at least for Christians) to include the New
Testament, prior to that time no such thing existed; only what we typically call the Old
Testament. When Yeshua, the Apostles Paul and John, and others referred to Messiah as the
Word, the only entity they knew as God's Word was the Old Testament that included the Law
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
of Moses.
John 1:1-5 CJB
CJB John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. 2
He was with God in the beginning. 3
All things came to be through him, and
without him nothing made had being. 4
In him was life, and the life was the light of
mankind. 5
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not suppressed it.
14 The Word became a human being and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah (glory),
the Sh'khinah (glory) of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.
And just to make clear His personal position on the continuing relevance of The Law and the
Old Testament Prophets, during His famous Sermon on the Mount Christ said this:
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB
17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to
abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I will tell you with just the tiniest bit of a devilish pride that as I led Israel tours I have asked
many an unsuspecting Pastor to read those words aloud while the tour group visited the Mount
of Beatitudes and watched as a deer in the headlights look came across his face. The Pastors
realized what they had just said and it is as though being in that place somehow made it alive
and real to them for the first time; and it opened their ears to hear and comprehend something
that they had never understood before. For some it lifted a huge burden; for others it caused
them to be faced with a painful choice: stick with the purely manmade doctrine of "The Law is
dead and gone" for Believers in order to satisfy their denominational leadership, or believe
what Christ plainly said at the very spot where they stood. You can make that same choice
exactly where you are sitting, and I think you know what you ought to do. But will you? I can
assure you that if you are still wavering, to believe Christ in this will lift a huge burden and set
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
you off on a path to a stronger and more beautiful relationship with Him and His Father than
you ever imagined.
As we delved into Romans chapter 10 last week, we found ourselves submerged in deep, but
yet rather fundamental, theology. First we learned that zeal for God does not equal, or
necessarily result in, salvation. Rather such zeal must be based upon correct understanding.
And that correct understanding begins with accepting God's Word as true, and culminates with
acknowledgment that Yeshua is our Lord and Savior. If we can't do that, then it is like revving
your engine at a stop light; it sounds impressive but you're going nowhere.
Next we learned that there are essentially two different kinds of righteousness; both kinds are
legitimate and both kinds are to be present in us. One kind is the saving kind and it is superior
to the other kind; it is the kind of righteousness that is given to us as a free gift from God. It
comes not by anything we can physically do; it doesn't involve our human deeds or works.
Rather it comes from our trust in God's Son as Messiah. It is the kind (the only kind) that gives
redemption and eternal life and it is based upon God's great mercy and grace. The other kind
of righteousness comes from our physically doing things, our behaviors, that please God. That
is, it indeed flows from our deeds and works. It comes from our being obedient to The Law of
Moses. It would not be incorrect to call it a self-righteousness; but self in a positive and not a
negative sense. Even so this kind of righteousness, while good and pleasing to God, does not
save because indeed it is something that we do and thus it cannot be pure enough or perfect
enough or even achieve the proper requirement to be saved. We cannot substitute one kind of
righteousness for the other; and as Believers, we cannot just strive for one kind or the other
kind of righteousness. Our obedience and doing righteous deeds in God's eyes is the
expected response for Him having given us the gift of a saving righteousness.
After that we found that in John 5:46 & 47 Christ said something rather dramatic that can catch
us off guard. It is so amazingly foundational and yet equally amazingly overlooked; it is that we
are incapable of believing Him fully, because we can't possibly understand Him fully if we
have not FIRST believed Moses. What did Moses record for us to believe? The Torah; and the
Law of Moses within its pages. For Jews this meant that to properly believe Moses (an
expression that means The Law of Moses) they must see that Messiah is The Law's goal and
aim. If they can't comprehend that they will not be capable of believing Christ (and that is
precisely what happened with the bulk of the Jewish people). On the other hand, for gentiles it
means that while we might THINK we can fully understand Yeshua by never venturing outside
the Gospels and the New Testament, Christ says that's not possible. If you can't believe
Moses, then you can't believe Him. And you can't begin to believe Moses if you refuse to
even know what he said. As a personal witness I can verify the truth of that. I have learned
more about Christ and how to live a redeemed life from knowing the Old Testament than I ever
knew before I did. And I have heard the testimonies of countless Believers who say the same
thing. This is because The Torah and The Law are the foundation for understanding the need
for, and the teaching of, Messiah. The Torah, The Law, and the Prophets provide the
prerequisite context for understanding what we read in the New Testament about Messiah.
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
Without that, we may be self assured that we understand what Yeshua, Paul, John and others
are telling us; but we don't. We can't. And with a far more elegant simplicity than I could ever
construct, Christ said this exact thing in John 5:46 and 47.
John 5:46-47 CJB
46 For if you really believed Moshe, you would believe me; because it
was about me that he wrote. 47 But if you don't believe what he wrote, how are you going
to believe what I say?"
Believe it and act upon it for your own good.
And finally in our last lesson Paul taught us that true belief must reside within us, and yet it
must be confirmed with what comes out of our mouths. So there must be a sincere inner belief
accompanied by an equally sincere outer belief. The location of our inner belief is our heart
(meaning, actually, our mind since the heart organ was in that day thought to be where our
intellect resided). The location of our outer belief is our mouth. And from our mouth we profess
our inner belief to others. But listen again to what Paul said about what happens when we
profess with our mouth.
Romans 10:10 CJB ....while with the mouth one keeps on making public
acknowledgement and thus continues toward deliverance.
For Paul this outward verbal expression of our faith was not an option; or as I hear often today
from Christians that when it comes to salvation there are Biblical commands that are a "non␂essential" (so why do them?). Confession with our mouths that Yeshua is Lord is not a "non␂essential". But there is something else as well: there is something powerful about speech and
the spoken word. A passionate speech can move a nation to better things. Or a passionate
speech can move people to war. A well spoken word can transmit light into the dark recesses
of people's minds. God spoke the Universe into existence. So never underestimate the power
of the spoken word. The idea that our faith is so private and personal that we have no
obligation to speak it to others is a false notion. For Paul, if you won't confess your faith
publically, you are not the Lord's. And if you won't confess it publically, you are not fulfilling
your calling as one of God's elect to tell others about the Good News that saved you.
Let's continue with Romans chapter 10.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 10:9 – end
Let's spend some time with yet another theological principle that Paul presents us with that on
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
the surface sounds straightforward enough, but actually it is not at all. It is complex but it is
also worth the time to explore because there is more to it than meets the eye.
In verse 9 Paul says that in order to be saved we have to acknowledge that Yeshua is Lord;
simple enough. But what does it mean to Paul that Yeshua is Lord? Is Yeshua His master? Is
Yeshua his boss and activity director? In Greek the word that is being translated as lord is
kurios. It is the equivalent of the Hebrew word adonai, and in its simplest sense it means
master. Kurios, adonai, master and lord are equivalents. Your master, your lord, is someone
who holds the power of deciding over you. It is also a generic term of respect and honor, and
of itself it has no connection to religion or deity. However for Paul it meant something special.
But what? This has been a debate within Christianity for hundreds of years. What I want to do
rather than giving you the several alternatives (which could take a very long time) is to get to
the bottom line (which itself isn't a short discussion). It is this: in the Tanach (which is the
Hebrew word for what gentiles call the Old Testament) God's formal name, which is formed by
the Hebrew letters Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh, and which I pronounce Yehoveh but it is more widely
pronounced as Yahweh, is used over 6000 times in the original text. And yet, that is not
actually how our English Bibles read. The English equivalent or translation of Yud-Heh-Vav␂Hey is Jehovah. And at best you'll find Jehovah in an English Old Testament a handful of
times; a few dozen at most. Rather, because of a Jewish superstition against saying God's
name out loud (or even writing it) that began around 300 B.C. Jews started saying HaShem
(the name), or Eloah (God), or Adonai (Lord) or a couple of other Hebrew words in place of
saying His formal name.
In Hebrew Bible study when dealing with Scripture passages there is a technique called kethiv
and qere. Kethiv means "what is written" and qere means "what is read". That is, the
kethiv of a Hebrew word is to pronounce it just as it is written in the original Scriptures. But the
qere is to move around some of the letters for the original word, or even to substitute a
different word altogether for what is written in the original Scriptures rather than pronouncing it
as written. So whenever Jews come to the letters Yud-Heh-Vav-Hey in the Bible (God's formal
name), they do not use the kethiv (which would be to pronounce Yehoveh, just as it is written);
instead when they see those 4 Hebrew letters they pronounce the words HaShem, Eloah,
Adonai, or something else. It is not that any of those is an alternative way to pronounce Yud␂Heh-Vav-Heh; they represent authorized substitutes (all manmade of course). Thus, while
Hebrew speakers know this and follow this principle, non-Hebrew speakers or novices do not.
So in most English translations, what we see is that the Bible translator more or less follows
the Hebrew qere and uses a substitute word when he translates God's formal name.
That means that when we look in our Old Testaments and (when referring to God's name) we
see "the Lord said this" or "God did that", 99% of the time the original text uses God's formal
name: Yehoveh (the letters Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh). The Greek translation of the Bible does the
same thing. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is called the Septuagint, and it was
created 250 years before Christ was born. What the Septuagint does is to substitute the word
kurios every time God's formal name appears. While the Hebrews did not disturb the
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
Scriptures and instead left God's formal name intact where it was found in the original, often
they wrote the preferred qere word (HaShem, Adonai) in the margins of the page or scroll,
thereby telling the reader what word he should use instead. However the Greek Septuagint
took a different approach. The Septuagint went ahead and removed God's formal name from
the Scriptures and substituted the word kurios (Lord). So when reading the Septuagint (the
Greek Old Testament) the word Lord (kurios) is used over 6000 times when referring to God.
Often we can tell by Paul's Scripture quotes when he is quoting the Hebrew Tanach versus
when is quoting the Greek Septuagint (and at times when he is just paraphrasing) because of
differences in how those same passages were transmitted over time in the Septuagint versus
the Tanach. And so the evidence is that when Paul uses the term Jesus is Lord, he means
Lord in the same sense as it is used 6000 times in the Septuagint; he is equating Yeshua to
God. So the evidence is that Paul, as did most Diaspora Jews, used the Greek Septuagint as
his personal Bible rather than the Hebrew Tanach. Thus when Paul says to confess that
Yeshua is Lord he means Lord in the sense of how it is mostly used in the Septuagint: as a
substitute for the name of God. And yet, clearly Paul differentiates Yeshua from God the
Father. That is, Paul does not see Yeshua as God the Father. To use C.E.B. Cranfield's
definition, Paul intends to communicate that Jesus is Lord meaning that Yeshua "shares the
name and the nature, holiness, the authority, power, majesty and eternity of the one and only
true God". It is Paul's way of emphasizing the divine essence of Yeshua. This is important;
because the Hebrew term messiah (Christ or Savior in English) in no way indicates a divine
nature. Messiah in the 2nd Temple period is both a person and a function; it is the one who is
anointed by God to rescue Israel from its oppressors and to restore Israel's fortunes. So in the
Jewish mindset (Paul's mindset) saying that Yeshua is the Messiah (Jesus is the Christ)
merely means that He is the deliverer of Israel, but only in a physical and political way. Not as
a superhuman or as a god, but rather as a highly effective human warrior leader. To be clear:
Jesus is Lord versus Jesus is Messiah is two entirely different things; Paul sees Yeshua as
both. By Paul adding the attribute that Jesus is Lord to the equation means that on the one
hand Yeshua is the human being that leads Israel out of its physical and political oppression to
Rome; but on the other hand it also means that He is divine and bears the substance and
authority of the God of Israel. Paul's meaning was well understood within Jewish circles. So
Jesus is Lord is not a throw-away or an extra high degree term of respect; it is a critical
theological assertion about who Yeshua is, and His purpose. He is divine and of essentially the
same substance as Yehoveh: God the Father. And He has come to deliver His people.
For most, but not all, forms of Christianity, this concept of who Christ is is taken for granted.
But for Judaism in Paul's day, such a possibility was controversial. However the idea that the
Messiah of Israel could be both human and divine (something that modern Jews say is
idolatry) was accepted by a significant segment of mainstream Judaism in Paul's day. So he
wasn't alone in this belief nor did he invent the idea. What kept Paul in hot water with the
Jewish community was his constantly rubbing elbows with gentiles and even offering them the
benefits of the Jewish Messiah.....without them converting and becoming Jews.
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
This belief of Paul's that both Jews and gentiles could benefit equally from Yeshua's position
as Lord and Savior is expressed in verse 12 when he says that there is no difference between
Jew and gentile; that everyone who calls on Him will be delivered (saved). Most of that verse is
a quote from the Book of Joel. We find in Joel chapter 3 these words:
CJB Joel 3:5 At that time, whoever calls on the name of ADONAI will be saved. For in
Mount Tziyon and Yerushalayim there will be those who escape, as ADONAI has
promised; among the survivors will be those whom ADONAI has called.
Do not let something slip past you; notice the context of this Old Testament statement. It
concerns a time when Jerusalem is under siege and a great conflict is underway that precedes
the dreaded Day of the Lord. It equates to what Christians call Armageddon. While Joel, on the
surface, applies this to Israel, Paul says it means that and something deeper. So using the
rabbinical derash method of Bible interpretation Paul says it applies not only to Israel but also
to all human beings; all human beings, Jew or gentile, who call on the name of God will be
saved from the great conflict. Remember what we have learned: for Paul this apocalypse was
imminent.....it could happen tomorrow. In fact he certainly expected it before his life span
ended, which no doubt is why he chose this particular Scripture reference to make his point.
However the larger point was that gentiles were perfectly capable of trusting, as much as were
Jews. And thus gentiles are as perfectly capable of receiving God's mercy and grace as is
Israel, and being saved.
Paul then sets up a fascinating series of 4 questions that act like consecutive links in a chain.
But before we discuss them, we have to ask the question: who is Paul addressing this to? That
is when verse 14 begins: "But how can they call on someone if they haven't trusted in
him?" Who is "they"? So is "they" the Jews that Paul has been primarily talking to since
chapter 7? Or has he switched and is now addressing gentiles? Or is "they" entirely general
and he is addressing Jews and gentiles? A fair argument can be made for any of these
viewpoints so Paul has made himself quite unclear to those of us who live hundreds of years
after his time. However he wasn't thinking about 100 years into the future, let alone 2000
years. He was addressing people in Rome and dealing with specific issues that existed in his
day, in the context of current events. Therefore I think it is most reasonable to see him as
continuing to aim this primarily at the Jewish members of the Rome congregation.
Paul returns then to the typical rabbinical method of creating a straw man to debate a point.
These 4 questions are brought by Paul's straw man to try to show that Israel cannot be saved
by Messiah due to their lack of faithfulness to God, and Paul will refute each question more or
less one by one. What the straw man wants to prove is that it isn't really Israel's fault that they
aren't recognizing Yeshua as their Messiah, and thus are not calling on His name, because
they didn't have a fair opportunity to do so for several reasons. Paul pushes back by saying
that Israel has had all the opportunity needed, along with all the advantages attendant to being
God's chosen people, to hear the message and be saved but they wouldn't do it. Even so
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 continued
fault and blame are beside the point; God is so perfectly faithful that He is merely following
through with His promise to save Israel despite their hard hearts, deaf ears and rebellion, and
that's what Yeshua's purpose is.
Each of the straw man's questions basically says that in order for Israel to call upon Christ to
be saved, 4 things needed to happen first. And then he implies that these 4 things never
happened. First, says the straw man, it is self-evident that Israel could only have called on the
name of Messiah if they had already believed in Him as the Messiah. But, second, they could
only have believed in Him as Messiah if they first had the opportunity to know about Him. And,
third, how could they have known about Him if no one was sent to tell them about Him? And,
fourth, since this message of deliverance was from God, how could there be someone sent to
announce the Messiah if God Himself didn't appoint a special person for the task and give him
the message, the means, and the authority to deliver it? The straw man even draws upon
Scripture to make his case that somebody had to deliver the Good News or no one would
know about it. No doubt this passage also makes a strong case that the only people who are
authorized to carry the message from God about the Good News (the Gospel) are those whom
God has called. And whom has God called? The seed of Abraham. And who are the seed of
Abraham? Believers in the Messiah Yeshua, Jew and gentile. Folks, it is us who are being
referred to. We have been commissioned by God, through the means of our own salvation, to
tell those who are waiting for someone to bring the Good News to them.
Next time we'll see how Paul responded to each of these questions from his straw man
opponent.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 25, Chapters 10 and 11
We'll complete Romans chapter 10 and get started on chapter 11 today.
When we left off, Paul's straw man had just asked a series of 4 questions. These questions
are in the form of objections to what Paul has been claiming about Israel, the Messiah, and
salvation. We find these questions in chapter 10 verses 14 and 15.
Romans 10:14-15 CJB
14 But how can they call on someone if they haven't trusted in him? And how can they
trust in someone if they haven't heard about him? And how can they hear about
someone if no one is proclaiming him?
15 And how can people proclaim him unless God sends them?- as the Tanakh puts it,
"How beautiful are the feet of those announcing good news about good things!"
Let's understand the purpose of Paul's straw man. Since Paul is not present in Rome and
instead is writing the congregation of Rome a letter (Paul is probably writing this letter in
Corinth); and since Paul is a highly trained religious specialist who has been taught a specific
discipline and method on how to interpret Scripture, he understands the need for debate as
part of any intellectually honest dialogue about discerning Biblical truth. But of course a letter is
not a dialogue (two people conversing) it is a one-way street. A letter is by nature a monologue
(one person making a series of statements). So in order to make it a debate (which by
definition requires at least two different viewpoints, usually by two different people), Paul
creates a non-existent debate opponent: a straw man. So it is Paul who puts the contrary
words into the mouth of his make-believe opponent; words that Paul sees as representative of
how his learned Jewish opponents might respond to his teaching.
Therefore we have Paul make a statement, and then the straw man responds by opposing it.
Paul refutes what the straw man says and then makes another statement, and again the straw
man opposes it. Paul refutes the straw man's objection.....and so on, and so on. Each time
Paul quotes Scripture to make his case (meaning, of course, the Old Testament since a New
Testament would not exist for another 150 years after Paul's death). But in the matter of this
series of 4 opposing responses of the straw man, the straw man quotes Scripture right back at
Paul when he says: "How beautiful are the feet of those announcing good news about
good things."
Starting at verse 16, Paul makes his defense against the 4 assertions of the straw man. Paul
will continue using this back and forth method in his letter to portray a lively debate. He is NOT
trying to fool the recipients of his letter; this is simply a well known rabbinic style of his time.
Before we read Paul's response I want to sum-up the straw man's series of objections. It is
1 / 8
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
this: first, Paul claims that the only way for Jews to be right with God is to call upon the name
of Paul's Messiah. But how can a Jew call upon Paul's Messiah if they don't trust in that
Messiah as Messiah? Second, how can Jews be expected to trust in a Messiah that they'd
never heard about? Third, how can Israel ever hear about the Messiah if no one proclaims this
Messiah to them? And fourth, since a Messiah is by definition God-sent, then one would
expect that it would be God who would send a messenger to announce him. So if God hasn't
assigned someone to the task (and there is no evidence or public knowledge that He did), then
knowledge of a Messiah is impossible. Conclusion: if Israel really has rejected the true
Messiah then Israel can't be held accountable for it; God is at fault.
OK. So now Paul fires back at the straw man.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 10:16 – end
In verse 16 Paul says that Israel has heard the Good News but they haven't paid any attention
to it. And to back up his statement he uses Isaiah 53. In truth, what he quotes is a paraphrase
and not an actual quote of Isaiah 53:1. Nonetheless, as usual, the expectation is that his
listeners will know the Scripture passage and understand the context. So as good Bible
students, we are going to read the passage from Isaiah to understand Paul's intent. Be aware
that what we are about to read directly relates to the Messiah. Modern Judaism refuses to
accept Isaiah 53 as about a person and rather the claim is that the suffering servant we'll read
about (that is the subject of the chapter) is not the Messiah but rather it is the nation of Israel.
READ ISAIAH CHAPTER 53 all
Paul's rebuttal to the straw man is that the problem was not that Israel didn't know about the
Good News. The Good News was delivered to Israel but they paid no attention to it. This
couldn't be more highlighted than the Scripture passage Paul chose: Isaiah 53. How Judaism
could deny that the subject of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah (no matter who that Messiah might be),
and instead to claim that this chapter is a description of the nation of Israel is a mystery. But
the mystery starts to dissipate when we understand that just as Christianity's goal for centuries
has been to the turn the Bible on its head and insist that gentiles have replaced Hebrews as
God's chosen people, no matter how emphatic and clear the Scriptures are to the contrary
(OT and NT), so it is for Jews with Isaiah 53. No matter how obvious and self-evident this
chapter in Isaiah might be to any non-partial reader that it speaks about a person (a Messiah)
and not a nation, and how astonishingly detailed it gets about this person and how it precisely
fits the character and experiences of Yeshua of Nazareth, Jews since Paul's day have refused
to accept it for what it is and have taken preposterous positions to deflect its reality. Why?
Because just as institutional Christianity wants no Jew to be part of the Christian faith, so Jews
don't want to hold any sort of similar view about a Messiah with gentile Christians. And there is
no length to which either side won't go to achieve their agendas. Distorting God's Word has
become a pawn in a game of one up-man-ship for both sides. It has both disturbed me and
energized me for the past 2 decades to do something about it, no matter how unpopular it
might be from both sides of the fence. This situation is why Seed of Abraham Ministries exists.
In verse 17 Paul deals with an intermediate step between the Good News being spoken and it
2 / 8
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
being believed. That is, the message must also be heard. We need to think of the term "heard"
in its Hebrew sense. The Hebrew word for heard is shema. Shema means to listen and do
what you hear. So faith in Yeshua comes about by hearing the message of the Gospel and
doing it; and the hearing of the Gospel comes through Messiah's Word brought to people by
God's messengers. Who are God's messengers? His Believers. Once again this points up
one of the primary tasks that all worshippers of Yeshua have; to tell others about the Good
News.
So now in verse 18 the straw man responds to Paul's last comment and insists that part of the
problem of Israel not accepting Yeshua is that Israel didn't hear the message. To which Paul
responds: no....they DID hear. And he backs up his statement with a passage from Psalm 19.
But as always, we get so much more from what Paul intends to impart when we do what the
Jews would have done: they remember the entire Scripture passage and not just the short
reference verse that the writer gives them.
READ PSALM 19 all
Notice something important about Paul's choice of Scripture. He is saying that Israel DID hear
the Gospel, and they heard it through the awesome reality of God's Creation. But even more
they also heard it more specifically in God's Torah. Therefore they had the Good News about
a Messiah delivered to them by two entirely different avenues: by the Heavens themselves and
by means of Moses, the first Mediator. Israel is without excuse and the straw man's
accusation is once again proved wrong. Notice that the final words of the final verse in this
Psalm are: May the words of my mouth and the thoughts of my heart be acceptable in
your presence, ADONAI, my Rock and Redeemer. So here this Psalm ends with speaking
of God as the Redeemer, which of course is the entire subject of the Gospel. It all ties together.
However, the straw man still isn't convinced so in verse 19 he concedes that perhaps Israel
did hear; so the problem was that they didn't understand what they heard. Paul responds only
with Scripture: Deuteronomy 32 and then Isaiah 65. It is interesting that the context of the
Deuteronomy passage is the Song of Moses. Moses spoke this to the entire congregation of
Israel a short time before he died. Here is some of his speech; just the pertinent section:
Deuteronomy 32:18-31 CJB
18 You ignored the Rock who fathered you, you forgot God, who gave you birth.
19 "ADONAI saw and was filled with scorn at his sons' and daughters' provocation.
20 He said, 'I will hide my face from them and see what will become of them; for they are
a perverse generation, untrustworthy children. 21 They aroused my jealousy with a non␂god and provoked me with their vanities; I will arouse their jealousy with a non-people
and provoke them with a vile nation. 22 "'For my anger has been fired up. It burns to the
depths of Sh'ol, devouring the earth and its crops, kindling the very roots of the hills. 23 I
will heap disasters on them and use up all my arrows against them.
3 / 8
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
24 "'Fatigued by hunger, they will be consumed by fever and bitter defeat; I will send
them the fangs of wild beasts, and the poison of reptiles crawling in the dust.
25 Outside, the sword makes parents childless; inside, there is panic, as young men and
girls alike are slain, sucklings and graybeards together. 26 "'I considered putting an end
to them, erasing their memory from the human race; 27 but I feared the insolence of their
enemy, feared that their foes would mistakenly think, "We ourselves accomplished this;
ADONAI had nothing to do with it."
28 "'They are a nation without common sense, utterly lacking in discernment. 29 If they
were wise they could figure it out and understand their destiny. 30 After all, how can one
chase a thousand and two put ten thousand to rout, unless their Rock sells them to
their enemies, unless ADONAI hands them over?
31 For our enemies have no rock like our Rock- even they can see that!
This is a Messianic passage; notice how it begins speaking about The Rock, and ends with
speaking about the Rock. The Rock, of course, is a biblical word that has to do with the
Redeemer and redemption. In the middle verses of this passage is Paul's central point; it is
that because Israel has rebelled, God will eventually go to a non-people (meaning not
Hebrews.....gentiles) with His message and these gentiles who have historically not been
God's elect will make Israel jealous because they now have the Word from Israel's God.
Paul follows that up in Romans chapter 10 verses 20 and 21 with a passage from Isaiah 65.
The expanded passage Paul is referring to reads:
Isaiah 65:1-7 CJB
CJB Isaiah 65:1 "I made myself accessible to those who didn't ask for me, I let myself be
found by those who didn't seek me. I said, 'Here I am! Here I am!' to a nation not called
by my name.
2
I spread out my hands all day long to a rebellious people who live in a way that is not
good, who follow their own inclinations; 3
a people who provoke me to my face all the
time, sacrificing in gardens and burning incense on bricks. 4
They sit among the graves
and spend the night in caverns; they eat pig meat and their pots hold soup made from
disgusting things. 5
They say, 'Keep your distance, don't come near me, because I am
holier than you.' These are smoke in my nose, a fire that burns all day!
6
See, it is written before me; I will not be silent until I repay them; I will repay them to
the full,
7
your own crimes and those of your ancestors together," says ADONAI. "They offered
incense on the mountains and insulted me on the hills. First I will measure out their
wages and then repay them in full."
4 / 8
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
God is essentially saying: My People knew, but they chose to be disobedient. They made
themselves unclean by going into grave yards and by eating non-kosher food (pig meat). They
told God not to come near to them, because they were holier than He. But the Lord says there
will be a consequence for their disobedience; and the consequence is that He will allow the
gentiles (a nation not called by His Name) to know Him too.
Bottom line: Israel is guilty, guilty, guilty. They knew the Lord and His Word by any number of
means. The Lord, in His mercy, nonetheless kept holding his arms and hands out and open to
embracing Israel. They rejected Him; He didn't reject them.
This chapter closes with an unanswered question that any reasonable person would ask: if
Israel is so guilty, and God is so angry with them that He is within an eyelash of simply
destroying them such that in response to their apostasy He has made Himself known to other
people (gentiles), then what else can this mean but that God has closed the book on the
Hebrews and moved on by taking an entire new group as His chosen: gentile Believers in
Christ? And if chapter 10 ended Paul's Letter to the Romans, this would be a very reasonable
conclusion for the Church to make. But this doesn't end the letter; there is much more to go.
So let's see what more Paul has to say on this devastating indictment against Israel and the
Jewish people. Open your Bibles to Romans chapter 11. I don't mind saying that for a number
of reasons this is the chapter that I have been yearning to teach you. In fact, this is why I
elected to teach Romans in the first place. If all I had time to teach in the Book of Romans was
one chapter, this would be the one. But fortunately we have had the time to go carefully,
deeply, slowly into these inspired words; so now we have an extensive background for what
Paul is about to say and no excuse to misunderstand. If over the centuries the Church had only
heard and believed Paul in Romans 11, we would be a very different, more spiritually powerful
and effective body today.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 11 all
I said at the end of chapter 10 that the large unanswered question was left lingering. But it only
has the feel of lingering because of the eventual inclusions of chapter and verse markers,
since the opening words of chapter 11 ask the $64,000 question: "In that case, I say, isn't it
that God has repudiated His people?" The KJV asks the question this way: "I say then,
hath God cast away His people?" And in the much more widespread manner it is translated
in such Bibles as the RSV and the NIV: "I say then, has God not rejected His people?" I
have no bone to pick with any of these translations because they all put across the same
sentiment, which is: it is unfathomable to imagine that because Israel has had a long history of
rebelliousness that God didn't finally, once and for all, walk away from them and move His
election to someone else. The good rabbi, Paul, says to this suggestion: "Heaven forbid". I'll
reword this so that there can be no mistake: Paul says that God did NOT reject His people.
Proof of this fact is that Paul himself is an Israelite who is a seed of Abraham; specifically his
heritage is from the tribe of Benjamin. In the sense Paul is using the term "seed of Abraham" it
has a double (a Remez) meaning. That is, it has the plain sense meaning and a deeper
meaning. On one level it is to say that he is the spiritual seed of Abraham who is
5 / 8
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
representative of the covenant promise of salvation. On another level it is to make the point
that he is a flesh and blood Hebrew; he is not a converted gentile (that is, his ancestry is not of
a gentile family who at some point in the past joined Israel). He is an actual blood descendant
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore Paul is living proof that God has not cast off His
people. He is a hereditary member of Israel, but he is also part of the "true" Israel (true Israel
is the spiritual seed). Thus since Christ certainly would not have chosen a cast-off and divinely
rejected Jew (a rejected physical seed) to be His special envoy to the gentile world, this is
tangible proof that Israel has not been cast off as God's chosen people.
The core subject of this ongoing debate between Paul and his straw man is crucial for our
theology and it affects Believers in the most profound and practical way. Because if God has
indeed rejected His people, Israel, due to their unfaithfulness, then God has broken His
promises to them. The consequences of God doing such a thing are so far-reaching that they
are almost too dreadful to contemplate. Let's look at a few places in the Bible where God
promised Israel that such a thing as Him breaking His promises to them would never happen.
CJB 1 Samuel 12:22 For the sake of his great reputation, ADONAI will not abandon his
people; because it has pleased ADONAI to make you a people for himself.
CJB Psalm 94:14 For ADONAI will not desert his people, he will not abandon his heritage.
Jeremiah 33:23-26 CJB 23 This word of ADONAI came to Yirmeyahu: 24 "Haven't you
noticed that these people are saying, 'ADONAI has rejected the two families he chose'?
Hence they despise my people and no longer look at them as a nation. 25 Here is what
ADONAI says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and fixed the
laws for sky and earth,
26 then I will also reject the descendants of Ya'akov and of my servant David, not
choosing from his descendants people to rule over the descendants of Avraham,
Yis'chak and Ya'akov. For I will cause their captives to come back, and I will show them
compassion.'"
I will again make the argument that I think Paul would have made had he envisioned a day in
the future when the bulk of the Christian world would enthusiastically and naively declare that
the Torah and the Law of Moses are abolished, and the Jewish people are abandoned as
God's chosen right along with the Old Testament. To put it another way: that God has taken
away the covenants He made with the Hebrews and transferred them to gentiles. The
argument I make is this: if God would make what seems to be an ironclad, unconditional
promise to the Hebrews over the ages....one He repeats time and again.... that He will NEVER
forsake His people; will NEVER abandon His heritage, Israel; and then suddenly He does.....
then why would gentile Christians feel confident and secure that God would not find a reason
to abandon us despite His many promises? Remember what Paul said back in Romans
chapter 8?
Romans 8:35-39 CJB
6 / 8
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
35 Who will separate us from the love of the Messiah? Trouble? Hardship? Persecution?
Hunger? Poverty? Danger? War? 36 As the Tanakh puts it, "For your sake we are being
put to death all day long, we are considered sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these
things we are superconquerors, through the one who has loved us. 38 For I am
convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor other heavenly rulers, neither
what exists nor what is coming, 39 neither powers above nor powers below, nor any
other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God which comes to us
through the Messiah Yeshua, our Lord.
Before quoting this NT passage I quoted to you very similar Old Testament promises to Israel
that much of the Church says God has backed away from. So why should we rely so heavily,
and sleep peacefully, based on what Paul said in Romans 8? Can we be so arrogant as to
believe that gentile Christians are better people and perhaps have more merit than the
Israelites had? Or that God's promise to gentiles is somehow more secure than His promise to
Israel? Or that we could never be as rebellious or unfaithful as His "former" chosen? Or that
we will have our salvation judged as a group of people and not as individuals? What do I say
that? Because as Christians are fond to assert as a foundational doctrine, God rejected the
Jews as an entire group because the Jews (as an entire group) rejected their Messiah. And yet
the Bible is clear that not all Jews as a group rejected Yeshua. We read in Acts of thousands
upon thousands of Jews being the very first to accept the salvation offered by Christ. So if we
are going to assume that God accepts or rejects people for salvation based upon the majority
action of the entire group that we belong to, then gentiles (as a group) are in a very precarious
position because certainly not all gentiles have accepted Christ, have they? In fact throughout
history the vast majority of gentiles have rejected the Messiah. So what makes gentiles (as a
group) any less liable to being rejected by God than the Jews if the standard is that however
the majority of the group chooses to deal with Christ will decide the eternal fate of all?
Thanks be to God we can be confident of our salvation because God did NOT renege on His
promise to His original elect, Israel, nor did He create a new and different elect, the gentile
Church. And we can be certain that the opportunity for salvation is not offered or held back
according to what group we belong to (Jews or gentiles) or how others within our group might
choose.
I want to inject something here that while it might sound trivial (perhaps even a bit confusing), it
is most important for us as worshippers of Yeshua to understand and to combat, and it is
especially so for us living in this age when Messiah's return seems to be so near. When
speaking of Believers in Christ as opposed to followers of Judaism, the usual terminology is
Christians on the one side and Jews on the other. And yet, many Jews are Believers in Christ.
Often I'll hear informed Believers say: the Bible says that Jews were the first Christians. And
yet, since the 2nd century A.D., the term Jewish Christian is seen an oxymoron. That is,
Jewishness and Christianity are no longer seen as compatible within the same person; it would
be like calling someone a Muslim Christian. Thus even though we don't realize it,
subconsciously what we MEAN and what we mentally picture when we use the terms
Christians and Jews is a group of gentiles who follow Christ versus the Jewish people in
general. It is just further proof that despite many Christians denying it, Christianity is indeed
seen in the eyes of the Church itself, and most definitely of Jews and other religions of the
7 / 8
Romans Lesson 25 - Chapters 10 & 11
world, as a religion of, by, and for gentiles. And thus should a Jewish person want to follow
Christ (they want to be a "Christian") then quite naturally they have to give up their Jewishness
and identify more as gentiles.....since Christ followers (Christians) are seen by most of the world
as gentiles. Nothing has done more to help keep Jews from accepting their Messiah than this
perception.
You see, the natural opposite of Jews is NOT Christians; it is gentiles. The term Jews doesn't
necessarily indicate a devotion to the religion of Judaism anymore than the term gentiles
indicate a devotion to the religion of Christianity; and it never has. It is only because of the
slanderous Church doctrine created by some of the early Church Fathers (all gentles of
course) that God has rejected and abandoned Israel (the Jews) and instead has elected and
embraced Christians (gentiles according to the Church) that this divisive mindset even exists. It
is a wrong mindset that Paul has been concerned about and is fighting against it as false
theology; trying to nip it in the bud before it could take root. Paul would be aghast if he was
suddenly resurrected and plopped down into the 21st century and saw it in action; he'd
probably take it as a personal failure.
The entire Book of Romans has Paul refuting a division of Jews from Christians, and a division
between Jewish Believers and gentile Believers. And now as we study Romans Chapter 11,
Paul is going to great lengths to help us understand what God's view is of Jews and gentiles
as regards redemption, and especially of those from among those two groups who, by faith,
have chosen to put their trust in Messiah Yeshua. It is ironic that for centuries Christianity has
pictured a Jew who accepts Christ as one who naturally jumps from being a Jew to being a
gentile. In fact, the infamous Spanish Inquisition sought to ferret out those Jews who had not
made that required jump. But now in modern times a new false doctrine has arisen; some
among the Jewish Roots movement picture a gentile who accepts Christ as one who of course
jumps from being a gentile to being a Jew. However such a position is not biblically sound as
Paul says over and over again: in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and gentile. But,
because we are all human beings, when a gentile Christian hears Paul say that, he or she
thinks: "Good; now that Jew is going to be more like us gentiles!" But when a Jewish Believer
hears Paul say it, he or she thinks: "Good; now that gentile is going to be more like us Jews!"
So as we continue in Romans 11, think hard about the English terms that are used, what they
mean to your mind, and then do your best to shut down those mental filters that cause us to
make assumptions that aren't true and conjure up mental pictures that give us false
impressions of biblical intent and reality. In many cases Paul is not so much trying to give us
new information; he is trying to get us to unlearn wrong assumptions and doctrine in order to
relearn right doctrine. However as is evident in Paul's missionary journeys, unlearning is a
much harder thing for people to do and many can be passionately resistant to it. Unlearning
also requires much explanation, definition of terms, and patience. So as we go through
Romans 11, much explanation will be presented to you. We have much unlearning yet ahead
of us. So be open and be patient. God has a lot to teach us in this chapter.
We'll continue with Romans 11 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 26, Chapter 11
Perhaps the most perplexing tradition in the history of Christianity to try and understand is why
the majority of the Church sincerely believes that God has rejected Israel as His chosen people
and replaced them with gentile Christians. From a biblical standpoint Israel is the focus of
God's plan of redemption, Old and New Testaments, therefore such a view cannot be
supported because just the opposite is stated time and again in no uncertain language. Thus
the source of the dysfunction defaults to manmade Christian doctrines, agenda-driven
Theology, political considerations, and a healthy helping of anti-Jewish bigotry.
Bigotry and hate is always wrong no matter who it is directed at. Bigotry is sinful because it
violates God's fundamental commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. However to
harbor a prejudice and even hatred towards the Jewish people bears a far greater
consequence, temporally and eternally, because God has set this particular people apart from
all others in the history of the world as specially loved and protected by Him. Warning after
warning God issues to gentiles for treating His people badly; and for trying to take from them
what He has given them as a permanent inheritance. Over the centuries that "taking" usually
manifested itself in the seizing of Israel's land. But an even worse thievery is when gentile
Christians attempt to take the Jew's spiritual heritage away from them; and that is precisely
what Replacement Theology (Supersessionism) does.
I've spoken to countless Christian lay people and pastors about Replacement Theology and
interestingly I don't think I've ever had anyone own up to it. Many will readily explain that
Jews killed Christ, or that the Jews rejected Jesus so God rejected them. That is usually
followed up by explaining that the reason the Old Testament is no longer relevant is because it
concerns Israel, and Israel is God's people of the past; the New Testament elects the Church
and thus God's new people of the present and future. Bottom line: Christians don't hate Israel
but Israel has lost their place in salvation history, are worthy of scorn and suspicion, and God
has turned His special favor to gentile Christians in this era. Among some, Israel has also lost
its right to the Promised Land.
Anyone hearing this that holds such a worldview needs to listen very carefully to Romans 11;
and I hope it leads to repentance. But let me be clear; the entire New Testament supports
Israel as God's continuing chosen people. So even if Romans 11 didn't exist, any bigotry
against the Jewish people or any notion that election as God's own has been transferred to
some other people is still refuted within the various books of the New Testament. What makes
Romans 11 so important for Judeo-Christianity is that Paul sums up and explains the how and
why of God's plan of redemption, which uses the Jews as mightily in their disobedience as He
does in their obedience. Thus the overriding message of the Book of Romans (at least up
through chapter 11) is stated forcefully and without ambiguity in verse 2: God has not
repudiated his people, whom he chose in advance. Our proper understanding of this
principle of Israel's central role in salvation history is crucial to our faith, and crucial to our
1 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
personal destiny on two levels. First; because God continues to keep Israel and the Jewish
people as His set-apart people and land, if we (as Believers) set ourselves against them, we
set ourselves into direction confrontation with the God of Israel (and it is unthinkable that a
Christian would do such a thing). And second, if the Lord's character is that He can
categorically deny numerous times that He would ever cast aside His people Israel, but do it
anyway, then as Christians all of our hope and security just went down the drain along with the
Jews'. It means that we can trust Christ for the moment; but clearly God can change His mind
and pull the rug of salvation from under us at any time in the future. Why wouldn't He?
According to Christianity He's done it before; what prevents Him from doing it again?
Fortunately, none of this is the case; such a slanderous contention is but the result of wrong␂minded Christian dogma and gentile bigotry against Jews. Somehow or another Paul saw this
coming and tried to warn the gentiles involved to stop and think; and to exam their motives and
rationale.
Let's re-read the first several verses of Romans chapter 11 to start our study today.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 11:1 – 12
While in a few minutes we'll back up to the beginning of this chapter I want you to take special
notice of verse 11 because it explains the "why?" behind God allowing the Jews to stumble
over the Rock, Yeshua (the "why?" of what God chooses to do is only rarely addressed in the
Bible). It was by means of the Jews stumbling that the gentiles were delivered (saved).
Ironically, however, the "why?" for delivering the gentiles was to provoke Israel to jealousy so
that THEY would be saved! So the entire endeavor is rather circular; it starts out as for Israel's
benefit, and when Israel shunned it, God used another people who would benefit, but also who
would bring the benefit of a saving righteousness in Messiah right to back to Israel and thus
achieve God's goal of saving all Israel.
As I was contemplating this mind-numbing reality and its many facets, one thing kept eating at
me: the connection between Christians and making Jews jealous escapes me. What, exactly,
have Christians done over the centuries since Paul wrote this letter that would make the Jews
jealous of us or our faith? What would make Christianity an attractive choice for Jews?
Recently I stumbled across something that David Stern wrote in his New Testament
Commentary that addressed this exact issue. It is as close to a rant as it is to a level-headed
examination of the issue, but it struck a chord deep within me and so I want to share parts of it
with you because I cannot possibly match the eloquence or the passion since David Stern is
himself a Messianic Jew; a Jew who has (against all odds) accepted his Messiah. I will be
quoting so as not to do violence to what he has to say.
"Is there anything about Gentile Christians that would make non-Messianic Jews
jealous of them? Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, the Church, to its great
shame, not only has not provoked the Jews to jealousy but has engendered repugnance
and fear; so that the Jewish people, instead of being drawn to love their Jewish Messiah
Yeshua, have usually come to hate or ignore him, remaining convinced that their non␂Messianic Judaism or secularism or agnosticism is superior to Christianity".
2 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
"If this seems a harsh judgment, then let us hear of which Christians, Jews are
expected to be jealous. Of the Christians who trapped Jews in their synagogues and
burned them alive....? Of the Christians who forced Jews to hear conversionary sermons
against their will and expelled from the country those who did not respond....? Of the
Christians who invented the blood libel that Jews murder a Christian child and use his
blood in their Passover matzah? Of the Christians who remained silent while 6,000,000
Jews perished in the Holocaust? Of Christians that support Palestinian organizations
whose terrorists kill and maim Israeli-Jewish children? Of Greek Orthodox Archbishop
Capucci, convicted of gun-running for those same Palestinian terrorist organizations?"
"But the Church's shame is not only in not having taken a stand consistently
repudiating every one of these and other horrors committed against the Jews, but in
having actually authorized and encouraged some of them. There is no way of silencing
every individual who misuses the name of Messiah, falsely claiming His authority for
their evil deeds. But there is a way for a community to withdraw its approval and
fellowship from such people and condemn them publicly; instead, through much of its
history, the Church did exactly the opposite. Of this Jews are to be jealous?"
"Nevertheless, there is another side. The point is not to cite merciful deeds done for the
Jews in Christ's name, to "balance the ledger"; that is no consolation at all. Rather, it is
that Gentile Christians should understand (Paul's) words to PROVOKE THEM TO
JEALOUSY, as a command...or at least as a challenge. Non-Messianic Jews ought to be
able to look at saved Gentiles in the Church and see in them such a wonderful change
from their former selves, such holy lives, such dignified, godly, peaceful, peace␂bringing, honorable, ethical, joyful and humble people, that they become jealous and
want for themselves too whatever it is that makes these Gentiles different and special."
Dr. Stern said much more, but I think this captures the essence and intent quite well. Handing
Jews a Christian tract is not peace-loving nor does it make them jealous. Treating Israel and
their enemies even-handedly does not make them jealous for Christ. This highlights the great
importance of us (whom the Holy Spirit has graciously given the truth and an unexplainable
love and concern for the Jewish people) standing up against wrong doctrine in the Church
especially as it concerns Israel and Jews. Sadly there are many hearing my voice that has,
because of the many wrongs done by the Church that Dr. Stern spoke of, given up calling
themselves Christians because of what that name has come to represent. They have in no way
given up on Christ; only the organizations that purport to speak for Him and in so doing do
great harm to the true Body of Messiah and to God's purpose to save all Israel.
So what should we do? Folks, silence is the great enemy. It is one thing to be silent, as was
Yeshua, when we are being personally persecuted or wronged; it is quite another to be silent
at the pain and injustice being done to others. And while it is impossible to speak or act against
all injustice and pain in this world because the expanse of it is overwhelming, we can stand up
to what is happening before our very eyes; that which is in our own backyards and that which
God says to pay special attention. What happens in our own backyards varies greatly
community by community; but that which God says to pay special attention does not. We are to
pray for the peace of Jerusalem and we are to stand with Israel and its people because we are
3 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
commanded to do so. They are, and remain, God's people. But we are not only to stand with,
but also to stand against. We are to stand against those who support Israel's enemies even if
they sincerely believe they are doing the Christian thing when they do so.
One of the best examples of this in our day is the Christ at the Checkpoint ministry in Israel. It
is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist, Christian ministry supported by some of America's best
known pastors; chief among these the highly regarded John Piper of the Bethlehem Baptist
Church in Minneapolis. God gives me no choice but to stand against the charter of Christ at the
Checkpoint, and against Piper's agenda and the agendas of all those who identify with this
ministry that dares to misuse Christ's name in order to defame, slander, and harm Yeshua's
own people for the sake of a politically correct, human concept of fairness and mercy for
Israel's enemies! At the foundation of this ministry is a common belief that God is done with
Israel and that the Church is God's new chosen people. And since Palestinians are gentiles,
some Christians, they have at least as much right to the land of Israel as the Jews!
Now that we've discussed the seriousness of what is at stake in our understanding of the
place of Israel in modern times, let's return to the top of chapter 11. Paul, in verse 2, leans on
the Prophet Elijah to help him prove his point that God did not reject Israel due to their
unfaithfulness to Him. Paul picks a passage from 1Kings 19 that speaks of a time when Elijah
was on the run from wicked Queen Jezebel. This happens after the Mt. Carmel incident when
Elijah had a confrontation with the Ba'al worshippers and many of the Ba'al worshippers (who
were loyal to Jezebel) were killed. He fled all the way to Horev, the mountain of God....the
same mountain where Moses had the Burning Bush experience. In reality, however, he was
running from God and the mission that God had given to him as His Prophet. Not surprisingly
God finds him and Elijah proceeds to complain how unfaithful and rebellious the Israelites are;
so rebellious that they now want to kill Elijah. But God counters that despite the bulk of Israel
being unfaithful He has kept for Himself several thousand loyal worshippers. Let's read some
of the passage Paul is using.
1Kings 19:8-10 CJB 8
He got up, ate and drank, and, on the strength of that meal,
traveled forty days and nights until he reached Horev the mountain of God. 9
There he
went into a cave and spent the night. Then the word of ADONAI came to him; he said to
him, "What are you doing here, Eliyahu?"
10 He answered, "I have been very zealous for ADONAI the God of armies, because the
people of Isra'el have abandoned your covenant, broken down your altars and killed
your prophets with the sword. Now I'm the only one left, and they're coming after me to
kill me too."
1Kings 19:13-14 CJB 13 When Eliyahu heard it, he covered his face with his cloak,
stepped out and stood at the entrance to the cave. Then a voice came to him and said,
"What are you doing here, Eliyahu?"
14 He answered, "I have been very zealous for ADONAI the God of armies; because the
people of Isra'el have abandoned your covenant, broken down your altars and killed
your prophets with the sword. Now I'm the only one left, and they're after me to kill me
4 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
too."
1Kings 19:18 CJB 18 Still, I will spare seven thousand in Isra'el, every knee that hasn't
bent down before Ba'al and every mouth that has not kissed him."
Paul's words are not an exact quote from this passage in 1Kings, but it is close enough that
we know where it came from. The point of it is that Elijah had pretty well decided that he was
the only person faithful to God left in Israel; but God responds by saying that He is going to
maintain a remnant of Israel who remains properly loyal to Him. When God speaks of 7,000 as
the size of the remnant clearly this is a round number and the number 7 is meant as symbolic
of being complete and perfect. In the Bible when a multiplier like ten, or a hundred, or a
thousand is added to the number 7 it means that God is indicating something of divine
influence and importance. Here it means that despite the defection of most of Israel to the
pagan worship sponsored by Queen Jezebel, God still has a substantial number of Israelites
who remain faithful to Him. The bottom line for Paul is that, yes, as the straw man alleges,
Israel has been unfaithful to God (especially by rejecting the Messiah). But just as with Elijah
that doesn't mean God is rejecting His chosen nation as a result. God doesn't base His
decisions upon the actions of humans; He bases it on His own sovereign will and grace. In fact
the maintaining of a remnant is a sort of sign of God's continuing faithfulness to Israel. Thus
the remnant of faithful from out of Israel that God saved for Himself during the time of Elijah is
to be compared to the remnant of Christ Believers that God has saved for Himself from among
Israel of 60 A.D. The number 7,000 is not to indicate that 7,000 is an exact number or even an
approximation. It is an open number; a representative number. The actual number of those
who bow down before Messiah Yeshua will be the result not of human merit but rather of
God's mercy and grace.
Therefore since it is not merit but grace that determines who is and who is not a true seed of
Abraham, then self-effort plays no role in who is chosen and who is not. Interestingly we see
Paul try to weave his complex and challenging teaching together by essentially using the same
question in verse 7 that he asked back in Romans 9:30. In 9:30 & 31 it was: 30 So, what are
we to say? This: that Gentiles, even though they were not striving for righteousness,
have obtained righteousness; but it is a righteousness grounded in trusting! 31
However, Isra'el, even though they kept pursuing a Torah that offers righteousness, did
not reach what the Torah offers.
Here in verse 7 Paul turns the question into a statement: 7
What follows is that Isra'el has
not attained the goal for which she is striving. The ones chosen have obtained it, but the
rest have been made stonelike....
What we can't get around is that once again we have this mysterious paradigm appear, which
declares that those who don't decide for Christ do so because on the one hand, because of
their own decisions, they have missed the goal of the Law of Moses (to obtain a righteousness
based on trust); but on the other hand God caused a divine hardening to occur in them. Once
again the principles of free will and predestination collide because they seemingly are
opposites and it feels as though we must decide on which one we accept, and which one we
reject, as proper doctrine. I will comment just briefly that this rather standard Christian
5 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
characterization of free will set in opposition to predestination is an error. I think to turn this
issue into a debate over whether it is either human free will or divine predestination that
determines human decisions and outcomes is akin to the analogy I drew a few lessons ago
that asks us to choose which is more important and impactful to life: food to eat or air to
breathe. The reality is that life cannot be sustained without both; each has their critical role to
play. And depending on the situation, one may play a more dominant role than the other for a
time; yet in the end both are indispensible as both food and air have definite impacts on life
(usually simultaneously). In the end the Bible shows us that the human experience is a joint
venture between God's predestination and man's free will; it is not an either/or proposition.
Where the line is drawn between the two I do not know; and how much influence one has at
any given time over the other varies. We do not have to choose between predestination and
free will; we just have to be aware of the existence of both and that we have control over one,
but not the other.
If this concept bothers you a bit, then good; you were paying attention. Evangelical Christianity
as it exists in modern times is the result of Western cultural influence that values democracy
and individuality above all else. So it can seem unfair to Westerners that God could offer us a
choice and then harden us such that our choice is essentially channeled towards sin, and
therefore we fail; and then at some point we pay a penalty for it. In other words, in a certain
sense choice can be seen as somewhat of an illusion. But there is good news in all this:
however the hardening occurred, even for the hardened that is not God's final word on the
matter. Change and redemption are still possible. Why is that? Because whether we are part of
the chosen, or part of the hardened, we all come from a place of meriting eternal death. We all
come from the same point of sin and need.
CSB Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
The chosen were not better people, or less sinful, than the hardened. The only way out of this
dilemma for anyone is God's grace; no action or attempt at "balancing the ledger" on our part
matters. God doesn't grade on a curve so His grace is available to all; from the worst of us to
the best. But the other side of this coin is that since Paul is specifically talking about the Jewish
people at this time (the chosen versus the hardened), then we must come to grips with the
reality that it is because of the hardened Jews that salvation was even offered to the pagan
gentiles. The undeniable inference all throughout Romans is that if (hypothetically) the majority
of Jews had accepted Christ instead of rejecting Him, then under what circumstances or when
or even if salvation would come to gentiles would have been a very different scenario. So
Christians even owe the Jews who refused to accept Messiah a debt of gratitude; it is because
of their being hardened that God turned to the gentiles in the first place.
I know that what I just told you about what Paul just said may be pretty hard to swallow. Paul
was quite aware of how difficult a concept he has asked the Jewish people (and us) to accept
(after all, he too is a Jew) so he of course backs it up with Holy Scripture. And before we read
each Scripture passage I want you to notice something. The Jews structure the Bible (the
Tanakh) as consisting of 3 sections: the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets. So it is not by
accident that Paul chooses Scripture passages from each one of these 3 sections to prove his
case. The first passage is verse 8, and the first part of verse 8 is from the Prophets (Isaiah 29)
6 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
while the second part of verse 8 is from the Torah (Deuteronomy 29). The second passage is
verse 9 and it is from the Writings (Psalm 69). As has been our custom, let's look at those
passages as written in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 29:1-11 CJB
CJB Isaiah 29:1 Woe to Ari'el [fireplace on God's altar, lion of God]- Ari'el, the city where
David encamped! Celebrate the feasts for a few more years, 2
but then I will bring
trouble to Ari'el. There will be mourning and moaning, as she becomes truly an ari'el for
me. 3
I will encamp all around you, besiege you with towers and mount siege-works
against you. 4
Prostrate, you will speak from the ground; your words will be stifled by
the dust; your voice will sound like a ghost in the ground, your words like squeaks in
the dust.
5
But your many foes will become like fine powder, the horde of tyrants like blowing
chaff, and it will happen very suddenly. 6
You will be visited by ADONAI-Tzva'ot with
thunder, earthquakes and loud noises, whirlwinds, tempests, flaming firestorms. 7
Then,
all the nations fighting Ari'el, every one at war with her, the ramparts around her, the
people that trouble her will fade like a dream, like a vision in the night.
8
It will be like a hungry man dreaming he's eating; but when he wakes up, his stomach
is empty; or like a thirsty man dreaming he's drinking; but when he wakes up, he is dry
and exhausted- it will be like this for the horde of all nations fighting against Mount
Tziyon. 9
If you make yourselves stupid, you will stay stupid! If you blind yourselves,
you will stay blind! You are drunk, but not from wine; you are staggering, but not from
strong liquor.
10 For ADONAI has poured over you a spirit of lethargy; he has closed your eyes (that
is, the prophets) and covered your heads (that is, the seers). 11 For you this whole
prophetic vision has become like the message in a sealed-up scroll. When one gives it
to someone who can read and says, "Please read this," he answers, "I can't, because
it's sealed."
The idea is that what has happened to Israel in not recognizing their Messiah is due to them
becoming spiritually insensitive. God has sent His Prophets to tell Israel how to recognize their
Messiah, yet God has also given Israel a spirit of spiritual lethargy because of their
unfaithfulness. So even though Messiah is right there before their eyes in the Scriptures, they
can't see it; they have been blinded to it. Notice that Israel's failure and inability to recognize
their Messiah even from the prophecies of their own Prophets and Seers is caused by two
things: 1) their own free will in their disobedience, and 2) God's divine hardening of them by
sending them a spiritual stupor that won't allow them to see the truth even if they want to. So
here we have that mysterious paradigm show up again, this time in Isaiah: human free will
versus God's divine intervention that causes us to not be able to choose wisely. And as we
see here in Isaiah 29, both causes were involved in Israel becoming blind to God's purposes
and to His Messiah. Deuteronomy 29 is essentially more of the same.
7 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
CJB Deuteronomy 29:1 Then Moshe summoned all Isra'el and said to them, "You saw
everything ADONAI did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his
servants and to all his land; 2
the great testings which you saw with your own eyes, and
the signs and those great wonders.
3
Nevertheless, to this day ADONAI has not given you a heart to understand, eyes to
see or ears to hear!
So on one hand, by their own free will Israel chose to ignore everything God did for them that
they personally saw and experienced. On the other hand part of the reason that this was so is
because God did not give Israel a heart (a mind) to understand or the ability to discern.
And then in verse 9, we have King David speaking from the past in Psalm 69 when he says:
"Let their dining table become for them a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a punishment. 10
Let their eyes be darkened, so that they can't see, with their backs bent continually."
For the sake of time we won't go to Psalm 69 and read the surrounding verses so I'll just fill
you in on the important points. First of all, the way Paul has quoted this passage is the way it
appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). So once again we have
validation that Paul preferred the use of the Greek Bible as opposed to the original Hebrew
version. This would make sense since he is operating in the Diaspora, where the most
common language (even among Jews) was Greek. The second point is that Psalm 69 is about
the oppression King David is under, whereby his enemies within and without are trying every
way possible to kill him. He admits that most of this is his fault because he has been sinful, and
in fact the mention of the dining table is because (literally) an attempt to assassinate him by
poisoning his food happened. So whoever it was who tried to poison him, David hopes that
their own dining table becomes a place of danger, instead of a place of peace and fellowship.
The mention of their eyes being darkened means that David hopes that his enemies can't
discern, and their backs bent continually means that his enemies might become slaves under
forced labor. Paul is interpreting Psalm 69 in the Remez method of interpretation; that is, it
means what it says on the one hand, but it also contains a deeper underlying meaning on the
other. Christians might call this allegory, but it is not quite the same thing.
The foundational point Paul is making is that those Jews who were hardened and became
stone-like in their inability to recognize the true goal and intent of The Torah and the reality of
the advent of the Messiah Yeshua, is partly their own doing and partly God's doing. So after
making essentially the same point from all 3 sections of the Bible, Paul uses his straw man (his
imaginary debate opponent) to frame a question in verse 11 that he figures his readers (mostly
Jews since the last few chapters have been aimed directly at them) are bound to be thinking.
After all; the scathing indictment Paul has issued against non-Believing Jews (the vast majority
of Jews, whether they live in the Holy Land or in the Diaspora) is quite damning. The straw
man says: 11 "In that case, I say, isn't it that they have stumbled with the result that they
have permanently fallen away?"
Paul has just envisioned his second of two possible outcomes (both bad) for the Jewish non␂Believers. The first was in the opening verse of this chapter: CJB Romans 11:1 "In that case, I
8 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
say, isn't it that God has repudiated his people?" What is being implied here is a direct
action of God to reject His people for their lack of faith by rejecting His Son Yeshua. But now in
verse 11 (11 "In that case, I say, isn't it that they have stumbled with the result that they
have permanently fallen away?") it is NOT God taking action. Rather it is that the people
have themselves fallen away from God's mercy as a natural consequence of refusing to
accept their Messiah. In both cases Paul gives his typical rabbinic answer: "Heaven forbid".
So Paul is saying to his straw man: there is no circumstance that you can think of whereby
God's chosen people are rejected and abandoned, even if by all human standards they
deserve to be. Mostly this is because God elected them long before they were ever a people,
and since the election is in the form of a divine promise, such an election is not revocable for
any reason.
And now we come full circle, back to where we started today. Verse 11 in its entirety says: 11
"In that case, I say, isn't it that they have stumbled with the result that they have
permanently fallen away?" Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it is by means of their
stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to provoke them to
jealousy. After refuting in every way possible the notion that those Jews (the hardened, stone␂like ones) who have rejected Yeshua, have also been rejected by The Father, or because they
stumbled they are permanently spiritually disabled without the possibility of redemption, Paul
explains why it works this way. It is all part of God's plan and it came from His foreknowledge.
It was by means of those Jews who refused God's mercy that God first turned His attention to
the gentiles. But God delivered the gentiles for a purpose; the purpose for the gentiles
(meaning gentile Believers) is to cause the hardened Jews to become jealous and want what
the Believing gentiles have: a saving righteousness through Messiah. A righteousness not
earned, but rather freely given. A righteousness that comes by trust, and not by works and
deeds. Bottom line: these non-Believing Jews are not excluded forever (whether at His doing
or their own) and God has a plan to get them back in His favor. And that plan is the gentiles.
Quite amazingly Israel's great sin is really just the beginning of a great process that began
2000 years before Paul was born; in the end it brings blessing back to Israel. And in the middle
of the process lies the gentiles.....who also get blessed! As unfathomable as it may seem, it is
BECAUSE of Israel's rebellion and unfaithfulness that salvation has come for gentiles. And it
is BECAUSE of the salvation of gentiles that God's original target, His chosen people Israel,
will be saved.
Why this strange convoluted pathway to redemption and restoration? Why take this route;
dangerous, full of detours and littered with potholes? Because there was a promise made two
millennia earlier that God fully intended to fulfill because He always keeps His promises:
Genesis 12:1-3 CJB
CJB Genesis 12:1 Now ADONAI said to Avram, "Get yourself out of your country, away
from your kinsmen and away from your father's house, and go to the land that I will
show you.
2
I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you, and I will make your name great; and
9 / 10
Romans Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
you are to be a blessing. 3
I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who
curses you; and by you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
We'll continue in Romans 11 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
10 / 10
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 27, Chapter 11 continued
Every now and then a lesson comes along that compels me to preach as much as I teach; this
is one of those. Paul has spent the first 12 verses of Romans chapter 11 summarizing some
significant theological principles he has been carefully constructing since chapter 1. His first
theological principle is that despite the high level of sinning and lack of faithfulness that has
been demonstrated by Israel (and is obvious to any observer) oddly enough God has not cast
aside or rejected the Jewish people as His chosen elect as we might imagine He would. This
bogus claim of some Christian denominations that God has rejected His people Israel is what
has led to the rampant anti-Semitism that has been present for centuries. It is the German
Lutheran Church that has led the way in modern times by claiming that God's justification for
abandoning His Old Testament people the Hebrews, and bringing onboard (as a replacement)
a new and different people in the New Testament (gentile Christians) is that the Jews killed
Jesus.
While anyone who has read the Gospels can rightfully complain that many Jews, especially the
Jewish religious leadership, were complicit in Yeshua's execution, it was gentile Romans who
actually whipped Him, nailed Him to a wooden cross, and brutally executed Him. Nonetheless,
whoever wins that ongoing debate over who is most responsible for killing Christ achieves
nothing because both sides are arguing about a red herring. Paul has been explaining that
what the Jews (the Hebrews) have done (good or bad) in the recent or ancient past has no
bearing on the special status God holds for them. How can this be? Because God made His
promise to Israel, going all the way back to Abraham many centuries before there was an
Israel, that they are His elect based on His grace and mercy and not based on Israel's merit or
their faithfulness. Whether the Jews bear the full weight of Christ's death, or partial
responsibility or none is completely irrelevant; it plays no role in God's decision to maintain His
acceptance of them as His chosen people.
The second theological principle Paul has elucidated is that those Jews whose hearts became
stone-like against accepting Yeshua as their Messiah and Lord experienced that hardening
partly because of their own choice to behave wickedly and unfaithfully, and partly because of a
choice by God that affected their minds and thus prevented them from accepting Christ. In fact
Paul pointed out that a kind of divine intervention, which included hardening of hearts, was
nothing new and uses Deuteronomy 29 to prove it. Then he uses the Prophet Isaiah to point
out that it was prophesied that this pattern of God hardening rebellious hearts for His own
purposes would continue. Thus it ought to come as no surprise to anyone that in Paul's day
God would harden the hearts of some Jews who were refusing to accept Yeshua as their
Messiah. I want to say this a little differently: Paul is saying to Jews and gentiles in Rome that
God hardening even His own people is NOT only a thing of the distant past of Israel's history,
as in Moses's day 13 centuries earlier; but such a divine hardening in fact remains as an
active tool in God's tool box. The proof of it is all those Jews who refused to trust in their
Messiah who have had their hearts hardened by God in response.
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
If you are paying attention to what Paul is saying then such a claim is pretty sobering. Under
certain circumstances God hardens gentile hearts (as with Pharaoh) and He hardens Jewish
hearts (as with the non-Believing Jews of New Testament times). I don't know about you, but
this is a characteristic of God that I'm not especially fond of. I of course accept that it is His
choice and He is sovereign to do as He wills it; but that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable
with it. This is where various and competing theological doctrines with names like
predestination and predetermination stand in opposition to other theological doctrines with
names such as prescience and free will. And of course, as humans do, unyielding stances are
taken on both sides of the issue. Whereas over the past several centuries predestination and
predetermination have dominated Christian theology especially in Europe, in more modern
times free will and prescience (that is, God pre-knows what we're each going to do or choose)
have gained steam because Westerners just don't like an attribute of God that takes our
individual destiny out of our own hands. So the goal of the one side is to make God into a stern
and rigid taskmaster who, like a typical European Monarch, uses humans as little more than
disposable pawns in a cosmic chess match; while the goal of the other side is to make God
more like a congenial and cooperative genie in the bottle who is there to make our wishes and
dreams come true if only we'll approach Him correctly. Paul leaves such a matter as a mystery
and makes no attempt to defend this difficult characteristic of God. Paul merely tells us that on
the one hand our own free will plays an enormous role in our destiny, but on the other hand so
does God's divine intervention; and His intervention is not necessarily for each person's
immediate benefit. Often there is a much larger picture in play of which we have no idea.
But rather than keep it to Himself in this particular case God chose to reveal the surprising
reason that He hardened the hearts of many of His own elect against their own Jewish
Messiah, Yeshua. So the third theological principle we learned from Paul is stated in verse 11:
Romans 11:11 CJB 11 "In that case, I say, isn't it that they have stumbled with the result
that they have permanently fallen away?" Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it is by
means of their stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to
provoke them to jealousy.
Just to be clear: "they" that have stumbled are the hardened Jews, just as "them" who will be
provoked to jealousy are these same hardened Jews. So God reveals that as strange as it may
seem, He reached down from Heaven and intentionally hardened the hearts of thousands,
millions, of His own elect in order that the Gospel would be taken to the gentiles who were
NOT His elect; and this was so that gentiles could also be saved.
But the strangeness of God's decision doesn't stop there; the final few words of verse 11 say:
"In order to provoke them (the hardened Jews) to jealousy." So God has intentionally
hardened the hearts of the majority of Jews in order that gentiles can be saved in huge
numbers. Yet, that, too, had a divine purpose. The now saved gentiles have been given
salvation for the express purpose of provoking to jealousy all those Jews that God hardened so
that they, too, will be saved! I call this phenomenon The Circle of Salvation.
But Paul has even more to say on this subject in Romans 11. Up to now, and for the past few
chapters (at the very least since chapter 7) Paul has been aiming his monologue primarily at
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
Jews. But now in Romans 11:13 he abruptly changes up and turns primarily towards gentiles.
Open your Bible to Romans 11 and we'll read from verse 13 to the end.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 11:13 – end
The opening words of verse 13 make it clear that Paul is refocusing his thoughts towards the
gentiles of the congregation in Rome. And now that we've read those remaining verses of
chapter 11 we can see that from the far view Paul's purpose is to make sure that gentile
Believers understand that just because God hardened so many Jews IN ORDER that gentiles
would be saved, gentiles shouldn't misunderstand God's motives for doing so. The goal all
along remains the same: that all Israel would be saved.
Verses 13 and 14 have Paul explaining that even though he indeed is an emissary to gentiles,
he is and remains a Jew. He refers to the Jews as "my own people"; so Paul continues to stay
firmly identified with the Jewish people. For most of us that seems self-evident but to much of
the Church this comes as a surprise. Most often when Paul is depicted in a painting, it is as a
European: whether that is Spanish, English, or French. Often he has a thin pale face, a pointy
mustache and is tall and slender. I have seen precious few depictions of Paul as an olive
skinned, dark haired, brown eyed Hebrew. This is not by accident; there is a sub-conscious
perspective of Paul that has been ingrained within Christianity for at least 18 centuries that
since Paul is the Apostle to the
gentiles, then surely he must have re-identified himself more as a gentile than with his original
Jewish heritage. Never mind that at every turn he speaks of the Jews as "his people" or "his
brethren" or even carefully recounts his personal heritage both from a national and religious
viewpoint as a Jew, and from a tribal viewpoint as a Benjamite. In Philippians 3:5 he even adds
to that by saying that he is a Pharisee.
Philippians 3:4-5 CJB If anyone else thinks he has grounds for putting confidence in
human qualifications, I have better grounds: 5
• b'rit-milah on the eighth day,• by birth
belonging to the people of Isra'el,• from the tribe of Binyamin,• a Hebrew-speaker, with
Hebrew-speaking parents,• in regard to the Torah, a Parush.....
So let's put aside this nonsensical fantasy that Paul was some kind of a convert to a gentile, or
had any gentile DNA in him whatsoever. He was a Jew through and through and proudly
proclaimed a long Israelite heritage on several occasions, as recorded by his own hand in the
New Testament.
What he is explaining in verse 14 is that even though he has just said that it is God's purpose
for saved gentiles to provoke unsaved Jews to jealousy and hopefully redemption, Paul at least
partly agreed to this thankless task of evangelizing gentiles (that put him at odds with most of
his own people) in order that he, too, might provoke Jews to jealousy and thus urge them on to
salvation in Yeshua. That is, Paul the Messianic Jew provoking to jealousy traditional Jews. In
verse 15 he expounds upon his reasoning by saying that if Jews casting aside their Messiah
means reconciliation with God for the world, that Jews (in much larger numbers) finally
accepting Yeshua will have an even greater impact! Please notice Paul's use of the term
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
"world". "World" here means non-Jews: gentiles. So here we get a very good definition of
what Paul means by "the world" in his letters. The "world", for Paul, usually means unsaved
gentiles: pagans. So for Paul the "world" is set over and against the Jewish people in the
sense of non-Jews versus Jews, and in the sense of worshippers of pagan gods versus
worshippers of the God of Israel. But even more, once a gentile becomes saved, he graduates
out of the world and into the Kingdom of God. So for Paul a Believer, including a gentile
Believer, is no longer part of "the world".
Where would Paul have derived his understanding of what "the world" is? While I have no
proof of it, I think it must have been something that the risen Yeshua showed to Him, likely
through another Believer in Damascus when Paul was first selected and recovering from his
blindness and (no doubt) trauma of meeting the resurrected Messiah. As Believers, it is
common for us to speak about "the world". But what does Christ mean by it? What does the
New Testament in general mean by the term "the world"? And where as Believers do we fit?
Here is what Christ had to say, at length, in a recorded prayer that Yeshua prayed to the
Father.
John 17:1-18 CJB
1 After Yeshua had said these things, he looked up toward heaven and said, "Father,
the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you␂2
just as you gave him authority over all mankind, so that he might give eternal life to all
those whom you have given him. 3
And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true
God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah. 4
"I glorified you on earth by
finishing the work you gave me to do.
5
Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you
before the world existed. 6
"I made your name known to the people you gave me out of
the world. They were yours, you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7
Now
they know that everything you have given me is from you, 8
because the words you
gave me I have given to them, and they have received them. They have really come to
know that I came from you, and they have come to trust that you sent me. 9
"I am
praying for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given to me,
because they are yours.
10 Indeed, all I have is yours, and all you have is mine, and in them I have been glorified.
11 Now I am no longer in the world. They are in the world, but I am coming to you. Holy
Father, guard them by the power of your name, which you have given to me, so that
they may be one, just as we are. 12 When I was with them, I guarded them by the power
of your name, which you have given to me; yes, I kept watch over them; and not one of
them was destroyed (except the one meant for destruction, so that the Tanakh might be
fulfilled).
13 But now, I am coming to you; and I say these things while I am still in the world so
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
that they may have my joy made complete in themselves. 14 "I have given them your
word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world- just as I
myself do not belong to the world.
15 I don't ask you to take them out of the world, but to protect them from the Evil One. 16
They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 17 Set them apart
for holiness by means of the truth- your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the
world, I have sent them into the world.
Clearly the term "the world" has a double meaning. On the one hand "the world" is meant as
the secular people of our day mean it: the total human population of planet Earth and all that
accompanies it. But on the other hand, from a spiritual perspective, "the world" is the unsaved.
So clearly gentiles are part of "the world" UNTIL we become Believers, and then we're not.
Just as clearly Jews are not, and have never been, part of "the world" as God sees it. And yet,
since Yeshua's advent, Jews are not as distinct from "the world" as they may have once
thought they were.
Thus Jews and gentile Believers are seen by our Lord as separate from "the world" and
therefore that is how we are to see ourselves. And, folks; this is not an easy place to be so
struggle is to be expected. We are truly hanging suspended; no longer of the world, but still in
the world. Not yet in Heaven, but being asked to live a Heavenly lifestyle while still in this
world. The Good News is that our Savior lived in the same condition as we do so He
understands our predicament and can relate to us; and He is our advocate in Heaven.
In verse 16 Paul is going to use two metaphors to tell the gentiles that despite their good
fortune of being marked for salvation by God, hardened Israel still has a future with Yehoveh.
The imagery that Paul employs is first of all a baked product made of grain, and it is taken from
Numbers 15.
Numbers 15:18-21 CJB
18 "Speak to the people of Isra'el; tell them, 'When you enter the land where I am
bringing you 19 and eat bread produced in the land, you are to set aside a portion as a
gift for ADONAI.
20 Set aside from your first dough a cake as a gift; set it aside as you would set aside a
portion of the grain from the threshing-floor. 21 From your first dough you will give
ADONAI a portion as a gift through all your generations.
Paul is using the theological principle of firstfruits to develop his thought. Numbers 15 speaks
of offering up to God a piece of the bread dough that is made from grain grown and harvested
in the Promised Land. Even to this day, some Jews when baking Challah bread (that special
bread that is made as a tradition for Shabbat) will pinch off a piece of the dough and throw it in
a fire. However, nowhere in Numbers is it implied that the remaining portion of dough becomes
"holy" as Paul says. An error in Paul's understanding of the Torah? Probably not. One of the
difficulties in interpreting the New Testament, besides the fact that we have Hebrew thought
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
attempting to be communicated in the Greek language, is that the writings of the New
Testament are not theological treatises that have been vetted by fellow Hebrew scholars, or
are they written for academics of the modern Western world. They were written using common
Jewish cultural terms, idioms, expressions, and manners of speaking usual and standard for
the Jewish communities of that era. Much too often, using much too little knowledge of
Judaism and Jewish culture of that era, very good modern commentators will try to attach a
greater level of precision to the words than are meant.
As an example: in the Gospels, when we find Yeshua either in, or on His way to, Jerusalem for
the 3 Spring Feasts of Passover, Matzah, and Firstfruits, the New Testament accounts will
interchange the terms Passover and Matzah. That is: while technically Passover is the first of
the 3 Feasts and is only a one day feast, it is common in the New Testament to call the entire
series of 3 Spring Feasts "Passover". Just as common is to refer to the entire series of 3 as
"Matzah". The writer isn't confused; it was merely the standard way of speaking among lay
people (Jews) in that era.
We find the same issue with the terms "holy" and "unclean" in the New Testament. Those 2
terms indeed do have, on the one hand, very precise definitions. But on the other hand they
are often used in broad and imprecise ways because that's how the common Jews of the day
used them. For instance: technically, unclean is a term that is ONLY used to describe
something that is otherwise a permissible item to eat, wear, touch, etc. But, that otherwise
permissible item can no longer be used because due to some kind of error in its handling, the
item has been made ritually unclean. As an example: a piece of lamb to eat is permissible as
food. However, if not handled properly (perhaps not enough blood has been drained from it),
then the lamb is rendered unclean. So what is normally permissible cannot now be used. On
the other hand, if an item is considered as prohibited then the handling of it becomes a moot
subject. For instance: a pig cannot ever be food. Technically a pig is not unclean; it is merely
prohibited to eat under any circumstance. It is not food no matter how it is handled. So whether
something is prohibited, or something is permissible but it has been mishandled and now
rendered unclean, the final result is the same: it can't be used. Thus in the New Testament
we'll find that sometimes the term unclean means "ritually impure" according to The Law of
Moses, and other times it merely means "it can't be touched or used" for whatever reason
and sometimes the reason is far more cultural than Biblical.
The term holy also became used in a similar fashion in the New Testament. There is the
technical meaning for holy that means set apart for God in accordance with the Law of Moses;
it can even mean that only priests can partake of whatever it might be. But in common speech
among Jews it came to mean something that the lay person informally dedicated to God or it is
assigned a religious connotation even if it has nothing to do with any command or regulation
from the Law of Moses. The term "holy" is used in both ways in the New Testament. Let me
give you an illustration. Christians are fond to say about a person that they admire that they are
a "godly" man or woman. We don't mean this from a technical sense or that they are god-like,
or really have any direct connection to God at all. Rather it just means that they are good,
upright, and not only profess to be religious but live a life that reflects strong moral standards
that exemplify good character similar to what can be found in the Bible. Very likely Paul meant
holy in this sense in reference to the lump and the whole loaf; because certainly otherwise he
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
is simply incorrect about his claim that the whole loaf becomes ritually holy because a small
piece of the dough is ritually dedicated to God, as the Torah prescribes.
So all Paul was apparently getting at is that if a portion of the whole is holy before God, then it
can be assumed that the entire portion is also holy as opposed to unclean. Then he adds yet
another metaphor with the use of the olive tree (a real favorite among modern Messianic
Jews). He says that if a tree's roots are holy, then its branches must also be holy since they
are all parts of a whole. All parts of the tree receive the same nourishment from the same
source; its roots. Paul is not talking about any kind of actual Torah defined holiness; rather it is
simply meant as a broad illustration. So we must not try to dissect his examples too far, but
rather just get the general idea he's trying to impart that all members of a whole are infected
with either the same holiness or they are defiled with the same uncleanness. A tree whose
roots are unclean can't have holy branches. And, a tree whose roots are holy can't have
unclean branches. However, the branches can be removed from the tree if they become
diseased; they can be pruned before they infect the other branches or maybe even eventually
kill the roots.
What is the whole loaf of bread an illustration of? What is the olive tree with its branches and
roots illustrating? Both are illustrations of the same thing: the Jewish people (or more
technically, the Hebrew people in total since the Jews are but a remnant of the original Hebrew
people). After introducing the two illustrations of verse 16, in verse 17 Paul takes the metaphor
of the olive tree a bit further when he speaks of grafting a wild olive tree into the trunk of a
cultivated olive tree. The wild olive represents gentiles. The cultivated olive tree represents
Jews. So the image is of something somewhat similar but not quite the same (the wild olive),
being grafted into something that has been carefully cultivated and cared for by a gardener.
I've heard horticulturalists try to tear this apart with scientific tests and methods but Paul was
not a horticulturist or even a farmer. This passage was not intended as a lesson on tree
grafting; it was merely a general word picture for use by people of an ancient world where most
worked in agriculture at one task or another and rudimentary grafting was in common use.
Thus continuing with agricultural terms, Paul warns that the wild olive derives a benefit from
being grafted into the cultivated olive; it receives the same care and nourishment that the
cultivated olive receives since the wild olive has been artificially made part of the cultivated
tree. But, the wild olive doesn't ever convert and become a cultivated olive, or replace the
cultivated olive, and the wild olive should not think that it does. Therefore, using the
grammatical technique called personification (assigning a human attribute to something that
isn't human), the wild olive should not boast about its good fortune of being attached to the
cultivated olive tree. And especially it should not think that it can become better than the
original, natural, cultivated olive tree.
What is the main reason for the wild olive being cautioned to not get proud? Because the wild
olive branches have been grafted in where some of the natural branches of the cultivated olive
tree were removed. And why were the cultivated olive branches removed from their own tree?
Because they were found to have no trust. Clearly since it is "trust" in Messiah's faithfulness
that Paul has been preaching since chapter 1, this is what he is speaking of here. Therefore if
some wild olives (gentiles) were grafted onto the cultivated Jewish olive tree, they shouldn't
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
expect a different treatment or outcome than the natural branches received. That is, the gentile
branches stay attached only so long as that trust remains sincere, active and alive. The
moment trust ends, the wild olive branches (like the original cultivated branches) are pruned off
of the tree by God and thereby removed from their source of life and sustenance.
There have been never ending debates in theological circles about the roots of the cultivated
olive tree and what they represent and what their nourishment is. It is usual in Christian circles
to say that the roots are Jesus. Sorry, that just doesn't work for all kinds of reasons. First, the
cultivated olive tree is clearly the Jewish people in general; not Believers per se. Second, the
natural branches of the tree that remain on the tree are Believing Jews, but the trunk and the
root system have always been Jewish (Hebrew). Third, the roots of the Jewish people are the
Patriarchs. But fourth, what makes the Patriarchs the Patriarchs is the covenant of Abraham.
Without that covenant there is no Father Abraham and no line of promise to hand down to
Isaac and then to Jacob. Without the Abrahamic covenant there is no division of the world into
gentiles and Hebrews. And further, whenever Yeshua is described from a horticultural
perspective in the Bible He is not a root; He is either a shoot or a vine. He Himself has a root
that He springs from. And Yeshua's root is Jacob, through the tribe of Judah, the clan of
Jessie (described in horticultural terms as the stump), and the family of King David.
So here is the unmistakable theological principle that Paul makes; one that much of the
institutional Church has denied and hated for 1800 years. Gentile Believers (Christians) exist
and are sustained spiritually only by being artificially attached to a strong Jewish source, itself
fed from the Covenant of Abraham. Israel's covenants with God are what make Israel, Israel.
And what makes gentiles saved and forgiven is the goal of those same covenants: Yeshua, of
the family of King David. Christ, the Jew. So when some elements of Christianity demand that
the Old Testament and all it represents is abolished, what is being demanded is that Paul's
cultivated olive tree that we as Believers are grafted into....the place where we receive our life
and sustenance..... is cut down, and its root system is dug up and destroyed. This is spiritual
suicide.
So as alien branches that have been, by God's grace, grafted into the natural olive tree (the
Hebrew tree) that God has been cultivating for millennia, what should the attitude of gentile
Christians be? Confident? Arrogant? Superior? Paul gives us that answer in verse 20: "Don't
be arrogant; on the contrary be terrified!" Why should we be terrified? Verse 21: "For if God
didn't spare the natural branches, he certainly won't spare you". Gentile Believers, we are
foreign objects unnaturally attached to the natural olive tree. If God was willing to prune off
branches that grew naturally from the tree He had so carefully and lovingly cultivated for so
many centuries, but some of those branches became diseased and stopped trusting, how
much quicker will He be to cut off those formerly alien branches that show signs of the same
disease of non-trust? It was God's gift of mercy to the foreign branches, not to the natural tree,
that we were grafted in.
Paul says in verse 22 that God has two sides of his character to be aware of: a side of
kindness towards those who trust, and a side of severity for those who stop trusting. How do
you stop trusting if you never trusted in the first place? I want to put another dent in the
unscriptural doctrine of once-saved-always-saved. Here is yet another example of God
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 cont
warning Believers to maintain the trust that saved us or we'll be removed from God's
covenants and destroyed. Question: who are the wild olives that are grafted into the cultivated
tree? Are they any and all gentiles...pagans; or are they only Believing gentiles? It is self
evident that they are only Believers. Why would God cut off non-Believing Jews who don't
trust and replace them with non-Believing gentiles who don't trust? Besides as Paul says: the
only reason gentiles are grafted in is because of our trust.
So, is the warning that we should maintain that trust or we'll be cut off the tree just a
hypothetical situation that can't possibly happen? The once saved always saved doctrine says
it is; says it can't happen. In fact once saved always saved adherents say that every warning
in the New Testament (and there are several) of a Believer falling away or of the Lord refusing
to recognize them, or blocking their entry into the Kingdom of God can't actually happen. So
by that reasoning here in Romans 11 we have yet another and this time it is Paul who is
making the hollow threat. If such a thing is impossible, why are we supposed to be terrified of
being removed off the tree? Did we get there accidentally? Why are we to strive to remain in
God's kindness through our trust if under no circumstance can we let go of our trust and then
our salvation is revoked?
But then comes the part that no doubt Paul was so very anxious to get to. He says this in
verses 23 and 24:
Romans 11:23-24 CJB 23 Moreover, the others, if they do not persist in their lack of
trust, will be grafted in; because God is able to graft them back in.24 For if you were cut
out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated
olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own
olive tree!
Paul says that those hardened Jews (the cut-off branches) WILL be grafted back into their
OWN tree if they will finally trust. So the hardening that God put upon His people will end, and
they will be offered their place back as a branch on the cultivated olive tree because it is their
tree in the first place!
Stony hearts turned to soft hearts that trust. Jews that had their hearts hardened towards
Messiah finally become Believers and are saved. Where have we heard this?
Ezekiel 36:24-28 CJB
24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you from all the countries, and
return you to your own soil. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be
clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols. 26 I will give
you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your
flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live
by my laws, respect my rulings and obey them.28 You will live in the land I gave to your
ancestors. You will be my people, and I will be your God.
We'll continue with Romans chapter 11 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 28, chapter 11 conclusion
As we begin with verse 25 of Romans chapter 11, it is quite clear that Paul has a troubling
concern on his mind. It is that gentiles may misunderstand, even exaggerate, their place in the
Kingdom of God because of their faith in Christ. It has always been so beginning with Abraham
that gentiles were invited to worship Israel's God and to place themselves under the
covenants that Yehoveh made with Israel. However until the advent of Christ it was assumed
by all Hebrews and even the gentiles that a true conversion was needed for a gentile to join
Israel.
In ancient times, especially, gods were identified to specific nations. There was usually one
god that was considered as the founding god of a nation. The relationship between a particular
god and his nation was so intertwined that it was not unusual to call a nation by its national
name and alternatively by the name of its god. The nation of Assyria is a good example as it is
prominent in the Bible. Assyria's founding god is Asshur. Thus in the Old Testament it is
common to refer at times to Assyria as Asshur. So if a person from another nation wishes to
worship the god of Assyria, Asshur, then it was assumed that the person would become a
national Assyrian. Otherwise their thought process was: 'what could possibly be the point of
being part of one nation, but worshipping the founding god of an entirely different nation'? No
benefit could come from such a devotion. The people of Israel, of course, viewed such a
prospect the same way.
Therefore since Yehoveh was the founding god of Israel it made no sense for a person of
another nation (a gentile) to worship the Hebrew God, the God of Israel, as their god. So if for
whatever reason a gentile decided to devote himself to Yehoveh, then it was self-evident that
this gentile should convert and become an Israelite (in Christ's day, a Jew); both sides
believed in this protocol as a given. It is important to understand that this was human thought
and human custom that was being observed; it was not God's way. Yet God seemed to permit
this misperception to continue among mankind, even among His own people, until the right
moment in history arrived when it was time to take His people back to school. That moment
was the advent of Messiah Yeshua.
It was Paul whom Yeshua elected as the school master. His job was to teach Jew and gentile
that nationality, ethnicity, race, and gender were irrelevant when it came to worshipping the
true God and to attaining eternal life. It was especially the case when it came to trusting in the
Jewish Messiah whom God sent to deliver humankind from their sins. As it is easy to imagine,
gentiles, the outsiders so-to-speak, were more receptive to such a notion of inclusion without
conversion than were Jews, the insiders. This set the Jewish Paul against most of his brethren
as he fought against requiring gentiles to be circumcised to follow Yeshua since circumcision
was the official right-of-passage for a gentile to convert and become a national Jew.
Because as humans it can be hard for us to view most anything through other than the lens of
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
our own interests and experiences, Paul's defense of gentiles gaining eternal life and
forgiveness of sins through Israel's Messiah, but without conversion, was seen as a
combination of theological heresy and a kind of national treason by the Jews. Gentiles on the
other hand apparently often saw it as God's favor being withdrawn from Israel in order to be
placed upon gentiles. What did some gentiles conclude from this? Gentiles must be better than
Jews in some ways, otherwise why would the God of the Jews start including gentiles? Paul
seemed to believe this attitude of gentiles was not only present in the City of Rome, the
intended audience of his letter to the Romans; it also portended bad things for the Body of
Christ in general as the influx of gentiles to the faith increased. So throughout the Book of
Romans Paul has been building a case to explain to the Jews why the gentiles belong; and to
tell the gentiles not to get big-headed about it, hoping that gets him ahead of the curve in what
he sees as a looming problem.
Open you Bibles to Romans 11. We're going to read from verse 25 to the end.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 11:25 - end
I have digressed from time to time to describe how the early Church Fathers perceived what
Paul was trying to explain in his letters, and how it is to be taken especially by gentile
Christians. Little could be more important to the fundamental doctrines that drive Christianity
today than what the early Church Fathers decided. But as I have shown you in previous
lessons, they shared no universal viewpoint on much of anything especially through perhaps
the 5th century. Nonetheless, what we do find is a trend from the earliest of the Church Fathers
(a little before 100 A.D.) to the later ones (up to the late 700's A.D.), to embrace the very thing
Paul warned against here in Roman 11. That is, the Church Fathers eventually saw faith in
Yeshua as not only an exclusively gentile faith, but also something that Jews were unworthy of
participating in. Even in the earlier times there was a disagreement among the Church Fathers
of just who ought to be granted membership into Christianity, and much at that was based on
the place of the Law of Moses in the life of a Believer. Naturally, the more gentile in nature that
a Church Father saw the Church, the more he pushed against the Law of Moses. A good
example would be that of Gennadius of Constantinople. He lived in the mid-400's A.D. In his
entry into the Pauline Commentary of the Greek Church, he said this:
"The apostle (Paul) expressed himself in this way....because he wants to show that the
law and grace are completely incompatible and that the two of them can never go
together. Of necessity, one must the drive the other out."
So here we have essentially a declaration of war from the Church Father Gennadius setting
Christianity against the Law of Moses, and thus having the effect of setting gentiles against
Jews. Another and different Church Father, Augustine, who lived just a couple of decades
before Gennadius, had an entirely different viewpoint. In his homily called The Spirit and the
Letter, Augustine said this:
"Grace is given not because we have done good works but in order that we may have
the power to do them; not because we have fulfilled The Law but in order that we may
be able to fulfill it". So Augustine agrees with Paul and with Christ that the purpose of
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
salvation through grace is so that we can be properly devoted to God's commandments and,
by means of the Holy Spirit, enabled to do them in the spirit that God intended. Clearly this was
an inviting message to the Jewish people and not one that pitted gentile against Jew or
elevated gentile above Jew by dismissing the Law of Moses as an enemy of Christianity.
Therefore it is with a breath of fresh air that we read of yet another Church Father, Pelagius,
who although championing some doctrines that we today would find most heretical,
nonetheless says in his Commentary on the Book of Romans specifically regarding Romans
11:25:
"All that follows is designed to prevent the gentiles from being filled with pride towards
the Jews. It is a secret unknown to mankind why the gentiles were saved, because
Israel's blindness in fact furnished the occasion for their salvation. The blindness
continued until the Jews saw that the gentiles were being saved, since all were called to
salvation".
So what we find is that by the early 400's A.D. there was a growing schism within the Church
as to the place of The Law of Moses and to the place of Jews. It is rather ironic that in his era
Paul seeks to, somehow, try to fit gentiles into their proper role within this religion of the Jews
that believes upon Yeshua of Nazareth as their Messiah; but within 3 more centuries the
Church had many leaders who were not sure if it was possible, or even desirable, to fit Jews
into Christianity. Within a few more centuries after that, the predominant view of the Church
leadership was that Jews not only had no place within the Body of Christ as worshippers of
Yeshua, but also that they really had no place on this earth living in the same locations where
Christians might reside.
Though Paul was not a prophet in the same sense as Isaiah or Elijah or John, he indeed saw
the future truly based on what he saw starting to happen in his day.
By beginning verse 25 employing the word "for", the idea is that Paul is going to give his
readers the reason for his olive-tree analogy. Here, when he uses the term brothers (notice:
brothers, not brethren), brothers is meant to indicate fellow Believers: Jews and gentiles. The
CJB uses a dynamic translation of this verse because it revolves around the Greek word
musterion that is usually translated into English as mystery. As Dr. David Stern, the creator of
the CJB, explains it, he does this because the English word mystery as used in modern times
means something different than what the Greek word musterion meant to impart 2000 years
ago. It does not mean mystery in the sense of a riddle, nor does it mean mystery in the pagan
religious sense that is expressed in the term Mystery Babylon Religions. Rather, says Dr.
Stern, it means it more as a truth that God holds intimately secret unto Himself, which at the
proper moment He will reveal it. The Lord has chosen Paul to be the messenger of this secret
truth and it is this: by all human logic, and from a human fairness standpoint, one would reckon
that the entire nation of the Jews would be the first ones to be saved because of Christ. After
all, they were given God's Word, they produced both Mediators that God would ever give us
(Moses and then Yeshua), and the Jews were the first to hear the Gospel and given the Holy
Spirit, and it was especially aimed at them.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
Romans 1:16 CJB 16 For I am not ashamed of the Good News, since it is God's powerful
means of bringing salvation to everyone who keeps on trusting, to the Jew especially,
but equally to the Gentile.
Still aiming his words mostly at gentile Believers, Paul explains why God is revealing this
musterion (this truth that had been concealed but is now revealed) at this time and it is "So
that you won't imagine you know more than you actually do". That is, so that gentiles don't
misunderstand God's purpose and motive for including them in His salvation plan at this time,
Paul will explain the situation. And what is the reason for including gentiles?
Romans 11:25-26 CJB 25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God
formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won't imagine you know more
than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra'el, until the
Gentile world enters in its fullness; 26 and that it is in this way that all Isra'el will be
saved..........
Paul reveals the three elements that make up this amazing truth that has remained hidden for
thousands of years. First, it is that part of Israel has become hardened. The words that
stoniness "has come upon" Israel puts the onus on God, and not the people, as the source of
the hardening. On the other hand, God hardened those particular Israelites (Jews) because
they freely chose not to accept Yeshua as their Messiah. The stone-like hardness of mind
against Yeshua is, however, not total. Since the moment Christ revealed Himself there have
always been Jews who believed. So the hardening is a divine hardening, and not all of Israel
has been affected by it, but the largest part has. Yet there is a remnant that was not hardened,
and that remnant is the many thousands of Jewish Believers in Yeshua.
The second element is that this hardening will remain in place UNTIL the gentile world enters
its fullness. The Greek word that is being translated as fullness is pleroma and it usually
indicates the wholeness, the completeness, of something. It comes from the exact same root
as the Greek word pleroo (pleroo, pleroma). Why is that important? Because it is also one of
the key words of Matthew 5:17 – 19 when Christ says: 17 "Don't think that I have come to
abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. The
English word complete is the Greek pleroo, which means to fill to the fullest or to bring
something to its full wholeness. Can you now see how this relates? Christ came to bring the
Law to a complete wholeness in the same way that God intends on bringing gentiles to a
complete wholeness (obviously to complete does not mean to terminate unless God's goal is
to terminate gentiles as well as the Law). But what exactly does "entering their fullness" mean
as it concerns gentiles? It means that when God determines that the gentile world has been
evangelized fully enough, and gentile humans have been given sufficient opportunity to make a
decision for or against Christ, then the gentiles have entered their fullness; there are no more
that will be saved, at least under the current circumstances. It is upon that determination that
God will begin to supernaturally remove the stoniness of heart that non-Believing Jews have.
The third element is that the purpose of elements one and two are to bring about the third
element, which is to save all Israel. This path to a saving righteousness for all Israel that
seems so convoluted (it begins with Jews, then includes gentiles, then goes back to the Jews)
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
is in fact the path that God has determined. But what does "all Israel" mean? Does it mean
every last Israelite? I think it has a meaning on two levels. The first level is that throughout the
Bible "all Israel" is synonymous with "the whole house of Israel". And "the whole house of
Israel" is referring to the fact that Israel has always been a divided family. Historically it is
represented by two socio/political factions: a group of tribes led by Judah, and a second group
of tribes led by Ephraim. The Bible refers to these two groups of tribes as the two Houses of
Israel: the House of Judah and the House of Ephraim. The House of Judah is what we know
today as "the Jews". The House of Ephraim is better known as "The 10 Lost Tribes". What
Paul is revealing is the "how" of what Ezekiel reveals in his famous prophecy of the two sticks
in Ezekiel 37. We won't read the entire chapter, but here is the final part of it so that we can
see the relationship between this mystery that Paul is revealing and the mystery that Ezekiel is
revealing hundreds of years earlier.
Ezekiel 37:15-28 CJB
15 The word of ADONAI came to me:
16 "You, human being, take one stick and write on it, 'For Y'hudah and those joined with
him [among] the people of Isra'el.' Next, take another stick and write on it, 'For Yosef,
the stick of Efrayim, and all the house of Isra'el who are joined with him.' 17 Finally, bring
them together into a single stick, so that they become one in your hand. 18 When your
people ask you what all this means, 19 tell them that Adonai ELOHIM says this: 'I will
take the stick of Yosef, which is in the hand of Efrayim, together with the tribes of Isra'el
who are joined with him, and put them together with the stick of Y'hudah and make them
a single stick, so that they become one in my hand.'
20 The sticks on which you write are to be in your hand as they watch.
21 Then say to them that Adonai ELOHIM says: 'I will take the people of Isra'el from
among the nations where they have gone and gather them from every side and bring
them back to their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains
of Isra'el; and one king will be king for all of them. They will no longer be two nations,
and they will never again be divided into two kingdoms. 23 "'They will never again defile
themselves with their idols, their detestable things, or any of their transgressions; but I
will save them from all the places where they have been living and sinning; and I will
cleanse them, so that they will be my people, and I will be their God. 24 My servant David
will be king over them, and all of them will have one shepherd; they will live by my
rulings and keep and observe my regulations.
25 They will live in the land I gave to Ya'akov my servant, where your ancestors lived;
they will live there- they, their children, and their grandchildren, forever; and David my
servant will be their leader forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them, an
everlasting covenant. I will give to them, increase their numbers, and set my sanctuary
among them forever. 27 My home will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be
my people. 28 The nations will know that I am ADONAI, who sets Isra'el apart as holy,
when my sanctuary is with them forever.'"
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
So my point is that since Paul is applying what he says to "all Israel", then "all Israel" has to
mean, at the least, both houses of Israel. But that can't happen until the two houses are
rejoined. And that happens either after or coincidentally with, the time when the fullness of the
gentiles has been reached. We read in Ezekiel 37 about the reuniting of the two houses, and
the end of their ungodliness, and of their being ruled by "David" FOREVER. David is referring
to the Messiah from the family of David (David had been dead for 300 years by the time of
Jeremiah, so obviously he meant the royal descendants of David; not David himself). And no
mortal king rules forever; but Yeshua will. So it is clear who Ezekiel is referring to as the
"forever" ruler of an undivided Israel.
As it so happens the two houses of Israel are in process of reuniting as we speak. Thousands
of members of the "10 Lost Tribes" are returning and reuniting with their brother tribe Judah
(the Jews) in the Holy Land and I have personally witnessed it. Most mission organizations will
confess that for all practical purpose our entire planet has had the Word of God sent out to it.
Not 100%, but I don't think that is the actual requirement that every last living gentile will
personally hear the Gospel before the prophesied "fullness of the gentiles" has been reached.
The Bible simply doesn't deal by such standards.
But I spoke of "all Israel" as also having a meaning on a second level. For sure it means what
I just explained to you. But what it also likely means is similar to what "fullness of the gentiles"
means. That is, all Israel means that the full number of Jews (Hebrews, actually) who will ever
believe has been attained (according to God's calculation). But the bottom line is this: all Israel
will NOT be saved until God determines that the fullness of the gentiles has occurred.
As the proof text for what he is asserting, in verses 26 & 27 Paul combines two passages from
the Book of Isaiah: Isaiah 59:20, 21 and Isaiah 27:9. For the sake of time we won't go to these
passages in Isaiah and read the full context; however the gist of it is that these are dealing with
the End of Days. So the idea is that God is intervening in Israel's affairs at the End of Days
and is Himself taking away sin from Jacob (from Israel). Paul is saying that these Scriptures
are speaking of that time when the divine hardening of Israel comes to an end as Israel
accepts their Redeemer, their Messiah; but this only happens as the End of Days has begun.
Verse 28 continues with the theme that is being directed towards gentile Believers. Paul says
that as regards the Gospel, the ONLY reason that God has acted as He has towards Israel
(hardening them) is for the sake of the gentiles. But at the same time Israel remains loved by
God for the sake of the Hebrew Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). So Israel hasn't
necessarily merited the hardening any more than they have merited the love. Thus gentiles
shouldn't look at the Jews and think that their hardening is a divine punishment, anymore than
their election and the love God gives them is a reward. Israel is a tool for redemption; a tool
that can be used by the Divine Craftsman a number of different ways to achieve His purpose.
Then we hit another of those verses that makes me slap my forehead and wonder how in the
world so many can get it so wrong when the words are so clear and precise? Paul says that
God's gifts and his calling are irrevocable. Some abduct this phrase and use it to back the
case for a once-saved-always-saved doctrine. But this verse has nothing to do with Christians
at all; the subject is Israel (they were hated for the gentiles' sake and loved for the Patriarch's
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
sake). So the permanence of Israel's calling as God's chosen people is the context. However,
as many of you are probably aware, a goodly portion of the Church has determined that in the
New Testament, wherever we find the word "Israel" as regards redemption and election, we
should just strike it out and replace it with the word "Church". Yet Paul says that such a calling
of Israel cannot be revoked, canceled, or as some Christians think, be re-assigned to
somebody else. Israel is, and will always be, God's elect. Their unfaithfulness and their
sinning do not affect that position even though by human standards and reasoning we might
think it should. But what does Paul mean by it is for the Patriarch's sake that God continues to
love Israel? What is the Patriarch's sake? They were the receivers of God's precious
promises; and those promises are contained in a covenant: the Abrahamic Covenant. So what
is really being said is that Israel is loved by God, without any chance of revocation, for the sake
of the Covenant He made with the Patriarchs. It is the covenant relationship with Israel that is
not cancelable for any reason.
In verse 30 Paul makes a comparison between Israel and gentiles. The purpose is to make
clear the equality in God's eyes between Jews and gentiles, and to highlight once again that
gentiles should understand that it is nothing that they did that has caused God to offer them
salvation; rather it was because of His great mercy. But even more, gentiles were disobedient.
Paul spent the first few chapters of Romans speaking of gentiles in terms of Natural Law; and
that humans have written within our inner parts certain premises for behavior and morality...all
humans possess this. Thus the fact that gentiles didn't have the Law of Moses to go by
doesn't change anything. Breaking the Natural Law is no different as pertains to sin than
breaking the Law of Moses; it is still disobedience. The result of this disobedience is the same,
then, for those who have the Natural Law (gentiles) as for those who have the Law of Moses
(the Jews): the eternal death sentence. Therefore gentiles are in equal need for God's mercy
as are the Jews.
And yet, Paul cautions, the mercy that gentiles have received was ONLY because of Israel's
disobedience and God's reaction to it. Therefore, says Paul, it is the duty of gentiles to show
the disobedient Jews mercy, because by showing Jews the same mercy that God showed to
the gentiles then the Jews can also receive God's mercy. And what is God's mercy?
Salvation through trust in Yeshua! I'll bet you have never thought about your salvation in those
terms, have you? Let's break this down. The disobedient Jews were hardened by God. This
enabled God to turn to gentiles and offer them the mercy, the salvation that Israel, as a whole,
turned down. But now gentiles, understanding that our job is to make Israel jealous for the
same salvation that we have through their Messiah, is to accomplish this by showing such
Godly love to them that they can't resist. And by Believing gentiles showing the Jewish people
such tender love and mercy, it will make them open to accepting the saving mercy through
Yeshua that saved us. This reaction of Jews to Believing gentiles is guaranteed. But shoving a
Christian tract into a Jew's hands on a street corner; or laying an English New Testament on
the front porch of an Ultra-Orthodox Jew is not showing them God's mercy; all that does is
offend. So what does show love and mercy to the Jewish people? What is the actual
application of this duty of gentile Believers to show love and mercy to Jews?
By way of example I suppose this makes me want to boast a little bit about Seed of Abraham
Ministries because while we teach this and other Godly principles, we also obey God's
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
command to show love and mercy to the Jewish people. We have a non-profit retail store that
imports goods made by industrious Jews in Israel, and we sell those goods in America, and
online, to help Jewish families make a living. We have a humanitarian ministry in Jerusalem,
run entirely by Messianic Jews, that helps Israelis in need, provides scholarships to college
and vocational schools for Israeli youth, and helps the young soldiers of the IDF with clothing
and other items that the army can't provide them. We also operate a sizeable youth ministry
there to mentor the young Believing Jewish adults in their walk with Yeshua. We have another
and different ministry in the Mediterranean port city of Ashdod. It is a teaching ministry that
teaches the Holy Scriptures, including the New Testament, in the Hebrew language to the local
Jews. Then we disciple those who have shown an interest in Yeshua. We, of course, aren't
the only ones taking literally God's command to show mercy to Jews in response to the saving
righteousness that we have received from God on account of them. But folks, the Father is not
offering us a suggestion to show mercy to His people. I've often said that, sadly enough, the
evangelical Church has made salvation itself the goal of being a Christian. Thus once saved
we can retire, secure that we'll go to Heaven when we die. Yet the Lord makes it clear that we
are saved for a purpose larger than ourselves. And one of our great purposes is to help save
all Israel. That isn't our only purpose, but it is the purpose that Yehoveh says is at the top of
His list.
Verse 32 essentially summarizes the focal point of Romans chapters 9 through 11. The twin
themes of disobedience by all humans, and God's mercy to all humans, dominates all of
Romans. Paul discussed this issue in regards to gentiles quite explicitly back in Romans 1:18
through Romans 2:16. He then discussed it in regards to Jewish people in 2:17 through 3:20,
and then took it up again in chapters 5 and 7. What Paul wants all people to understand is that
God does NOT cause people to disobey. People disobey because we want to. We don't
usually do it out of ignorance, and we don't sin because we don't want to; we sin because we
enjoy it. We sin usually because in our selfishness we find it pleasurable and beneficial to us.
But when we do sin we find ourselves imprisoned by God, having our advantages and benefits
divinely limited, and then we are subjected to consequences because God is just and
disobedience towards Him cannot go unpunished. This is the condition all humanity faces; not
just Jews or not just gentiles. Thus in God's infinite wisdom, because all humanity sins and
falls short of the glory of God, all humanity is imprisoned (shut up) in our disobedience. But
then God uses this common condition among all humans to make equally available to all
humans His great mercy, through His Son Yeshua. Perhaps you can think of a better way that
you might have approached the problem of sin and eternal death if you were God. Literally
billions of humans think they can. It doesn't matter: this is God's way, and it is the only way
that will ever be offered to us.
It is tragic that scoffers and mockers look at this way of the Lord and laugh. They see
Yeshua's followers as little more than children following a fantasy. They read about God's
plan of redemption and think how silly and impractical it is. But Paul virtually breaks into song
as he thinks about the musterion, the hidden but now revealed truth that the Lord showed
him; about how God saves people from eternal annihilation. 33 O the depth of the riches and
the wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments! How
unsearchable are his ways!
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 28 - Chapter 11 concl
But this not the usual response from humans. Back in Romans chapter 1, Paul said:
Romans 1:20-22 CJB 20 For ever since the creation of the universe his invisible
qualities- both his eternal power and his divine nature- have been clearly seen, because
they can be understood from what he has made. Therefore, they have no excuse; 21
because, although they know who God is, they do not glorify him as God or thank him.
On the contrary, they have become futile in their thinking; and their undiscerning hearts
have become darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they have become fools!
In verses 33 and 34, using passages from Isaiah 40 and from Job 41, Paul continues to extol
the virtues and character of our God from His supreme sovereignty, to his unceasing
faithfulness, to the fact that not one thing that He promises will ever go undone. Should we not
be as overwhelmed as is the Apostle Paul?
So rightfully so, Paul ends this section with a blessing that is also a prayer of thanksgiving for
God's great love and mercy towards mankind:
Romans 11:36 CJB3 6
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be
the glory forever! Amen.
We'll begin Romans chapter 12 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 29, Chapter 12
Romans chapter 12 is one of those that has a bit more depth to it than a casual read of it might
suggest. So we're going to get a little technical today to add some background to what it is we
will read.
One of the unsatisfactory, even risky, results of divesting from the Apostle Paul his Jewishness
and his high level of Jewish religious education at the elite rabbinical Academy of Gamaliel is
that when we read his words we lose not just the all important context but the tone and the
fabric of his underlying self. That is, who he is, where he came from, and what his deeply
ingrained worldview is. Within institutional Christianity it is implied (at times outright stated) that
Paul is essentially a Jew who, because of Christ, now identifies more as a gentile; and that
when we read his epistles he is making all this up as he goes. That is, he is essentially
inventing Christianity and establishing Church doctrine on the fly in the same way Alexander
Graham Bell invented the telephone and designed the first telephone network starting with a
blank sheet of paper. In other words something new was created where it had never before
existed, not even in concept. Just as Bell created the manual of telephony, so did Paul create
the manual of Christianity.
While I've endeavored at several points to show you how that is not at all the case, I'm going
to show you in yet another way why this erroneous platform for understanding Paul needs to
be replaced with a reality that ought to have been self-evident even before something near
hard proof has emerged. The main source I'll use comes from the Essene community of Jews
who, about 150 years before Christ, separated themselves from regular Jewish society
primarily because they felt that the Priesthood and the institutional Temple system had become
completely corrupt and wicked. Since they saw the Torah ordained Temple and Priesthood as
the molten core of worship of the God of Israel, they went off to prepare themselves as a new
order of priests that would eventually replace the corrupt priesthood as it currently existed and
restore the Temple and Priesthood to its God intended purity. My effort to help to restore Paul
more closely to his actual self will also involve the great series of documents that the Essenes
wrote collectively called the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most Christians think of the Dead Sea Scrolls as but the Bible copied and written down in
Hebrew by this strange Dead Sea sect around 100 B.C. And the great news about finding this
treasure trove of documents in the mid 1940's is that it has proved just how faithfully the Old
Testament has been preserved and handed down over the centuries so we can trust what we
have in our Bibles today. But in fact the Dead Sea Scrolls is much more than only the copied
books of the Old Testament; it also contains the theology, the philosophy, and the community
rules for the Essenes that were recorded quite meticulously. After being discovered in some
caves near the Dead Sea in Israel, the Scrolls were controlled for decades by a very small
group of scholars and only fairly recently released for public consumption.
1 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
As researchers around the world have poured over these ancient documents it has become
clear that our modern views of the New Testament, and therefore of the writers who wrote the
various books, were going to be effected.....more so in some cases, less so in others. To be
clear: some of these scrolls were written as much as 2 centuries before the gospels and letters
of the New Testament were first penned, and well more than 3 centuries before those gospels
and letters were collected and turned into the New Testament. So, of course, no remnant of
any New Testament document was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls; they represent an
earlier time. Nevertheless, because of what was found, Paul and his epistles especially were
going to have to be rethought not because of errors in the biblical manuscripts, but because of
errors in interpreting Paul's meaning and in understanding his perspective and even the
sources of some of his thoughts. However the response of the many mainstream Christian
denominations around the world, whether of Western Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern
Orthodox, Slavic, Coptic, or any other, has been muted to the say the least. Why? Probably
because while the scholars and academics that represent these denominations are gleefully
excited over the new information that these documents are giving to them, and they are open
to its significance, for the various Church governments it feels more like an unwelcome threat
to the carefully guarded status quo.
Is this sense of threat because the content of the Dead Sea Scrolls in any way contests or calls
to question our faith in Yeshua of Nazareth as Messiah? No. Does it in any way contest or calls
to question the Holy Scriptures as reliable? No. What the Dead Sea Scrolls does contest and
call to question are the beliefs and motives and even the theology of Judaism in that era, and
where the ideas that especially Paul presents in his many letters originally came from. Were
those ideas entirely fresh from his own mind? Or were they from divine inspiration by the risen
Yeshua? Or where, exactly, did they come from? Ideas that to the gentile early Church Fathers
seemed so "new" and innovative that it caused the Church for the past 1800 years to see less
and less use for the Old Testament. As we'll soon find out, many of those supposed new and
original thoughts of Paul were already in existence and being taught and practiced in the
Essene community, and known in the broader Jewish community, more than 100 years before
Yeshua, and 150 years before Paul; often using the exact same terminology that Paul is found
using to explain some of his theology (in fact, even Yeshua employed some of those Essenes'
terms). Coincidence? Hardly. So why does Church government, in general, seem so
disinterested in what these documents reveal? Because it puts a different face on the meaning
of Paul's words at times, and it more completely describes what the true nature of Jewishness
and Judaism at that time looked like, and it reinforces the unmistakable Jewish nature and
source of the New Testament concepts and information.
Open your Bibles to Romans chapter 12.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 12 all
Chapters 1 – 11 of Romans accomplished several things. First they had Paul attempting to
assert his authority over the believing congregation in Rome as the Christ-chosen Apostle to
the Gentiles. He is doing this long-distance; a first so far as we know since he had never been
to Rome so he had no hand in organizing the congregation or teaching it his doctrine. Second,
in keeping with the protocol of his several other letters to various congregations, he is writing to
2 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
the Romans about matters that he perceives directly concern them. He must have heard some
things about the Rome congregation that he felt needed his attention and so he wrote to them.
The rather standard Christian position is that in Romans Paul is creating a brand new Christian
systematic theology and presenting it to the Roman Believers almost like a trial run. I don't
buy this and thankfully many modern NT scholars don't either. Third, Paul has been setting
the foundation and purpose for God's inclusion of gentiles into what was otherwise but a
rather new branch of Judaism; a branch that worshiped Yeshua as Lord and Savior. Paul of
course saw this gentile inclusion as membership into the Kingdom of God and into the body of
the elect that up to now had consisted solely of Jews.
However chapter 12 begins a new direction in Paul's letter. To use more familiar Church
language, Paul was moving from theory to application. But from the more apropos Jewish
perspective (and especially from that of a trained Rabbi like Paul), Paul was going to draw out
some Halakhot (religious rulings) that the Jewish and gentile Believers of Rome should follow
based on what Paul had taught them in the 11 previous chapters. This new focus of chapter 12
will continue until about midway through Romans chapter 15.
Verse 1: when Paul says he exhorts, or urges, the Romans to do a certain thing, it is Paul
exercising his authority as an Apostle. His intent would have been understood by the letter
recipients. Whether some or all of the Believers of Rome would have accepted the authority he
claimed is another matter. And from what we find in the Book of Acts, when a few years later
he found himself in Rome as a prisoner in chains, the implication is that not much of the
Roman congregation had accepted Paul's authority over them. The challenging issue of verse
1 is what Paul means when he speaks about the need for the Roman Believers to offer
themselves up to God as a sacrifice: living, and set apart for the Lord. But even more, what
does he mean when he continues that being a sacrifice is the logical Temple worship for these
Roman Believers.
The CJB is the only one that states it quite that way. More typical is like we see it in the KJV.
KJV Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your
reasonable service.
Or, as in the NAS version: NAS Romans 12:1 I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies
of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is
your spiritual service of worship. However in the original Greek, neither the term spiritual
nor worship is actually there.
In fact, including the word "spiritual" practically turns the impact of this portion of the verse on
its head. The key Greek word near the end of this sentence is logikos. As you might already
be guessing it is where we get the English word logic. And indeed logikos means reason or
logic. However this logic pertains to the following Greek word latreia, which means a service
that is about something religious. So this difficult phrase means something like, "The logical
service of worship". Here, I believe, is the point: Paul is saying that by making ourselves like a
sacrifice to God, living and holy, that this is the intelligent, logical, reason-based response to
3 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
becoming a Believer. Hear that? It is not about a feeling. Offering ourselves up to God is not an
ecstatic response; it is not an emotional response; and it should not be a knee-* reaction.
Rather, knowing what we now know about Yeshua and redemption means that it is the
perfectly logical thing for any thinking Believer to do to offer ourselves up to God as a sacrifice.
Our response to our salvation needs to begin with our mind. Saying it in the negative would be:
NOT becoming a sacrifice, living and holy to God, would defy any kind of normal, intelligent
human response to receiving such a great gift.
However slicing that onion a bit thinner, what does Paul mean by the phrase: "a sacrifice,
living and holy"? Some versions have rearranged the word order to "a living and holy
sacrifice". In other words, the sacrifice (us) remains alive and gains holiness. That would be
fine except that it ignores how the sacrificial system worked. Clearly the way the CJB says it is
much closer to what Paul had in mind because the logical "service" refers to the religious
services that take place at the Temple just as the sacrifice also refers to actions that take place
ONLY at the Temple. We must take this in its natural, entirely Jewish context. Where else than
the Temple would a Jew offer religious service? What else to a Jew is a sacrifice except a
living creature that is given to God as an offering of atonement, upon the Holy Altar, at the Holy
Temple? This is not some generalized, universal, gentile oriented statement. Paul is making
use of metaphor just as he regularly does (he does not literally mean for a Believer to go to the
Temple and throw himself on the altar as a human sacrifice); but the setting and the motif of
Paul's metaphor is of course the Jerusalem Temple and the sacrificial Laws of Moses.
So what of the underlying concept of a living and holy sacrifice? First, this is nothing new; all
Temple sacrifices are to be presented to God living and holy. Dead animals are not presented
to God. They are given to Him first as alive, and only shortly before being burned up on the
Altar are they killed. From the moment they are given by the worshipper; the moment they are
selected out from the flock or herd for sacrifice, they become set apart as God's holy property.
Let me set something before you that at first might not seem so apparent. Paul regularly uses
the Temple system as the underlying subject of his metaphors. But he's not the only NT writer
to do this; Peter did as well. CJB 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, the King's
cohanim, a holy nation, a people for God to possess! Why? In order for you to declare
the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Or as
you are more used to hearing it:
NAS 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people
for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has
called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
A royal priesthood; in numerous places in the New Testament Believers are called priests. But
for the most part, this is metaphor since biblically priests can only be Levites. But what mental
image is this metaphor meant to conjure up? It is the image of Temple service since the
underlying subject of the metaphor is the Holy Temple and its ritual services that must be
performed by Levitical priests. You can't get much more Jewish than that!
Indeed, Paul spent a great deal of time speaking about Believers dying to ourselves in earlier
chapters of Romans. And that like Christ, we are to voluntarily die (in our case die to our sin
4 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
and to our former ways). Thus the sacrificial altar at the Holy Temple is the backdrop for
Paul's concept as the place where Believers are to die to ourselves, but only after presenting
ourselves to God holy and living, just as with any sacrifice. So, Believers, this is not a new
concept that Paul is suggesting. And even more, the Essenes thought the same way 1 ½
centuries before Paul. Here is an excerpt from Dead Sea Scroll 1QS 5. I'm only going to
partially quote it for time's sake.
And this is the rule for the members of the Community, for those who volunteer to be
converted from all evil and to cling to all His commands according to His will; to
separate themselves from the congregation of perverse men, to become a community in
The Law......The shall practice truth....humility and righteousness and justice and loving
charity......But in the Community they shall circumcise the * of the evil inclination
and of disobedience in order to lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the community of
the everlasting covenant; that they may atone for all who are volunteers for the holiness
of Aaron......
So we see the Essenes use the Temple motif as metaphor, and when they speak of atoning it
is the same as when Paul speaks of being a sacrifice, living and holy, because the purpose of
an animal sacrifice is atonement. Temple service is what righteous men do, logically. And yet,
we are confronted with this irony that both the Essenes and Paul noted: the logical rational
thing for a man made righteous by trust in God is his SPIRITUAL worship of God. Today, as it
has been since the European Enlightenment of the early 18th century, logic and spirit are seen
as mutually exclusive concepts; they can't be spoken of in the same sentence. In fact, logic
and reason replace spirit and inspiration. To be spiritual is not logical, it is thought, and vice
versa. This is the basis of secular humanism.
Paul continues the concept of the logical-rational mind being the location where spiritual
renewal takes place in verse 2. And the ruling from Paul is straightforward: if you want to agree
with God and please Him then turn away from the standards of this world that have always
been your standards because until you believed, you were part of the world. Here's the point
Paul is making: since renewal begins in your mind then you must make the correct mental
decisions. Now that we are saved, and have the Holy Spirit in us, it is our responsibility to
consciously make different choices than we used to make before we knew Yeshua. We must
think before we act and cease acting instinctively, because our instincts are of this world. Of
course, as Paul pointed out in Romans chapter 7, humans are caught in a conundrum when it
comes to choices and our behavior:
Romans 7:15-20 CJB
15 I don't understand my own behavior- I don't do what I want to do; instead, I do the
very thing I hate! 16 Now if I am doing what I don't want to do, I am agreeing that the
Torah is good. 17 But now it is no longer "the real me" doing it, but the sin housed inside
me.
18 For I know that there is nothing good housed inside me- that is, inside my old nature. I
can want what is good, but I can't do it! 19 For I don't do the good I want; instead, the evil
5 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
that I don't want is what I do! 20 But if I am doing what "the real me" doesn't want, it is no
longer "the real me" doing it but the sin housed inside me.
And he ends this crying out in frustration by saying:
24 What a miserable creature I am! Who will rescue me from this body bound for death?
25 Thanks be to God [, he will]!- through Yeshua the Messiah, our Lord! To sum up: with
my mind, I am a slave of God's Torah; but with my old nature, I am a slave of sin's
"Torah."
So this is kind of a good news/bad news situation for Believers. The bad news is that although
we are saved, we still live in the world with all its pulls and temptations and reminders of our
past life. The good news is that we are no longer helpless victims of our evil inclinations that
keep us bound to this world. There is now a power in us, the Holy Spirit, to help us overcome.
However, we can't go take a nap and leave it to the Holy Spirit to do all the work. We have to
put this new reality into practice, being aware that it will be hard and not easy and it begins with
our conscious choices. It means fighting our knee-* reactions. The problem that any
psychologist or counselor will tell you is that it is the human nature to want approval from our
peers, and there will be constant pressure on us to conform to whatever the social norms might
be. A popular term for this today is political correctness.
So in verse 3 Paul commands (he creates a religious ruling) that no one should exaggerate
their own importance but rather should view oneself by the standard that God uses; and that
standard is trust in His Son. When Paul says, "Through the grace that has been given to me"
he is speaking about grace as the position of authority that the Lord has graciously given him;
he's speaking of being an Apostle. Most other versions of the Bible than the CJB gives this
verse a different meaning. The NAS says this: NAS Romans 12:3 For through the grace
given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he
ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a
measure of faith.
What does the phrase "measure of faith" mean to tell us? If we take the way the NAS and
most other versions interpret it, it means measure in the sense of "amount" or "quantity". That
is, God has allotted to each of us a certain amount of faith. And since what a Believer can do is
based on the quantity of faith he or she has, then those whom God has given a large amount
of faith can do miracles, and those whom God has given a little tiny bit of faith can do next to
nothing. If this is the case, brotherly unity among Believers becomes exceedingly difficult if not
impossible, especially in light of what is being said in the following verses about how we are
each a different part of the same body, and we must not think that our part is better than
another and different part. So this idea of faith being measured in terms of quantity or amount
cannot be what Paul has in mind.
Rather, the term "measure of faith" is better expressed in English as "standard of faith". One
legitimate definition of the word measure is "standard"; but the modern English language
doesn't use the word measure that way very much. What is the standard of faith that God
6 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
measures us by? Trust. So, says Paul, we need to evaluate ourselves honestly to see where
we are on God's trust scale. We shouldn't deceive ourselves about ourselves. Our trust in
Yeshua is the measure by which God views us and deals with us. This has much bearing on
what he says next.
Now that Paul has explained the preliminaries, he is going to install general guidelines that
Believers, Jews and gentiles, are to follow as members of the Believing community. He is
essentially following the same pattern of community building that we find the Essenes used as
they recorded it in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Remember: while for us all that remains of the
Essenes is the Dead Sea Scrolls, for Paul the Essenes community was current. Essenes
walked among the people of the Holy Land. They were a long established, alive and thriving
Jewish community. They were well known, well accepted, and quite influential among the
common folks, hated by the Priesthood, and admired among the theologians of Judaism......like
Paul. So not surprisingly he approaches setting out community rules for the Messianic
community very similarly to how the Essenes did it.
So the first community principle that Paul must establish is that while everyone is equal
spiritually in God's eyes, not everyone has been given the same abilities or purpose. Thus
using the metaphor of the human body there is not one part of the body that can say it is more
valuable than another; all parts of a body are needed to achieve wholeness. Even so, each
part is for a different purpose; they cannot all be the same or perform the same function. But
here's the crux: all the many parts must understand that they are there for the well-being of
the entire body. Some parts may have more visibility and so get more attention and more credit
than the others. Some parts may get the dirty work while other parts seem to get the glory. And
in the body of Christ even one more step of complexity exists: some parts will be Jews and
other parts will be gentiles so the possibility of jealousy, cultural misunderstanding, and the
want of dominance is a clear and present danger at all times. However if community unity is
Christ centered, and not self centered, then it can work properly. If we see ourselves as
belonging to the others of our community, then our function will not rate ourselves based on
our sense of importance but rather on how well we achieve our particular purpose for the good
of the entire body.
In verse 6 we again see the rather unique way that Paul uses the term "grace" when he says
that gifts will differ and are meant to be used according to the grace given to each person.
Grace in this instance is used by Paul almost to mean the substance of the gift; that is, the
grace is the nature of the gift to Believers just as for Paul the grace he received was the
apostolic authority he was given. But now Paul begins to list some of these gifts that are
usually called in Western Christian circles "spiritual" gifts. Some think that the order that Paul
lists them indicates the order of importance that God sees them; that is, they are listed from the
greater gifts to the lesser gifts. I disagree with that and there is nothing in these words to
indicate such a thing. Why the order he chose? There is nothing to indicate what that might be.
Might there be lesser and greater gifts in God's eyes? It certainly seems possible. However on
the other hand it would sort of go against Paul's thought that while all parts of the body are
equal, they will also be different with none more valuable than the other. So to set the spiritual
gifts up in a pecking order of value or importance in the next verse would seem to conflict with
what he just said.
7 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
So without assigning value or importance, here are the gifts: Prophecy, serving, teaching,
counseling, giving, leading, and doing acts of mercy. In the New Testament, prophecy most
often means discerning and explaining Scripture (OT Scripture). However in this case, since
prophecy and teaching are listed as two separate gifts, then prophecy must mean something
else. If we take prophecy as meaning something a little closer to revelation that is probably the
best idea. That is, prophets in the Old Testament were generally directly attached to specific
kings of Israel, and they heard directly from God and delivered His oracles to Israel's kings.
They were often given the ability to see into the future, or better, were given information about
the future. There is no such claim to this in the New Testament except perhaps by John in
Revelation. However, there is still inspiration and revelation of already existing truths that until
now had not been correctly understood or fully revealed. So in this sense Paul could be said to
have this gift of prophecy. In fact, since Judaism is the cultural backdrop for the New
Testament, it is good for you to know that about a half century before Paul's day the Sages
had declared that prophecy as it was known and practiced in the Tanakh (the Old Testament)
had come to a halt. But just few years later, Rabbis shifted and claimed that they were the new
prophets. However, they too meant it more in the sense of revealing truth than seeing the
future. Paul's era was a time of transition as regards how prophecy was thought about. Rabbis
once again believed that OT style prophecy was still possible and yet exactly what that
amounted to differed according to different Rabbis. Thus we see in the New Testament a fuzzy
definition of prophecy and use of the term that, depending on the writer, the character, and the
situation, can mean anything from merely teaching Scripture all the way up to bringing a new
oracle from the Lord, and even in a limited sense to seeing into the future.
The gift of serving is more meant in the realm of service, and service is meant in the realm of
Temple worship (not like doing the good deed of washing your elderly neighbor's windows).
This service would include things like prayer, teaching about the Torah, making financial
contributions to the Temple (or perhaps to the Synagogue) and doing everything generously
and without seeking compensation. So service is meant entirely in the religious sense and not
in the humanitarian sense.
The gift of teaching was center stage during Paul's era. The purpose of a teacher was to
instruct others on how to walk in the ways of God. The reference material for a teacher was
Holy Scripture, and his job was not to add to it or make bold predictions from it, but rather it
was to show people how to know God's will and to another extent to make application.
Interestingly the most revered person in the community of the Essenes was called the Teacher
of Righteousness. I think for us to better understand the office of Teacher in 2nd Temple
Judaism, it is good to hear from the Essene Teacher of Righteousness himself.
Taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH, the Teacher of Righteousness says this:
And thou hast created me for Thy sake to fulfill The Law and to teach by my mouth the
men of they council in the midst of the sons of men, that They marvels may be told to
everlasting generations and Thy mighty deeds be contemplated without end. And all the
nations shall know Thy truth and all the peoples Thy glory. For Thou hast caused them
to enter Thy glorious Covenant with all the men of Thy council and into a common lot
with the Angels of the Face and none shall treat with insolence the sons...and they shall
8 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
be converted by Thy glorious mouth and shall be Thy princes in the lot of light.
So the office of teacher was purely about teaching God's Word, and fulfilling The Law of
Moses by teaching it to others so that God's marvels and mighty deeds will be known forever.
And the hope is that all the nations (meaning the gentiles) will hear of it and revere the God of
Israel. Does not that sound exactly like Paul's purpose as an Apostle to the Gentiles and
Christ's exhortation to Believers in the New Testament? And speaking of exhortation, the term
councilor in verse 8 has much to do with exhortation. In fact, to again inject the Jewish
perspective into this that Paul would of course have had, a person who exhorted was a
councilor or a preacher (those two terms were generally synonymous). A councilor was a
person who gave sermons and dealt more with life questions like 'why do bad things happen
to good people', and the nature of morality; they kept the stories of Israel's great heroes alive,
spoke about what proper justice is, when vengeance is warranted and when it's not, and so
on. A preacher or a councilor did not teach God's Holy Scriptures exegetically, and especially
did not teach exegetically on the Torah, The Law of Moses; that privilege belonged to the office
of the Teacher.
I want to pause for a moment for you to notice something critical in everything I've told you.
I've told you before that there were parallel religious systems operating within Judaism in
Paul's day that the people just took for granted: the Temple and the Synagogue. All of these
offices and jobs and gifts were thought of by Paul as operating within the definitions and rules
of the Synagogue system led by Rabbis; not with the Temple rules overseen by Priests. While
the Temple system was still venerated for the purpose of the biblical feasts, appointed times,
and sacrificing, the Priesthood (especially the High Priest) was no longer trusted and in fact
earned the title Sons of Darkness from the Essenes. So while Temple imagery is used
especially by Paul in the several metaphors he employs in his writings, this is not to be
confused with thinking that Paul had any more to do with that system than did any typical Jew.
The typical Jew was far more tied to the Synagogue system.
The gift of giving is pretty straight forward. While it certainly includes supporting the Temple
and the Synagogue, it just as easily included being hospitable to strangers (this was a high
virtue social custom in the Middle East anyway).
The gift of leading can be seen mainly as a task that fell to Israel's elders. Elders in this era
were also known as overseers. Included in this gift category was the President of the
Synagogue who was tasked with finding speakers, assuring the maintenance of the
Synagogue building, and serving on elder boards. It also included presiding over meetings.
Leading was not political, nor was it in any official government capacity. It, too, was meant as
leading within the religious realm
It is difficult to find what was in the Jewish mind a person who did acts of mercy, especially if it
is seen as a special spiritual gift. It is my position that this is not meant to be a job a person did,
or an office like teacher or prophet. Rather it is more a highly revered character trait that all
Believers should desire to have rather than a separate gifting. But the main point Paul makes
about doing acts of mercy (charity) is to always do it cheerfully as opposed to doing it
grudgingly, or as little as possible but still maintaining a good reputation before your peers.
9 / 10
Romans Lesson 29 - Chapter 12
Since this ends the section about gifts, we'll stop here and continue with the remainder of
chapter 12 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
10 / 10
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 30, Chapter 12 continued
The final part of last week's lesson regarded gifts of specific aptitudes and abilities given to
each Believer by God; these are better known in Christian circles as spiritual gifts. They were:
prophecy, serving, teaching, counseling, giving, leading, and doing acts of mercy. No priority or
preeminence seems to have been assigned to these by Paul. They had to be presented in
some order or another and he says nothing about the first gift listed (prophecy) being greater
than any of the following gifts, nor that the last gift listed (doing acts of mercy) is the least of
them. If one gift was indeed greater or better than the others, then Paul's entire metaphorical
soliloquy about parts of the body all being different yet needed for their own purposes, and his
other thoughts about the equality between Jews and gentiles would be contradictory. So it
seems to me that the spiritual gifts all have approximately equal value and importance in
God's Kingdom so that no one should boast about which one they might have received. There
is a hint of a hierarchy of spiritual gifts in 1Corinthians 12:28, but I think Paul is simply
numbering them and not listing them in a numerical pecking order. Beyond that, the lists from 1
Corinthians and Romans don't match.
Paul having spoken, now, about different gifting given to different people according to the
Lord's will, what follows next beginning in verse 9 are the Apostle's instructions that apply
universally to all Believers. Before we read this section of Romans chapter 12 I want to remind
you that to the Jewish Rabbi Paul establishing these instructions for Believers must be looked
at from the Jewish cultural perspective. That is, within the Jewish world these kinds of
religious rulings are called Halakhot and within any community of Jewish people these rulings
were the norm for establishing behavior and doctrine. What makes them unique in Romans 12
is that this was Messianic Halakhah; that is, religious rulings for followers of Yeshua. However
lest we think that Paul's rulings were different from what was already being practiced in Jewish
society, these rulings bear a striking resemblance to the manner, terminology, and in many
cases the theology used by the Essenes in establishing the community rules for their Dead
Sea sect of Judaism. So let's read starting in verse 9.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 12:9 – end
Paul's first general instructions concern love and hate. We're going to spend a few minutes
with the subject of love and hate because it can sometimes be hard in this modern world
(including within Christianity) to define these two terms due to what they have come to mean in
the West as opposed to what they meant 2000 years ago in a Jewish Middle Eastern context.
What ought to matter to us is what love and hate means from God's perspective. First and
foremost love means a wholehearted acceptance and hate means a complete rejection. Thus
as it relates to our relationship with God, to love Him is to fully accept Him and to hate Him is to
firmly reject Him. To love what is good is to fully accept and internalize what is good. To hate
what is good is to purposely and knowingly reject what is good. Second, love is complete
devotion to a person, an ideal, a god or perhaps a way of life. Hate is a complete disregard and
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
aversion towards a person, an ideal, a god, or a way of life. But third, as biblically defined, love
and hate intrinsically involve actions: outward behavior. And this may be the largest departure
from how those two terms are thought of today whereby love and hate are seen as mostly
products of emotion. While love and hate can certainly involve our emotions, biblically
speaking love and hate are not the names of two of our emotions nor are love and hate
primarily about emotion.
Because the Bible makes it clear that love and hate both emanate from the heart, then
because of the modern romantic sense of the heart being the seat of our emotions (especially
of love) then the knee-* reaction of Christians and secular people alike to the terms love and
hate is to think of them as super-intense emotions. So for modern people to love is to "like"
someone or something to an extreme level and to hate is to "dislike" someone or something to
an equally extreme level. However as we've discussed innumerable times, when the Bible
uses the term "heart" it means it as the seat of our will and our intellect; not of our emotions. In
that era the kidneys, liver, and even stomach were seen as the inner sources of human
emotions. To summarize: in Bible times the heart was NOT seen as the seat of our emotions,
but rather as the seat of our intellect. Yes; back then it was assumed that the human heart
organ was where our mental processes, our thinking, took place. They knew nothing of the
brain as part of the thinking process. So the better way to perceive what the Bible means by
"heart" (lev in Hebrew, kardia in Greek) is to substitute the word "mind".
God tells us that it is our minds that give birth to love and hate, but He also tells us that our
actions (our outward behaviors) are used to express love and hate. Thus when in Romans
12:9 Paul speaks about not letting our love be a mere outward show (not letting love be only
insincere actions) instead of our behavior expressing our true inward mind, it is meant to
connect nicely with what he has been teaching in previous chapters of Romans about following
the Law of Moses in inward spirit and not only in an outward, mechanical following of religious
instructions. I think it would be fair to say that Paul is telling Believers not to be hypocritical or
phony.
Building upon what I explained about biblical love and hate ALWAYS involving action, Paul
says to recoil from what is evil and instead to cling to what is good. Once again while certainly
the instruction to recoil from the one and to cling to the other begins with our minds making a
decision (and for Believers this decision should based upon what the Lord has taught and
commanded us) recoiling and clinging also characterizes our outward behaviors. So let me
give you an example of this in our time; I'll use something that can be most challenging to deal
with. The matter of homosexuality is approached in a straightforward manner in both the Old
and New Testaments and it is listed as among the worst sins possible; thus it is biblically
immoral and even called abhorrent by God. Therefore what is to be the Christian reaction to
this lifestyle that God calls evil? Paul says we are to recoil from evil. So what does that mean;
are we merely to intellectually reject it and leave it at that? No. Does it mean being outwardly
nasty and even abusive to the person who has embraced the sin of homosexuality? No; that
violates the principle of loving your neighbor. Does that mean we should be accepting,
excusing, and tolerant of the lifestyle of the person who has embraced homosexuality in a
show of our love? No to that as well. To recoil means to reject any particular evil for ourselves;
first mentally and then behaviorally. But it also means to never compromise and accept any
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
evil as merely reasonable personal choice for others. Unfortunately in some cases it can mean
having as little to do as possible with the unrepentant person who has fully embraced that sin
and its accompanying lifestyle.
Therefore we must not recoil in our conscience from something but at the same time cling to it
in our behavior. Nor should we cling in our conscience to something but outwardly recoil
against it. To try to do so reveals that we are self-deceived or it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
That may not be a politically correct viewpoint today, but biblically that is how it is.
So what does it mean, biblically speaking, to cling to good? In our time, just as it meant in
Paul's day, it means to constantly behave in a righteous manner that conforms to God's
Torah: the Law of Moses. It is the Torah that sets down the standard of good for the entire
world; so the good it mandates should be especially embraced by followers of Yeshua. We
don't have the time to get into the deep discussion of exactly how to bring across the intent
(the spirit) of each of the 613 laws to modern times.....some are much more difficult to do than
others. But rather I mean to generalize (just as Paul is doing) to say that our outward
behaviors need to stay closely tied to the biblical definitions of good that we mentally agree
with, even if our friends or authorities think we are being too prudish, inflexible, or intellectually
backward for the 21st century. It is a fine thing to mentally agree with God's definitions of good
and that these principles should be obeyed; it is another to act it out especially around others
who don't walk with the Lord or don't take their faith as seriously as do you.
I'll give you another rather touchy example for our time to mull over; eating and diet. The
Torah has clearly set aside certain edible items as for God's followers, and other edible items
that are to be shunned by His followers. The permitted items are to be the sole food sources
for Believers; the prohibited items are not to be considered food at all (even though technically
they might be perfectly edible and perhaps even tasty and desirable). The list of prohibited and
permissible items is not something that neither is difficult to bring across time and culture nor is
difficult to follow. All of the edible items listed in Leviticus are generally available in nearly every
culture of the world (certainly they are in the West). Therefore we must first mentally put
ourselves subject to God's commandments regarding food and diet, and then we must put that
decision into action. However if we are not convinced in our conscience about eating biblically
Kosher (even though all Believers should be), then to eat Kosher anyway because our friends
do so or so we can fit in with a certain religious group so that we can look good, means that
we're doing it for the wrong reasons; we're neither clinging nor recoiling, we're being
hypocritical. Spiritually speaking, we are trying to love and hate the same thing at the same
time; the Bible calls this being double-minded. Let's move on from love and hate to Paul's
next ruling.
Verse 10 is essentially Paul making a ruling based on his midrash (his interpretation) of the
meaning of Leviticus 19:18.
CJB Leviticus 19:18 Don't take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any of your
people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself; I am ADONAI. It's important to notice that
this religious ruling that Paul makes for Believers to love your neighbor as yourself and to show
honor to others is not a new Christian innovation; Paul is merely stating a fundamental
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
principle within mainstream Judaism of his day. The Pirkei Avot, which in English means
Chapters of the Fathers, is a compilation of Hebrew ethical and moral teachings passed down
to the Rabbis. In Pirkei Avot 2.10 we read this:
R. Eliezer said: Let the honor of your friend be as dear to you as your own.....Who is he
that is honored? He who honors his fellow man, as it is said: For them that honor Me I
will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.
What we just heard is basically a rabbinic way of pronouncing the Golden Rule: do unto others
as you would have them do unto you.
Another ethical teaching Paul introduces to the Believers at Rome follows in verse 11: CJB
Romans 12:11 Don't be lazy when hard work is needed, but serve the Lord with spiritual
fervor. Clearly this verse is less about not being lazy at our jobs, and more about how
zealously we serve in the Kingdom of God. And the idea is for Believers to not shun getting our
hands dirty doing Kingdom work but to be eager participants. That is, don't leave everything to
the other guy and especially the hard things or even the little things that may go largely unseen
by others of the community. Even more we are to do whatever our task might be with the fire of
the Holy Spirit burning in us as our motivation and as our guide.
Paul gives us this instruction in verse 12: CJB Romans 12:12 Rejoice in your hope, be
patient in your troubles, and continue steadfastly in prayer. Yeshua made these two
statements that no doubt Paul had in mind when he wrote those words. CJB Matthew 10:22
Everyone will hate you because of me, but whoever holds out till the end will be
preserved from harm. Christ also said: John 15:18-19 CJB18 "If the world hates you,
understand that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would have
loved its own. But because you do not belong to the world- on the contrary, I have
picked you out of the world- therefore the world hates you. So Paul is telling Believers that
we need to rejoice in hope....but a hope of what? Whenever Paul speaks of hope it is nearly
always hope for resurrection from the dead. Believers receive this hope of personal
resurrection because of our trust in Yeshua and His resurrection; so then it follows that we will
be afflicted with hatred from the world because of the world's staunch hatred of Him. This
source of hate from the world will come from two sources: individuals or governments. Paul
uses the term "troubles" to describe this hateful opposition Believers will face. What is our
solution? What should we do about this? Nobody wants to be hated for their faith; their hope.
Should we protest in the streets? Should we try to overthrow our government and install a
Christian one? Paul says our solution is to be steadfast in prayer so that we can rejoice in our
hope at the same time we are patient in our troubles with the world. Let me be quick to
comment as regards troubles aimed at Believers. In Paul's time there was no such thing as
Democracy; there were only autocratic governments. So citizens had no choice about who
ruled over them or what laws were enacted to control them. But in modern times, especially in
the West, we have government leaders who, for the most part, are chosen by the people. So
the context Paul is operating under is that all government actions against Believers are
dictatorial, and therefore the dynamic is that Believers should not lead society in rebellion but
rather instead should pray. This would apply somewhat differently when we live in a
Democracy where there are legal and peaceful means to change government leaders and
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
policies.
Thus Paul's point is prayer instead of retaliation; pray instead of retaliating against individuals
or rebelling against governments. Why pray instead of retaliate or rebel? Listen to this excerpt
from the Testament of Benjamin. The Testament of Benjamin is taken from a Jewish work
composed in the mid 100's A.D., and is part of a larger work called the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs. I want to quote this because it helps to demonstrate the mindset of the
traditional Jewish community in general during and following Paul's time. I want to keep
highlighting that most of what Paul issues as Halakhah, a series of religious rulings for
Believers, is little more than rephrasing what was already taught and practiced within
mainstream Judaism in his day......but of course within the context of the Gospel of Christ.
"If anyone wantonly attacks a pious man, he repents since the pious shows mercy to
the one who abused him, and maintains his silence. And if anyone betrays a righteous
man, the righteous man prays. Even though for a brief time he may be humbled, later he
will appear far more illustrious, as happened with Joseph my brother...."
So here members of Jewish communities are being urged to pray for those who are
oppressing them instead of retaliating against them; even going so far as to do good to their
enemies. Remember: this work I'm quoting from is NOT a work of Believing Jews, but rather
of non-Believing Jews. And yet look how close this comes to things that Christ said: CJB
Matthew 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!
After dealing with the spiritual side of tribulation against us from the world, in verse 13 Paul
turns to the humanitarian side. For Jews, attending to the practical needs of those who form
their community was itself seen as a biblical measure of righteousness. Paul demonstrated this
in the Book of Acts when he went from synagogue to synagogue in the Diaspora collecting
money to take with him to donate to the needy Believers in Jerusalem. And while we must
never think that the only people Believers should help are a) other Believers, and b) those of
our own community, it is the Believers of our community that are the top priority. Why is that?
Because the world takes care of its own and Believers are no longer part of the world. The
world does, and always will, far outnumber us demographically and outstrip us in resources. In
Bible times the precise definition and boundaries of one's own community weren't exactly the
same as they are today because social systems have changed and evolved. But notice that
Paul demonstrated that regardless of which local Believers' community we might belong to we
must always consider the Holy Land (Israel) as part of our community.....and especially the
Messianic Jews living in the Holy Land who have need.
Yeshua said this: CJB Luke 6:27 Nevertheless, to you who are listening, what I say is this:
"Love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you..... So in verse 14 Paul essentially
reiterates this fundamental commandment that Christ gave to His disciples. While I'm not a fan
of many of Calvin's doctrines, he does provide some sharp insight on parts of the New
Testament and here I'd like to quote him because I think it precisely captures Paul's purpose
in saying what he did.
"Although there is hardly anyone who has made such advance in the law of the Lord
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
that he fulfills this precept (love your enemies), no one can boast that he is the child of
God, or glory in the name of a Christian, who has not (at least) partially undertaken this
course, and does not struggle daily to resist his (personal) will to do the opposite."
This is followed in verse 15 where Paul speaks of rejoicing with those who rejoice and weeping
with those who weep. This is Paul's way of saying that the true measure of caring and
compassion for our fellow man (regardless of whom that may be) is to join in empathizing with
that person's experiences in whatever way they might occur. Is this a new Christian edict?
Once again, this is a fundamental principle within Jewish society in Paul's day. In Ecclesiastes
3 we read this:
"A man should not rejoice when among people who weep or weep when among those
who rejoice. He should not stay awake among people who sleep or sleep among those
who are awake. He should not be standing when all others are sitting or sit when all
others are standing. This is the general rule: A man should not deviate from the custom
of his companions or from society......"
Another way of thinking about Paul's regulation is that we should respect, and give a fair
hearing, to the views of others within the community to which we belong. Why? Because only
then will we have any ground upon which we can create the kind of relationship whereupon we
can lead them to the Lord. I've said to many well-meaning Believers who want to go to Israel
with the grand vision that they are going to bring Jews to Christ: leave your Christian tracts at
home and begin by creating an honest relationship of friendship and mutual respect. This will
take time, perhaps years, and it must be sincere and without agenda or you will quickly be
found out and all opportunity to speak about Yeshua will vanish. A 10-day Israel tour will not
provide sufficient time to create that relationship. And it will almost certainly require you being
as open to learning from them, and bending to their society and customs, as what you hope to
show to them. And this is precisely what verse 16 tells us.
From there Paul moves on to yet another traditional Jewish maxim: don't repay evil with evil.
In other words don't seek revenge for a wrong done to you because this violates the principle
of loving your neighbor as yourself. Among the most pious of Jews, including the Essenes, the
reason behind this regulation is that perhaps a merciful person who has been dealt an evil
blow by someone will be able to lead the offender to behaving more righteously. Let's revisit
the Testament of Benjamin. In chapter 4 we read this:
"See then, my children, what is the goal of the good man. Be imitators of him in his
goodness, because of his compassion, in order that you may wear crowns of glory. For
a good man does not have a blind eye, but is merciful to all, even though they may be
sinners. And even if persons plot against him for evil ends, by doing good this man
conquers evil, being watched over by God. He loves those who wrong him as he loves
his own life. If anyone glorifies him, he holds no envy.........If your mind is set towards
good, even evil men will be at peace with you...."
This sounds like something Yeshua himself could have said. Again I want to draw you back to
a major point in this week's lesson: the principles Paul introduces in his letters that the
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
average Believer thinks are being newly formed by Paul's words and thus belong exclusively
to Christianity and Messianic Judaism were neither new nor revolutionary as so much of the
Christian world assumes. In fact we see a pattern emerge: Paul is essentially but reminding the
Jews of the Diaspora (in this case Believing Jews in the city of Rome) of these long held
bedrock principles of Judaism at the same moment he is introducing these same principles to
new gentile Believers who, as former pagans, are likely hearing them for the first time. Truly,
Christianity has a Hebrew heritage.
Next in verse 18 is one of Paul's more famous sayings, especially embraced
by pacifists. CJB Romans 12:18 If possible, and to the extent that it depends on you, live in
peace with all people. Let's begin by talking about what this verse does NOT say. It does
NOT say that we are obligated to be at peace with all people. It also does NOT say that even
though a person refuses to be at peace with you, as a Believer you must be at peace with
them. And neither does it say that peace is entirely our responsibility. Rather there are two
significant caveats surrounding the instruction to live in peace with all people. The first is "if it is
possible", and the second is "to the extent that it depends on you". So as a Believer my desire
ought to be for peace with all people and I should do every reasonable thing within my sphere
of control to make that happen. I should try to see the other person's viewpoint; and I should
not take retaliatory action merely because I've been offended or shamed. But this does not
mean that if a person is holding a knife to my wife's throat that Paul has said that I must stay
peaceful and allow that criminal to proceed without interference. It does not mean that when an
aggressor nation threatens or attacks us that we don't defend ourselves and if we go to war
that we should not play to win. Rather provided there is a way to make peace with another
party who also seeks peace, without compromising our moral principles and our relationship
with God, and without passively allowing ourselves to taken over by a criminal or a tyrant, we
are obligated to make every effort to effect peace to the point that our efforts are firmly
rejected.
However, as says verse 19, that also means that even when we have been wronged in some
way we should not seek revenge for the sake of revenge. This of course plays to the Jewish
principle, and one that Christ reiterated, that we are to love our enemies with the hope that
they will repent and turn to the God of Israel. And we can be assured that at some point, either
in this life or the next one, God will exact a price for that wrongdoer's attack upon us. In fact
God prefers that we leave such a matter of justice to Him. But do not misunderstand: criminal
justice on earth administered by human governments is expected by God and that is one of the
reasons He created nations and installed governments. Paul's statement more concerns
unjust actions against us that, for any number of reasons, go unpunished.
We need to be aware of just how difficult of an injunction this was for Believers, Jew or gentile,
in Paul's era. Avenging a family member or yourself was not only common practice it was
assumed. In fact, because most of the world operated in a shame/honor society to some
degree, to be wronged not only produced harm it also produced shame. And the only way to
get rid of this shame was to get your honor back. And usually the only way to get your honor
back was some sort of revenge upon the one who shamed you, which often involved killing
them. So that you understand this better I'll expand just a bit more. Whether among Jewish
society or Roman society there were strict civil laws and there were police forces, court
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
systems and systems of punishment. So murder, theft, and mayhem usually did not go
unpunished. However certain crimes also produced shame upon the victim (rape for instance),
and at other times non-criminal acts (like a male being slapped on the face as an insult) also
produced shame. Thus the criminal acts could be handled by the criminal justice system,
whether Jewish or Roman. However the criminal justice system had no capacity to solve an
issue of loss of honor due to an insult; this, by custom, was left in the hands of the one who
was shamed. Both Judaism and the Roman government actually established civil laws that
tried to stamp out this practice of vengeance to restore honor; but honor killings were still
common. In fact, in one of Jesus of Nazareth's most famous quotes we find Him teaching
about what a victim of insult ought to do or not do about losing their honor.
CJB Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to stand up against someone who does you wrong.
On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek
too!
This badly misunderstood verse has nothing to do with criminal activity. It is not a call to not
defend yourself when being attacked, nor is it a call to allow a criminal to harm you and you
refuse to prosecute. God's justice requires that we are to always administer justice according
to divine regulations. Being struck on the cheek might be cause for assault and battery in the
Western world, but it was not so (and still is not so) in the Middle Eastern world. Rather
slapping someone on his face was a cultural act of shaming that person; it was very serious
(although judicial authorities would have no involvement because no crime was involved). A
slap on the face would almost certainly result in the person who got slapped seeking revenge
on the one who slapped him, and the one who did the slapping would have expected it. Thus a
blood feud could erupt that entangled the entire family and could go on for decades. The goal
of the one whose cheek was slapped was to regain his lost honor and this was done at any
cost up to and including murdering the offender. So Yeshua's only point was to tell those
whose honor was taken from them by such a thing as having your face slapped was to NOT
seek revenge. Instead, allow the offender to strike the other cheek as well because this issue
of shame and honor was based strictly on manmade cultural customs and had no actual basis
in God's moral or ethical laws. However the retaliation of the one who had his cheek slapped
would nearly always involve his committing a criminal act that would violate God's laws in
hopes of regaining his honor. Yeshua says that among those who follow Him, that should not
occur.
Paul quotes first Deuteronomy 32:35 and then follows that up with Proverbs 25 verses 21 and
22; notice that the term "your enemy" is used. While we think of our enemy mostly in terms of
war that is not how it was always thought of in ancient times. Your enemy was often a person
you hated or who hated you for some breach of cultural protocol or some offense that had
been committed. This only sometimes involved criminality; more often than not it involved an
insult within the cultural shame/honor system of that society. This is why the final few words
that read "You will heap fiery coals of shame upon his head" must be taken within the Jewish
context; this is about shame and not criminal justice. Thus in the case of all that Paul has been
addressing to close out this chapter, Paul has not been talking not so much about criminal
activity but rather the cultural problem of shame and honor and how to restore lost honor.
Paul's solution is to allow God to make the determination about what kind of revenge (if any)
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 30 - Chapter 12 Cont
ought to be exacted upon a person who caused you to lose your honor in the eyes of your
peers.
And finally Paul sums up essentially the entire chapter by saying that we are not to be
conquered by evil but rather we should conquer evil with good. The bottom line to this is that
the best way to bring people into a relationship with Yeshua is through love, mutual respect,
and to determine never to exact revenge from someone who has offended you. To be
conquered by evil means for us to give in to our evil inclinations; this will result in our burning
desire for revenge. Rather God's way to conquer both our evil inclination and doing evil in
response to someone who has wronged us, is instead to respond with good. And whatever just
punishment that ought to happen, but didn't for whatever reason, God will mete out according
to His wrath....or perhaps, just as He has done for countless millions of us, with His mercy.
We'll begin Romans chapter 13 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 31, Chapter 13
If there was a single overarching theme for Paul in Romans chapter 12 it had to be that
Believers should not retaliate when wronged nor seek revenge when insulted and offended. To
be clear this by no means is speaking about Believers avoiding the criminal justice system
when a crime has been committed. There is no suggestion that if someone physically attacks
and harms you that you are to be passive or silent or shouldn't reasonably defend yourself. Or
that if someone steals your property that you should not report it to the proper authorities and
prosecute the thief. Rather we must remember that the context of Paul's ruling about non␂retaliation has very much to do with the Middle Eastern culture of his time that was developed
around a Shame and Honor system of society. Do not become confused between the terms
shame and ashamed. Shame in a Shame and Honor society has to do with social status.
Ashamed is a familiar emotion in Western society because it is based on feelings of guilt.
Shame and Honor societies are completely consumed with their concern for social status; this
was the way of all Bible era cultures and that included the Hebrews especially of the earlier
days before the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was an extraordinary move away from a
Shame and Honor system because it sought to draw Israel towards a social structure based on
innocence and guilt; but that transformation would only happen slowly, imperfectly, and
unevenly. So even 13 centuries later in Paul's day while Jewish society generally followed
Torah Laws and Halakhah (traditions of the elders), and were judged according to guilt or
innocence as it came to obeying God's laws, long entrenched elements of shame and honor
remained part of Jewish cultural behavior.
Shame and honor societies have their basis in tribalism and thus the people are group␂thinkers. That is, conforming to the group and to its ancient traditions is always the standard to
be reached. Individualism is seen as rebellion and going against the group and thus it is a bad
thing and the person who seeks individualism is shunned. Islam and the Arab world and the
bulk of the Middle Eastern societies of the modern era are strongly shame and honor based
societies. At the root of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Far East societies is shame and
honor. Behaviorally speaking the thought of people who adhere to such a social philosophy is
much less about acting rightly or wrongly (according to laws and regulations) and much more it
is of acting honorably or shamefully (as decided by centuries of customs). These are not
wordplays; right does not equate to honorable and wrong does not equate to shameful.
Therefore since right and wrong (innocence and guilt) take a back seat to what is shameful or
honorable (meeting social norms) this type of society also has less of a concept of personal
guilt (at least as the Western world thinks of guilt) and so people rarely deal with the emotion of
being ashamed. Acting shamefully brings dishonor to a person; but not a sense of guilt or
being ashamed. And this is because shame is not the result of being guilty of breaking a law or
a regulation but rather shame is the dreaded and highly undesirable societal status of one who
has lost their honor; they have lost their place in mainstream society. Again: shame and honor
are definitions of social status and are generally not the result of doing right or wrong; it is not
1 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
about criminal activity nor is it about morality or ethics. A person living in a Shame and Honor
society is always either in a cultural condition of shame or of honor; there is no middle ground.
What shame and honor amounts to is defined by long held tribal customs and traditions and
therefore it varied to a degree among the many and different cultures. Thus it wasn't hard for a
traveler in a foreign place to find himself running for his life after inadvertently committing some
type of unintended insult against a local, which within that particular society brought shame
upon that person.
We of the West can scoff and snicker at this and think how ignorant and primitive. But folks, we
are the minority; the bulk of the people on this planet in present times live in a Shame and
Honor society, or at least shame and honor plays a significant role in everyday matters; so we
would do well to understand the basics of how it operates. Not understanding Shame and
Honor systems of society, and not respecting their powerful influence on decisions and
behavior that rises above the value of life is why all of the West's intrusions into Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, and into Israel's affairs with their hostile Arab neighbors, do
nothing but muck things up all the more and totally confound Western governments.
By Paul's day God had been patiently working for centuries to wring the Shame and Honor
mentality out of His people, Israel. Ironically, the Roman Empire was attempting to do the
same by transforming every nation under its power into a society of laws such that taking
revenge for being shamed was itself a crime. Yet ancient elements of shame and honor still
were embedded in even Roman Hellenistic culture. Why am I telling you all of this? Because
understanding this reality of Paul's day tells us what led Paul to speak to the Believers of
Rome (Jews and gentiles) about not retaliating and not seeking revenge, and enveloping his
regulation against it with the foundational Torah commandment from Leviticus 19 to "love your
neighbor as yourself". The Shame and Honor system was alive and well and it went directly
against the most foundational principles of the Biblical Torah.
Now as we open Romans chapter 13 we find Paul applying the principles of non-retaliation and
loving our neighbor among our fellow man to our relationship with our governing authorities.
However I must be honest: I personally find the opening verses of Romans chapter 13 to be
quite problematic if we take these verses simplistically at face value as we remove from them
the context of the Shame and Honor society in which Paul created these rulings. This is
because if we try to apply them as-is to modern Western democracies based not on shame
and honor but rather on guilt and innocence they create some of the worst sorts of doctrines
and injustices. Thus just as it is critical that we take the Laws of Moses more in their spirit than
in their letter in order to transcend culture and time, it is equally important to do the same with
the New Testament ruling and sayings of Yeshua, Paul and others. Some rulings and sayings
can indeed leap across time and culture boundaries literally and fully intact (such as the dietary
laws); but others of them (like the death penalty for adultery and the law against intercropping)
must be massaged and deeply and prayerfully pondered in order to properly apply them to the
entirely different societal conditions and governmental structures of the 21st century.
Let's read Romans chapter 13.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 13 all
2 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
To be sure we must begin by understanding that any governmental concept of democracy or
republic is no where present in Paul's thoughts. Even the Roman Empire's attempt to be a
republic that was more responsive to the people is a far cry from how we would envision a
republic in our day because, first and foremost, these Senators were appointed by Roman
magistrates; there was no election. And the Emperor was still considered to be a god and
could override any decision of the Roman Senate on that basis. So Paul's world was a world
of tyrants, monarchs, kings, and petty potentates that ruled autocratically. He couldn't possibly
have envisioned Western style democracy anymore than he could have envisioned the Space
Shuttle or iPhones. This understanding must be the basis for how we are to interpret the literal
meaning of Paul's Halakhot (his religious rulings for Believers) in Romans chapter 13.
However there was an underlying mood of rebellion among the Jews especially among the
Zealots (mostly due to their expectation of a Messiah that would lead them out of oppression
from Rome), and there was also a growing issue of Believers in Yeshua trying to interweave
the concept of being members of the Kingdom of God with being members of the Roman
Empire. This is a significant issue that Christianity continues to struggle with; that is, just what
role should we allow government to play in our lives? And conversely, what role should
Believers play in the affairs of government? The big difference between Paul's day and ours is
that we have considerably more say in the matter, even being able to help choose those who
govern us and create our societal laws. Thus Paul's first order of business is to say this:
whatever government you live under, honor it because God created human government and
allows it to function. However the word usually translated in our English Bibles as "obey",
which in Greek is hupotasso, more means to submit oneself to authority or control. It has the
sense of reciprocal obligation (both sides having duties and responsibilities) while obey is a
one-way street: the government decrees and the citizen carries it out. Therefore the KJV
actually uses the word "subject" instead of obey and so is the much better
translation. KJV Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
This is an important distinction; the blanket order to obey our government is quite different
than our positive agreement that we are subject to our government and the laws and
regulations it creates. It is not the same to understand that our government (any kind of
government system) has the right and duty to enact laws and have a measure of authority over
us versus when the government says "jump" and our only option is to ask "how high?" Yet
how to translate that from Paul's era to ours requires some thought. Since in the West we
have actual individual input on who governs us then we have the duty to be reliably informed
and to make the best decision possible at the ballot box. However as Believers we need to
keep our voting preferences within the confines of loving our neighbor as we think about ballot
measures on taxation, schools, public facilities, immigration, social welfare, and the like. We
also must constantly think about selecting those government leaders whom we believe will rule
everyone equally, justly, and without favor or corruption, according to God's principles of
justice and morality.
Let me summarize: the principle Paul is presenting is that as far as it is up to us, we are to
have peaceful co-existence with our government authorities, and show them respect even with
those leaders we don't agree because God requires it of us. The Prophet Jeremiah had to
3 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
remind Israel of this God-principle when they were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar and exiled
to Babylon, just as Paul is reminding Believers that this principle has not changed with the
coming of Messiah.
Jeremiah 27:5-11 CJB
5
"'"I made the earth, humankind, and the animals on the earth by my great power and
my outstretched arm; and I give it to whom it seems right to me. 6
For now, I have given
over all these lands to my servant N'vukhadnetzar the king of Bavel; I have also given
him the wild animals to serve him. 7
All the nations will serve him, his son and his
grandson, until his own country gets its turn- at which time many nations and great
kings will make him their slave.
8
The nation and kingdom that refuses to serve this N'vukhadnetzar king of Bavel, that
will not put their necks under the yoke of the king of Bavel, I will punish," says ADONAI
"with sword, famine and plague, until I have put an end to them through him.
9
"'"You, therefore, don't listen to your prophets, diviners, dreamers, magicians or
sorcerers, when they tell you that you won't be subject to the king of Bavel; 10 for they
are prophesying lies to you that will result in your being removed far from your land,
with my driving you out, so that you perish. 11 But the nation that puts its neck under the
yoke of the king of Bavel and serves him, that nation I will allow to remain on their own
soil," says ADONAI. "They will farm it and live there."'"
Jeremiah tells us that God operates behind the scenes to set up nations and bring rulers into
power and so are to subject ourselves to them; but this is not something that sets so easily
with Western Christians, the vast majority of us living in democracies. Therefore in verse 2
when Paul says it is wrong for Believers to resist those in authority over them, it is with this
God-principle in mind. However I'm not sure exactly what Paul is getting at in verse 3 when he
says that rulers (presumably all rulers) are no terror to good conduct but only to the bad. And
that all we have to do as a Believer is to do good and then there is no reason to fear any ruler.
I wonder how he felt a very few years later when Nero took over Rome and had Paul
executed? Would he have said it is just the ruler's God-given prerogative to burn Christians at
the stake simply for his own amusement (as did Nero) and there should be no resistance or
effort to save one's own life? What would Paul have said about Adolf Hitler? Would Paul have
seen it as the Believer's duty to submit to Hitler and to not resist the government ordered
genocide and extermination of millions of undesirables and deplorables? Is it Paul's intent to
say that Believers should have aided Hitler in his madness if so ordered, as literally thousands
upon thousands of German Christians did? And this because God put him in control of the
German government and so Believers would be fighting against God to resist Nero or Hitler?
In fact during WWII this was the official position of the German Lutheran Church and to a
degree the Catholic Church as well as elements of other Christian denominations. So were
those who helped Hitler kill millions right to obey him? Let me not keep you in suspense: the
answer is Heaven forbid! This is why we must never take a few words or a verse or two out of
the Bible and make it a doctrine in itself or as the final word on any matter of faith. Listen to a
4 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
different viewpoint about obeying the higher powers (those in government, religious or secular,
who rule over us) that we find in the Book of Acts.
Acts 5:20-29 CJB
20 "Go, stand in the Temple court and keep telling the people all about this new life!" 21
After hearing that, they entered the Temple area about dawn and began to teach. Now
the cohen hagadol and his associates came and called a meeting of the Sanhedrin (that
is, of Isra'el's whole assembly of elders) and sent to the jail to have them brought. 22 But
the officers who went did not find them in the prison. So they returned and reported, 23
"We found the jail securely locked and the guards standing at the doors; but when we
opened it, we found no one inside!"
24 When the captain of the Temple police and the head cohanim heard these things, they
were puzzled and wondered what would happen next. 25 Then someone came and
reported to them, "Listen! The men you ordered put in prison are standing in the Temple
court, teaching the people!"
26 The captain and his officers went and brought them, but not with force; because they
were afraid of being stoned by the people. 27 They conducted them to the Sanhedrin,
where the cohen hagadol demanded of them, 28 "We gave you strict orders not to teach
in this name! Look here! you have filled Yerushalayim with your teaching; moreover,
you are determined to make us responsible for this man's death!"
29 Kefa and the other emissaries answered, "We must obey God, not men.
And how can we forget the story of Stephen who refused to stop preaching in Yeshua's name
at the order of the duly formed Sanhedrin so he was stoned to death.....with Paul in full
agreement? The point is that the Halakhah (the religious ruling) that Paul is making to open
Romans 13 has a far greater context than merely the paragraph or even chapter in which it is
found; greater even than in the context of the entire book of Romans of which it is just a tiny
part. Paul himself refused to obey Roman government officials and so was martyred. When we
take the totality of the Bible as our context, instead of a dozen words, we come to realize that
while we are indeed obligated as Believers to subject ourselves to the rulers of the nation to
which we are part that does not mean that God expects us to obey the humans who rule when
their demand goes directly against His biblical laws and commandments.
Paul also brings home the point in verse 5 that while it is all well and good to obey the
government for fear that you'll be punished if you don't, it is better to obey because you know
it is the right thing to do. But then in verse 6 Paul speaks of the sorts of things we ought to do
without question when the government orders it. He says we ought to pay our taxes; pay our
monetary debts; and even pay honor and respect to those who are our debtors and to those in
authority over us. Whatever we lawfully, morally and ethically owe, it needs to be paid.
Goodness how that principle has been overturned in modern times! Let me translate that to
you in modern application. Students: you incurred debt to go to college and now you feel
buried in monetary obligation. That it never occurred to you that it was possibly an unwise
5 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
venture to take on so much debt for an education changes nothing. You owe it; pay it. Those
who have heavy medical debt because for whatever reason you don't have insurance but you
certainly wanted good medical care and gladly received it: pay your debt whether you think it is
more than it should be or not. For those who pay income taxes or any other kind of taxes: pay
your taxes....all of them. Whether you think them fair and equitable or not, your government has
made those taxation laws and they are valid. And from God's viewpoint the issue of taxation is
certainly not one of morality. God has made no ordinances concerning how much tax is too
much and in a number of Bible references He made it quite clear that we are to pay our taxes
to our governments. Here is Christ's instruction to His followers in perhaps the most famous of
those references:
Matthew 22:16-21 CJB
16 They sent him some of their talmidim and some members of Herod's party. They said,
"Rabbi, we know that you tell the truth and really teach what God's way is. You aren't
concerned with what other people think about you, since you pay no attention to a
person's status.
17 So tell us your opinion: does Torah permit paying taxes to the Roman Emperor or
not?"
18 Yeshua, however, knowing their malicious intent, said, "You hypocrites! Why are you
trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used to pay the tax!" They brought him a
denarius; 20 and he asked them, "Whose name and picture are these?" 21 "The
Emperor's," they replied. Yeshua said to them, "Nu, give the Emperor what belongs to
the Emperor. And give to God what belongs to God!"
So here is the bottom line: Believers, Christians or Messianics, we are to leave no debt unpaid
whether that debt is to God, an individual, a business, or to our government. That debt can be
a debt of gratitude; a debt of respect; a debt of forgiveness; or a debt of money. But the one
debt that we should never stop repaying is the debt of love to our fellow man. There is no
beginning or end to that debt; there is no time limit in our lives when we can say that we've
paid enough love and we can call it paid in full. Paul reminds us that it is THE fundamental
Torah commandment to love our neighbor; it is not simply a nice thought. Yeshua affirmed this
in the Book of Matthew: Matthew 7:12 CJB 12 "Always treat others as you would like
them to treat you; that sums up the teaching of the Torah and the Prophets.
While this might sound to a Christian as though it is the beginning of a new faith creed for
Believers, it is not. Listen to this short excerpt from the Jewish Talmud. In tractate Shabbat 31a
we find this:
"On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and
said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah
while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit, which
was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, "What is hateful to you, do
not do to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, while all the rest is the commentary
6 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
thereof....go and learn it."
What Christ thought and what Paul taught about loving our neighbor was a bedrock principle of
the Old Testament and of Judaism, and not an innovative new Christian doctrine that in time
came to be known as the Golden Rule. Let's not miss what is being said: to "not do to your
neighbor what you don't want done to you" is simply the negative way of saying to love your
neighbor as yourself. And that loving your neighbor IS loving God because He commands us
to love our neighbor in the Torah. Working together in perfect unity, loving your neighbor and
loving your God with all your being is what the entire Bible is about.....everything else we read
in the Scriptures (Old or New Testament.. even the Ten Commandments) is but commentary
on those two principles. So however we might interpret a biblical passage if it does not conform
to both of those principles we have misunderstood it. At the same time do not ever think that
anything God tells us to do or not to do in the Bible contradicts either of those two principles.
For example: to think (as is common in the Church today) that executing a convicted murderer
as God ordains it in His Word is violating the principle of love your neighbor is fundamentally
wrong minded. To think that standing against homosexuality as God stands firmly against it in
His Word is violating the principle of love your neighbor is fundamentally wrong minded. And
the reason that a large block of the Church has adopted the view that it is wrong to practice a
life for a life, or it is wrong to condemn homosexuality as sin or to prohibit * marriage, is
because these Christians don't understand or believe that the root of every commandment of
God ....Old or New Testament.....is entirely based on love your neighbor and love God. If we
don't study and trust God's biblical commands as truth and light then we don't know how to
love our neighbor or how to love God; instead every man does what is right in his own eyes
and that is sin. The Church propensity is to make it up as we go because if feels better to our
personal sensibilities and it pleases the world to no end for us to conform to them; but such a
road is leading to the ruination of our families and our societies and dangerously damaging our
relationship with the Lord.
Beginning in verse 8 Paul concludes his instructions concerning loving your neighbor by
quoting 4 of the 10 Commandments of Exodus; so clearly the Ten Commandments were alive
and well in the era of 2nd Temple Judaism. Don't commit adultery; don't murder (meaning to
unjustly kill a human being); don't steal and don't covet are the 4. I must say I'm not at all
certain why Paul would omit the law to honor your father and mother as it too, of course,
pertains to loving our fellow man. It might be that to Paul those who are your immediate family
are not necessarily considered as part of "your neighbor" in the common sense of it in his day.
That would not mean that family gets less, but rather even greater consideration and love since
they are of close blood relation (but that is merely my personal speculation). For many
Believers there is always that nagging question of 'who is my neighbor?' Clearly in Leviticus
19, a neighbor is a fellow Israelite...another Hebrew.
Leviticus 19:15-18 CJB
15 "'Do not be unjust in judging- show neither partiality to the poor nor deference to the
mighty, but with justice judge your neighbor. 16 "'Do not go around spreading slander
among your people, but also don't stand idly by when your neighbor's life is at stake; I
am ADONAI.
7 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
17 "'Do not hate your brother in your heart, but rebuke your neighbor frankly, so that
you won't carry sin because of him.
18 Don't take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any of your people; rather, love
your neighbor as yourself; I am ADONAI.
So loving your neighbor as it was originally given meant to love a fellow Hebrew of any tribe.
However by Yeshua's day the tribal system among Hebrews was nearly dead and mostly an
ancient memory that had more to do with biblical prophesy and certain birthrights given to
descendants of certain tribes. For instance: the Messiah had to come from the tribe of Judah,
and Priests had to come from the tribe of Levi. Thus because tribalism had little bearing on the
Jews any longer, and because God included gentile membership in the Covenants with Israel
provided those gentiles trusted in Yeshua as Lord and Savior, then we find Christ clearly
expanding the definition of "neighbor" beyond physical, fleshly or national Israel.
Luke 10:25-37 CJB
25 An expert in Torah stood up to try and trap him by asking, "Rabbi, what should I do to
obtain eternal life?" 26 But Yeshua said to him, "What is written in the Torah? How do
you read it?"
27 He answered, "You are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, with all your
soul, with all your strength and with all your understanding; and your neighbor as
yourself." 28 "That's the right answer," Yeshua said. "Do this, and you will have life."
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Yeshua, "And who is my 'neighbor'?" 30
Taking up the question, Yeshua said: "A man was going down from Yerushalayim to
Yericho when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him naked and beat him up,
then went off, leaving him half dead.
31 By coincidence, a cohen was going down on that road; but when he saw him, he
passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levi who reached the place and saw him also
passed by on the other side. 33 "But a man from Shomron who was traveling came upon
him; and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion.
34 So he went up to him, put oil and wine on his wounds and bandaged them. Then he
set him on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day,
he took out two days' wages, gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Look after him; and
if you spend more than this, I'll pay you back when I return.'
36 Of these three, which one seems to you to have become the 'neighbor' of the man
who fell among robbers?" 37 He answered, "The one who showed mercy toward him."
Yeshua said to him, "You go and do as he did."
I also want you to notice something else significant about this passage from Luke. A Torah
teacher (by definition a Pharisee) immediately answered Yeshua's question about eternal life
8 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
by quoting the dual underlying principles of Torah of loving your neighbor and loving God.
Yeshua commended him on being correct. Remember that a Torah teacher, a Pharisee, was a
representative of Judaism and the synagogue system, and not of the Temple. So even this
Pharisee who was a scholar of Tradition (Halakhah) more than actual Biblical Torah held
these two principles as the basis for his own Scriptural understanding. So we must not be
overly harsh on 2nd Temple Judaism or the Pharisees and think that they had gone so far as to
abandon God's Biblical Torah and replace it with their own Traditions.
While you might not recognize it as such, verse 11 to the end of Romans chapter 13 is about
the End Times. Paul says, "You know at what point of history we stand". I've mentioned in
earlier lessons that undeniably Paul believes that he is living in the End Times and expects
Yeshua's return at any moment. It is why he behaves and tries to motivate others to salvation
with such zeal and urgency; to his bones he believes time is very short. But Paul wasn't the
only one who believed that the end was imminent. In the Apocryphal book of Enoch 51 we
read this:
"In those days the Elect One will arise and choose the righteous and holy from among
them, because the day for their being saved has come near".
Paul speaks of awakening out of our sleep. I don't think he means this negatively; that is, that
people have not been paying attention or they have intentionally ignored reality. Rather it
seems to me that he is saying that it has been so very long since the promise of God to
Abraham has been made, and so very long that the Jews have lived either in exile or under the
harsh hand of a foreign occupier. Thus the prophecy that Israel and the Jews will be delivered
has been as if in a coma but the coma is ending and now is the time for Israel to awaken
because the time of their deliverance is upon them. I think that interpretation is backed up by
Paul's words that "The night is almost over and the day is almost here". Since darkness is
always a biblical metaphor for evil and light is always a biblical metaphor for good then we can
better understand the words that follow about putting off behavior that occurs in darkness and
putting on behavior that occurs in daylight. He then goes on to list a few behaviors that occur in
darkness that need to stop, especially among Believers. No doubt this would have been a
particular problem in the City of Rome where the recipients of his letter resided. Stop partying,
stop getting drunk, and stop engaging in sexual immorality. Also stop every excess and cease
being quarrelsome or jealous. Most of these exhortations we can understand because of their
plain meaning. Without getting into detail, however, I want to reiterate that especially when it
comes to sexual immorality, large segments of the Church have today utterly abandoned any
pretence of prohibiting it. Those segments ordain * ministers; they sanctify * marriages;
they have no issue with couples living together and having children without the benefit of
marriage; and adultery is thought to be a private matter. Why do they believe this way?
Because they have abandoned sexual morality in the same way they have abandoned God's
Word as the infallible source of truth and instead are following manmade doctrines. Therefore
the definitions of terms like immorality and even love have been redefined to become popular.
Paul ends this chapter by essentially saying that due to where we are in history, it is a waste of
valuable time to do all these wrong things as the final grains of sand drain out of the hour
glass. Rather we need to be productive for the Kingdom of God while we still can. How do we
9 / 10
Romans Lesson 31 - Chapter 13
do this? Paul says by "clothing" ourselves with Yeshua. The mental picture of clothing
ourselves with Yeshua was mostly meaningful to the Jews of Paul's audience because such a
motif was common in Judaism and it regularly referred to righteousness. So we are to put on
the righteousness given to us as a free gift on account of our trust in Christ's sacrifice and His
perfect faithfulness and get on with the business of living a redeemed life of victory as opposed
to our former life as a slave to sin.
We'll begin Romans chapter 14 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
10 / 10
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 32, Chapter 14
Romans chapter 14 requires some explanation before we read this most challenging chapter.
We've spent significant time over the years talking about context as regards studying God's
Word; and never has context in its broadest sense been more important than in interpreting
Romans 14. To sum it up, context doesn't just mean the immediate or surrounding sentences
of the passage we're interested in. It isn't limited to the contiguous paragraph or even
chapter; it can involve the context of the entire book and at times, especially as concerns Paul,
the overall meaning and context of the several Bible books he authored when taken as an
entire body of work. However as it relates to our Hebraic heritage approach to studying the
New Testament, the Scriptural context must also include the Jewish identity and mindset of the
author and often the characters he is writing about, as taken within the Jewish culture where
Judaism dominated during the 1st century A.D. That is no easy task and while I think we have
covered this broad contextual cultural background thoroughly in the Book of Acts before we
began our study of the Book of Romans, I will borrow from some of my teaching of Acts to
reiterate some critical points that makes all the difference in extracting proper meaning from
these important and inspired words.
One final point and we'll read Romans 14. One of the best things that ever happened to
enhance Bible study was the addition of verse and chapter markings in the Holy Scriptures
around 1000 years ago. It gave us a way to more easily communicate what it is we are
examining, and it divided up the Bible into more bite-sized chunks for easier mental digestion
of its words. At the same time, especially the chapter markings and divisions are one of the
worst things that ever happened for Bible study because readers can get the sub-conscious
sense of a change in direction, tone, and context each time we end one chapter and begin the
next. Or worse, we assume that we can take a chapter as a stand-alone literary unit that is
encapsulated and set apart from all that surrounds it. That is, we kind of feel as though a
chapter doesn't have to be very connected to all that came before or will come after it. And as
you'll soon see, the downside of adding chapter markings to the Bible has contributed greatly
to the creation of some misguided and wrong-minded commentaries and interpretations of
Romans 14. Open your Bibles to Romans chapter 14.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 14 all
C.E.B. Cranfield says this to preface his commentary on Romans 14:
"What exactly the problem is with which Paul is concerned in this section is not at all
easy to decide, and various explanations have been suggested".
Cranfield then goes on to name and briefly explain what he sees as the 4 most prevalent
viewpoints of what Paul is trying to address in Romans 14, and they are all startlingly different.
So to be clear: there is no consensus within Christian scholars of what problem Paul is
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
attempting to deal with. This disarray about understanding Romans 14 is because Paul's
problem has as much to do with the Traditions and worldview of Judaism as it does with
Christianity; and Lord knows that gentile Christian Bible scholars have tended to avoid
knowledge of Judaism and Jewish society in considering what to say especially about New
Testament writings. What the issue of Romans 14 mostly centers around is what Paul means
by those whose faith is weak versus those whose faith is strong. Paul actually uses the word
"weak', but the word "strong" doesn't appear; it is merely implied since strong is the
expected opposite of weak (at least according to the Western gentile Christian mindset).
Interestingly the Apostle to the Gentiles is telling the Roman Believers that they need to accept
and embrace those who are "weak" in the faith, with "the faith" meaning a faith in Jesus the
Jew as Lord and Savior. But what does he mean by weak? What is a weak faith? Again, what
Paul means by this term is why we have so much disagreement about what it is that Paul sees
as a problem. The way that various Bible commentators have decided upon what Paul means
naturally happens according to their particular predetermined doctrines and beliefs that the
commentators already hold about Paul, Jews, and Christianity in general. Thus many
assumptions are made and the assumptions are through the eyes of gentile Christians who are
steeped primarily in the Western version of institutional Christianity.
From a top level what Paul is dealing with in Romans 14 is inter-personal relationships within
the mixed congregation of Jewish and gentile Believers located in the City of Rome. No doubt
the instructions are meant to address something Paul must have heard about the goings on
among Believers there; but at the same time his admonitions are general enough to apply to
Believers everywhere provided we can get a good handle on what it is he's actually telling us.
Here is where context plays its enormous role as we ask ourselves this basic question: what is
Paul's rationale behind the instructions he is giving on how to handle those who are weak in
the faith, and thus have different views on certain issues of theology and behavior when
compared to the more mature or stronger in the faith? Clearly the rationale is to love your
neighbor as yourself; this principle has been front and center in Paul's teaching and thought
since chapter 12. Here's the thing: recognizing that "love your neighbor" is the foundation of
Paul's thought process is far easier to spot when we disregard those pesky chapter markings.
Taking out the chapter markings changes our perspective and allows for an easy,
uninterrupted flow of that central tenant of the Godly lifestyle to love your neighbor as yourself.
Giving attention to the chapter markings causes us to sub-consciously segregate the "love
your neighbor" teaching of Paul as is if it applies only to a specific section of Paul's letter in
chapter 12 from which we have moved on. But there's more.
Also back in Romans chapter 12, we read this:
Romans 12:1-5 CJB
CJB Romans 12:1 I exhort you, therefore, brothers, in view of God's mercies, to offer
yourselves as a sacrifice, living and set apart for God. This will please him; it is the
logical "Temple worship" for you. 2
In other words, do not let yourselves be conformed
to the standards of the 'olam hazeh (this present age). Instead, keep letting yourselves
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
be transformed by the renewing of your minds; so that you will know what God wants
and will agree that what he wants is good, satisfying and able to succeed.
3
For I am telling every single one of you, through the grace that has been given to me,
not to have exaggerated ideas about your own importance. Instead, develop a sober
estimate of yourself based on the standard which God has given to each of you, namely,
trust.
4
For just as there are many parts that compose one body, but the parts don't all have
the same function; 5
so there are many of us, and in union with the Messiah we
comprise one body, with each of us belonging to the others.
Paul then goes on to give a list of spiritual gifts of which each Believer can expect to be given
at least one. So here to start Romans 14 Paul is continuing with the theme that the Body of
Believers is going to be quite diverse except that instead of talking about how different
Believers will each receive different gifts and each is a necessary part to help form the entire
Body of Believers, now it is that those who are judged as having a weaker faith are also to be
included and accepted as-is, without prejudice, into the Believing congregation. Still in line with
that same thought, back in Romans 12:3, Paul also speaks of how each Believer needs to
soberly measure him or her self against the standard God has imposed upon all Believers; and
that standard is trust. CJB Romans 12:3 For I am telling every single one of you, through
the grace that has been given to me, not to have exaggerated ideas about your own
importance. Instead, develop a sober estimate of yourself based on the standard which
God has given to each of you, namely, trust. Thus some Believers will have a great trust,
and some a small trust; most will probably fall somewhere in between the two extremes. So in
Romans 14:1 Paul uses the term "weak" to denote where certain Believers fall in God's
standard of faith and trust; they are those who are currently in a condition of having only a very
small and fragile faith and trust.
So two things must be made very clear before we proceed: first, everyone Paul is talking about
is Believers. And second, at this point there is no distinction being made between gentile and
Jewish Believers; thus "weak" doesn't point directly at Jews or directly at gentiles. I can't
emphasize how important this is because many Christian commentaries here make the
unwarranted leap that the weak in faith must be the Messianic Jews of the Rome congregation,
and so they base all their interpretation and conclusions that follows on that assumption. That
is, Christian gentiles are elevated in faith and trust above Messianic Jews.
Paul's instruction is to not get into pointless arguments with those Believers who are weak in
faith; those who are at the low end of the trust scale. Why? Because they can be turned off and
rather easily driven away, even if what they are being told is technically theologically correct.
To do this to a person who is weak in faith would not be loving your neighbor. As an illustration:
infants are valuable family members, but they cannot eat steak just yet because neither do
they have teeth to chew it nor stomachs developed enough to digest it. Similarly, those weak in
the faith are valuable members of the Body of Christ; however they are not spiritually
developed enough, yet, to deal with the more difficult or nuanced aspects of the faith so they
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
have to be handled quite deftly and tenderly so as not to discourage or overwhelm them.
So for a majority of Christians who think that at this point in Romans 14 Paul has created a
dividing line of faith (Jews are weak and gentile Believers are strong), then when they read
verse 2 they automatically think that what is being said is that those strong in faith can eat any
humanly edible thing, while Jews who are weak eat only vegetables so as to keep Kosher.
Remember who is speaking: Paul the Jew who has said "Heaven Forbid" numerous times in
Romans in response to the straw man's question of whether the Law of Moses was abolished
or had perhaps become irrelevant for gentiles or even all Believers. We must again, then, go
forward in proper context. The Jewish Rabbi Paul is speaking of eating in the same terms that
he automatically thinks: Kosher. Paul doesn't think like a gentile because he is a Jew! That is,
for a Jew food is NOT just any edible thing; food is defined as only what God has set apart as
food for those who worship Him. Therefore many edible things (like Pork or camels) are not
food to Paul and to eat "anything" doesn't mean it in the sense of any edible thing found on
planet Earth, without restriction, no matter how weird or disgusting. He means it in the sense of
any permissible food as God has listed in the Torah. So for him (from his Jewish viewpoint) the
more-or-less opposite of eating "anything" that is Torah permitted is eating only vegetables.
First of all Judaism did not and does not promote vegetarianism as the proper religious diet.
However it is true that the real kosher issues occur mainly as it regards meat. That is, there is
not a biblical listing of plant life that must be avoided as food; but there is a biblical listing of
animal life that must be avoided as food. So for certain a Jew is highly unlikely to ever become
ritually defiled by eating vegetables obtained almost anywhere under most any circumstance.
However meat is a much more sensitive issue and it is liable to being either of a prohibited kind
of animal flesh or of having been of a permissible kind but mishandled and thus rendered
unclean (and the real fear among Diaspora Jews is that if they purchased it from a gentile they
wouldn't know before they ate it if the meat had somehow become rendered unclean).
Second: remember Paul is addressing this to Jews and gentiles who live in Rome. Thus for
Jews especially they had to be careful about the meat they bought and ate. Rome was the
multi-cultural capital of the Empire and so it was rife with pagan idols and altars. Roman Jews
could buy a perfectly permissible kind of meat (beef for instance), but had it possibly been
sacrificed to a heathen god? Had it been properly bled? Had the cow itself been properly
killed? Had a ritually unclean person perhaps come into contact with the meat? How could they
possibly be certain of any of this? If any of these issues came into play then the meat became
ritually unclean; but there would in most cases be no outward sign of it for a Jew to be able to
tell. Some Jewish Believers apparently had become so consumed with being 100% certain
about what they ate that they ate nothing that could possibly have been defiled; they decided
to play it safe and eat only vegetables. However other Believers took only reasonable
precautions and continued to eat the full diet allotted to Believers according to the Torah, while
also understanding as we should that Yeshua is the Living Water and should they accidentally
eat something unclean they could depend upon Yeshua to ritually cleanse them. So I think it is
fair in this instance to see the weak as those Believing Jews and gentiles who rigidly followed
the Torah to the letter, but even more they also applied the strict Jewish laws and customs of
Halakhah regarding food that went well above the biblical Torah requirements. And therefore
they took no chances, eating only vegetables as a display of their piety.
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
So what is Paul's ruling about this situation? He says in verse 3 that the one who eats
everything that God places on the menu as food for worshippers should not look down upon
the one who is so greatly concerned with not letting anything prohibited or unclean accidentally
touch his or her lips.....and vice versa. And in another segment of this principle that gets
regularly misconstrued, we read: and the abstainer must not pass judgment on the one
who eats anything, because God has accepted him- . Too often this is interpreted as
meaning that God now accepts humans eating any edible thing that can be obtained. But that
is not what it says or what the point is. Rather it is that the one who eats all the foods and the
one who eats only vegetables have both been accepted by God (both are saved Believers),
and so especially as Believers one should not pass judgment on the other based upon laxness
or rigidness of diet from one another's perspective. And why is that? Because for one Believer
to pass judgment on another Believer violates the principle of "love your neighbor as yourself".
Verse 5 takes up another contentious issue, and the issue is "days". Please follow me
carefully on this. The CJB begins this verse this way: CJB Romans 14:5 One person
considers some days more holy than others... The word "holy" does NOT appear in the
Greek text and most English Bible versions don't have it either. The RSV is more typical of
English versions and is more true to the Greek. RSV Romans 14:5 One man esteems one day
as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully
convinced in his own mind. There is nothing in those words that denote some days as holy
and others that aren't. This is not about "holy" but rather about personally important days. But
the typical Christian take on this verse is that Paul has declared all the biblical holy days as
abolished; that of course takes direct aim at Sabbath and the 7 Biblical Feasts. Nothing of the
kind is said or implied. Paul isn't referring to biblical holy days or Sabbaths or he would have
plainly said so. Rather in the Roman world different days of the week were assigned as more
or less important or even dedicated to different gods and goddesses. Even the days of the
week were named for gods and goddesses. Apparently there was concern among some
Believers in Rome that meeting, or buying, or working, or doing whatever activity on one
particular day of the week was better than another day due to some custom and tradition that
had arisen. Omens of good luck and bad luck were even assigned to some days, and this sort
of superstition went deep into Roman culture and of course affected the local Jewish
population.
In order to believe that Paul was abrogating biblical holy days and saying that, for instance,
Passover or Sabbath was no more important than any other day of the year or week would
require us to take everything else we've read of Paul as hypocritical or false or simply error.
And it certainly wouldn't follow the pattern of Jesus Christ who we find at the Temple in
Jerusalem for the biblical feasts, teaching in synagogues on Sabbath, and telling others in the
Sermon on the Mount that they were most certainly to continue following the Law of Moses if
they wanted to be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, this is a prime example
of why we do NOT take Romans chapter 14 as a separate, self contained theological unit in
the Bible; but rather it is only a part of a whole and is fully connected to all of Romans...even
born out of everything Paul has said to this point in Romans.... and it extends to all the others of
Paul's epistles as well as to the Book of Acts, which spoke a great deal about Paul. Further,
Romans 14 carries no more or less theological importance or doctrinal weight and authority as
any other chapter in the New Testament. So we certainly can't take Paul's words of Romans
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
14 as essentially overriding Yeshua or even overriding other things he's said on the same
subject in other passages that he'd written. But the good news is that we don't have any
contradiction; the issue for us is to turn off those doctrinal filters in our minds and avoid reading
into Romans 14 things that Paul never said nor meant.
As for the last few words of verse 5 that says that the important thing about "days" is for each
person to be convinced in his own mind, let's understand what this does NOT mean; it
doesn't mean that a free-for-all concerning God's appointed times has just been announced.
First this isn't about biblical holy days, and second the concept is that the issue of "days"
should not be contentious among Believers. If one Believer wants to hold Mondays aside as a
day that portends the best day to go buy food or even maybe to pray, but another Believer
thinks that Mondays ought to be avoided for some superstitious or cultural reason, so what?
Let each be convinced in his own mind and leave it there. It's not worth a fight between
Believers since "days" has nothing to do with the Laws of God, and all such arguments do is
sow needless discord. And such differences of opinion and preference certainly ought not to
split the congregation.
Let's look at verses 6 and 7. Paul says that a person who observes a special day honors the
Lord, and a person who eats any permitted food honors the Lord, and so does the person who
only eats vegetables also honor the Lord. In the context of these passages all of these different
people are Believers and which ever preference they choose they honor the Lord. Does that
mean that simply "choosing" is what honors God? No. What Paul is getting at is that Believers
pray and thank God every day. Whether it is a "special" day in the eyes of some Believers, or
just any day; whether a person partakes of all the permissible foods or greatly restricts himself
only to vegetables, a blessing over the day and the food is ALWAYS said as part of Jewish
tradition in Jewish culture. So for the Believer God is part of every equation, and He is always
glorified in prayer no matter which of these situations and preferences are chosen. And as
concerns inter-personal relationships, for Believers the Lord is a partner in every relationship
among Believers because we all share the same Holy Spirit of God. Whether in death or in life,
Believers share a relationship with God and with one another in Spirit. And since life does not
end at the grave it is indeed a theological truth that, especially as Believers, we belong to God
both during this present life and in our life after death. Relationships don't end upon our death.
Paul's conclusion is that we are so bonded together as Believers...whether we are of strong
faith or of weak faith....and regardless of our personal preferences regarding eating or special
days....that we have no business in judging one another about any of these things. In fact, we
have no business in criticizing or looking down on one another at all. After all, we are all going
to be judged at some point anyway by God Himself. And then Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23.
Remember that because in Paul's day there were no verse numbers and chapter divisions,
then the protocol was that a short section of Scripture would be quoted rather than the entire
passage from which it came. So the intent is that the reader or listener would call to mind not
only those few words but also the words that preceded and succeeded them. I won't read all
of Isaiah 45 but I will read from verse 21b to the end.
READ ISAIAH 45:21b – end
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
Notice two things: first is that this passage is all about justice and God being the judge of
everyone; no one will escape judgment and He is the One who is Judge. But second, just so
we don't think that God has elevated gentiles above Jews, or that one group has been left out,
or that Paul is talking about interpersonal relationships regarding gentile Christians but not
Jewish Believers, note the final few words of Isaiah 45: "but all the descendants of Israel
will find justice and glory in Adonai". Here is yet another point of connection between
gentile Believers and Jewish Believers that makes us equal in God's eyes: all followers of
Yeshua become part of spiritual Israel. It is we who will find justice and glory in God, so there
is no need for us to judge one another in this life. Every Believer, says Paul in verse 12, will
have to give an account of ourselves to God and at that time He will hand out justice and
judgment as He deems fit. The good news is that as Believers we will not be condemned
because Yeshua was condemned in our stead.
Verse 13 is a midrash on Leviticus 19:14. That makes sense because Paul has used "love
your neighbor" from Leviticus 19 as his theme and rationale for his instructions to the Roman
Believers since Romans chapter 12. In Leviticus 19:14 we read: 14 "'Do not speak a curse
against a deaf person or place an obstacle in the way of a blind person; rather, fear your
God; I am ADONAI.
At first it might be hard to see why Paul would use this particular verse as his basis for what he
has to say in Romans 14:13 until we realize that in Judaism of his day the term "blind" was
used metaphorically for a person who didn't know or follow the Torah. So "blind" typically
meant the educationally unlearned; in Jewish society all education was religious education.
This, then, relates to the opening verse of Romans 14 when Paul speaks about the weak in
faith. So we get a bit of an insight into Rav Sha'ul's meaning of "weak" by seeing that from his
Jewish worldview the root cause for being "weak in faith" is a lack of knowledge of Torah. So
who is it that wields the stumbling block thrown in front of the weak? It can only be the strong in
faith. Paul does not want the strong in faith to put a stumbling block in the path of the weak in
faith so in this case the strong in faith refer to those Believers who are more learned in God's
Torah, and are thus more stringently Torah observant. Therefore Believers who have studied
and practiced Torah (which would be mostly Jews) are not to be prideful, arrogant, or hurtful to
those Believers who are "blind" (that is they don't know Torah likely because they are mostly
gentiles). I realize that you have probably never heard a Bible commentator speak about this
passage in this way before; but that is because we are exposing Paul's intrinsic Jewishness
and remembering that this man is a self-proclaimed Pharisee of Pharisees and extremely
learned in Torah having attended one of the most prestigious religious schools in Jerusalem.
Paul is not writing as though he is in the shoes of a 21st century Western, English speaking
Christian so we must put away our Evangelical Christian filters. Rather to dig down and extract
his intended meaning, we must put ourselves into his sandals; the shoes of this 1st century
Greek and Hebrew speaking, learned Jewish Rabbi. And when we do, revelation pops out!
But now we hit one of the most challenging yet significant verses in this chapter: verse 14. We
won't be able to complete discussing it in this lesson. Here Paul says that Yeshua Himself has
persuaded Paul of something and, says the CJB (and the majority of other translations), it is
that nothing of itself is unclean. But if a person considers something unclean, then to him it is
unclean. Here is where we need to go back to our Acts chapter 10 lesson about Peter's vision
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
of the animals coming down from Heaven in a 4 cornered sheet of cloth. Like in Acts chapter
10, it is the typical Christian assumption that Paul says kosher eating has been abolished
along with the concept of clean and unclean. Let's park here awhile because there are a few
stereotypes and assumptions that need to be dealt with so that we can properly interpret
Paul's words. We're going to get technical, but there is no other way to explain the issue
without doing so. Besides, if you like a good mystery you'll like where we're going with this.
First I'll whet your appetite by telling you that the 3 times that English Bibles insert the word
"unclean" in Romans14:14 are all typical but questionable translations. The Greek word
is koinos and in all other usage in the Bible it means common or ordinary; not unclean. The
Greek word for unclean is akathartos but akathartos does not appear in Romans 14:14.
These two words koinos and akathartos are, however, used side by side as separate and
different adjectives in Acts 10:14 as further proof that they cannot possibly be synonyms and it
is further proof that translators have had much trouble trying to figure out how to present the
meaning of this word. The CJB, for instance, translates this verse in Acts as follows: CJB Acts
10:14 But Kefa said, "No, sir! Absolutely not! I have never eaten food that was unclean or
treif." In this verse David Stern is translating koinos to unclean (the rather standard Christian
translation) and akathartos to treif. We'll only find the translation to Treif in the CJB as it is
actually a Yiddish derivative from a Hebrew word that means torn...that is, it speaks of prey that
was torn (attacked and killed) by a wild animal. Any meat animal that has been killed by a wild
animal may not be consumed; therefore in a kind of slang, treif indicates something that can't
be eaten by followers of the God of Israel because the rules of Judaism don't allow it
(whatever that reason might be).
But the KJV has translated that same verse this way: KJV Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so,
Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. This seems to be more
correct and it accords with the actual literal translations of koinos and akathartos. So even
before we try to understand what the word common means in this context of diet, it does not
seem to precisely mean ritually unclean because there is an entirely separate word for unclean
in the Greek language: akathartos. So why are verses containing the word koinos (common)
usually translated in English to unclean? I suspect it is because it works to reinforce long held
Christian stereotypes and doctrines that allow us to manipulate the meaning of the key word
(koinos) in this verse, and therefore change the key meaning of this verse in Romans 14:14
from a discussion of common to unclean. Let me say it again: it is doubtful that the term
"ritually unclean" appears in this verse; rather, Paul used the word common and Christian
translators have nearly universally decided to change it to unclean to better fit with a doctrinal
agenda that claims that Yeshua and Paul together abolished the biblical dietary laws.
So what does the term common mean as it applies to food? The reality is that within the Torah
itself there is no status of edible things called common so we are left with a bit of a head␂scratcher. Rather the Torah describes food in terms of prohibited and permitted food items and
in another and different set of rules that includes food, but it extends to other matters as well,
there are the clean and unclean categories. But, again, the term "common" is not a term used
to describe food in the Torah. Rather we only find it used that way in the New Testament.
Why? I believe it can only be the result of the influence of Halakhah, Jewish Law and
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 32 - Chapter 14
Tradition, on Judaism and on Jewish society in general. I've demonstrated in both the Book of
Acts and in the Book of Romans that terms and meanings used in Jewish Law can be found in
the New Testament because they were just an unconscience way of speaking and thinking
within Jewish culture in that era. Actual Jewish Law, Halakhah, Tradition, did not exist in the
Old Testament era because Judaism did not exist in the Old Testament era. Judaism, and thus
Jewish Law, only sprang up during the 400 year span in between the end of the Old Testament
and beginning of the New and thus we only find its societal influence in the New Testament. As
an aside, most Jewish scholars will tell you that (much to their disappointment) the single
largest and best recorded body of knowledge about Judaism in the 1st century A.D. is the New
Testament! But most important for our purposes, clearly common (koinos) can't mean ritually
unclean mainly because there already was a precise Greek word in wide use that means
unclean and that word is akathartos. To repeat: as we looked at Acts 10 we saw that both of
these words were used in the same verse, as different adjectives that mean different things,
and the King James version is one of the few English Bible versions to acknowledge that it is
self evident that koinos and akathartos can't both mean ritually unclean.
So, let's substitute the more literal and usual English word for koinos in Romans 14:14 and
see what we get: "I know....that is I have been persuaded by Lord Yeshua the Messiah....that
nothing is common of itself. But if a person considers something common, then for him it is
common." Another definition of koinos is ordinary, in the sense of meaning not-special. Or, in
Jewish thought, not set-apart or not holy. I believe what we have in the term koinos is sort of a
relatively new Tradition in Judaism that was created as a middle ground between holy and
unclean as regards food and it came about for practical reasons because 95% of all Jews in
Paul's era lived NOT in the Holy Land among thousands of their fellow Jews, but in the
Diaspora among millions of gentiles. That is, the vast bulk of Jews in the 1st century lived
scattered all over the Asian, European and North African Continents in a pagan world of
gentiles where often just one or a few Jewish families would live in a tiny ghetto among the
majority gentiles. Kosher eating would have been especially problematic for Jews because the
requirements of Judaism added many nuances and rules to the rather simple and
straightforward dietary rules as found mostly in Leviticus chapter 11. Rules of Jewish Law
made it nearly impossible to eat meat if it hadn't been raised, fed, killed, butchered, handled,
cooked and served exclusively by Jews.
This issue weighs heavily on proper doctrine for Believers so I don't want to hurry through it
because I know that many of you are unsure about the issue of kosher eating and whether it
applies to you or if it has somehow become irrelevant because of Christ.
Therefore we'll stop here and pick this up next week to conclude Romans chapter 14.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 33, Chapters 14 and 1
In Romans chapter 14 we again encountered an issue that simply will not go away: the issue of
kosher eating. Thus in verse 14 of chapter 14 we read this:
CJB Romans 14:14 I know- that is, I have been persuaded by the Lord Yeshua the
Messiah- that nothing is unclean in itself. But if a person considers something unclean,
then for him it is unclean;
Although Western gentile Christianity has tried to solve the matter by declaring simply and
succinctly that the Levitical dietary laws have been abolished for Christians, some cleaver
reconstruction of certain New Testament passages was needed to try to validate that
questionable position. So when we look at the oldest New Testament manuscripts ever found
(all of them written in Greek) we find discrepancies from what we find in most English Bible
versions when it comes God's dietary laws. Interestingly the KJV tends to stay more true to
the original Greek in its rendering of words concerning eating and diet, and so sometimes it
tells a different story.....but not always. Let me give you an example.
Acts 10:11-15 KJV
11 And (Peter) saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had
been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all
manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and
fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter
said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And
the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not
thou common.
Notice in this passage in Acts that the word "common" is used to describe something that
Peter said he has never eaten, and that God said that Peter should not call common what God
has cleansed. You will not find the word "common" in most standard English translations or in
the CJB; instead the word "unclean" is used. So why the discrepancy? It is because the Greek
word that is translated "common" in the KJV, but "unclean" in almost all English translations,
is koinos; however koinos means ordinary and common and not "unclean". There is a
separate Greek word that means unclean, and it is akathartos. Akathartos is not used here.
So why, when it comes to the discussion of food, do English Bible translations change the
meaning of koinos from common to unclean? Clearly it is because a certain doctrinal agenda
is being taught that doesn't necessarily agree with the plain Scripture reading so some
adjustments to the Scriptures had to be made to make the words fit the doctrine that kosher
eating has been abolished for Christians.
So what does "common" mean when it applies to food? Before we delve into that I want to
1 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
throw out a question that I'm sure many of you might be asking at this moment; why does Tom
Bradford address the issue of kosher eating so regularly? It is because I have noticed that
within Western culture and especially within Western Christianity the issues of dietary
restrictions and Sabbath are among the most difficult to deal with. It isn't that hard for
Westerners to understand and obey God's biblical moral standards that make murder,
stealing, and lying wrong. However we simply don't like the idea of being told what we can eat
and what we can't, or what day we should set aside to cease our regular work or if we are
obligated to do and not do certain activities on the Sabbath. Somehow the concepts of a God
designated Day of Rest and of God regulating our food such that some foods are permissible
and some is prohibited goes against our values of individualism and personal choice. After
many decades of life and my personal experience with God I have learned a valuable lesson; it
is that those areas in our life of which we demand God keep His hands off are the ones He
may well meddle in the most. Why? It is for our benefit; obedience to Him in all areas of our life
is the forgotten element of our relationship with the Lord in modern Christianity.
As much as I love democracy, the Kingdom of Heaven is not democratic and God is not the
President of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is a theocracy with but one absolute ruler who
established Himself as that ruler: Yehoveh. We don't get to vote in our relationship with God.
We have no right or mechanism to establish new divine rules or abolish established ones. He
gives us no options when it comes to morality, although He gives us wide latitude in matters of
preference. God has made eating and Sabbath matters of The Law and thus they are moral
issues; not issues of personal preference. He has made clear rules and regulations about what
we should and should not eat, and about what day we are to set apart as holy and different
from all the other days of the week.
Therefore let me be clear: is it wrong to disobey God's laws concerning diet and Sabbath?
Yes it is. Is it sin to disregard God's regulations about what we eat and what day we set aside
as the Day of Rest? Yes it is. And I can tell you from personal experience (and I have heard
the same from so many other Believers) that after you have accepted Christ as your Lord and
Savior, and then you also make the decision to obey God in all areas of your life including diet
and Sabbath, an entire new world of intimacy and relationship with the Lord opens up. Why?
Because obedience is God's love language. It is an oxymoron to say you love God but in the
same breath make it clear that you won't obey Him in certain areas of your life and lifestyle
that you wish to continue to control according to your own standard. As I have pointed out
before: God originally gave Adam and Eve only one rule; and interestingly that rule concerned
their diet. They could eat everything God gave them for food except the fruit from one
particular tree. The Scriptures acknowledge that the prohibited fruit was edible, beautiful, and
tasty.
Genesis 3:1-7 CJB
CJB Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any wild animal which ADONAI,
God, had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You are not to eat from any
tree in the garden'?" 2
The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat from the fruit of
the trees of the garden, 3
but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God
said, 'You are neither to eat from it nor touch it, or you will die.'"
2 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
4
The serpent said to the woman, "It is not true that you will surely die; 5
because God
knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God, knowing good and evil."
6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it had a pleasing
appearance and that the tree was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its
fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her; and he ate. 7
Then
the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked. So they
sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths.
The very first law God ever gave to mankind He gave in the Garden of Eden....before there was
a Law of Moses or a Hebrew to obey it....and it concerned food. What we eat matters to God
and has since Creation. And since it matters to God naturally Satan is going to interfere and try
to get us to go against what the Lord wants. It rubbed Eve the wrong way that God restricted
her from that gorgeous fruit; it must have seemed pointless and unreasonable. Because of our
inborn evil inclinations we carry with us that same attitude about food that Adam and Eve had;
we demand total freedom to choose as we please. If we like the taste and it doesn't physically
harm us, then we feel as though we should have the right to eat it. Just because some of the
Early Church Fathers were deceived, and because the Church in general remains deceived on
this matter, doesn't mean you have to be. Remember: the rules of kosher eating are found in
the Holy Scriptures, primarily in Leviticus chapter 11, and they don't amount to great deal. The
food rules that Judaism follows include much more than God requires and even Yeshua
Himself railed against those extra rules. So this is why I speak so regularly about kosher eating
and about Sabbath.
So back to the issue of what common means as it applies to food. It is important to understand
that in the Torah the term "common" is not used in reference to food. Food is basically divided
into two categories: permitted and prohibited. And then the permitted food is divided into two
categories: ritually clean and ritually unclean. So the use of the term common by Paul creates
a real challenge in trying to discern what he means by it. Surely it doesn't mean unclean
because there was an everyday Greek word for unclean that we regularly find used in the
Bible. My best educated guess is that because the Synagogue and Judaism had taken firm
hold in the lives of Jews well before Paul's day, certain terms had their meanings altered to
reflect conditions of the times. I think "common" is one of those altered terms and it reflects
the difficulties of proper eating for the vast bulk of Jews who lived among millions of gentiles in
a predominately gentile world. I also think that in the NT era the word "common" referred to
food (probably mainly meat) that is on the list of permissible foods as found in the Torah, but
because Jews in the Diaspora more often than not had no hand in the raising, butchering, and
handling of the food they could never be sure if it had been done according to God's laws. If
any of that was done improperly it could render the food unclean. And depending on how pious
a Diaspora Jew was, the details of the food handling were either extremely important or not
important at all. Thus for many Jews they ate only vegetables so that kosher issues were
removed and they could be certain that they ate nothing that they shouldn't.
Let's pause now and re-read the last several verses of Romans 14.
3 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
RE-READ ROMANS 14:14 – end
We've discussed verse 14 with the pertinent info being that the word unclean doesn't actually
appear here. However the principle Paul speaks of "nothing is common of itself" means that
food has no intrinsic condition. That is, no food is automatically created holy; no food is
automatically created common; and no food is automatically created unclean because of its
chemical makeup. Pig meat doesn't have some evil genetic quality about it that makes it
prohibited for food while cow meat has some good genetic quality about it that makes it
permissible for food. Rather the issue is obedience by God's worshippers to whatever the Lord
ordains. This fact was long recognized by the Rabbis and I'd like to quote you a rather
interesting narrative from the Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, which was created as early as the 5th
century and is essentially a series of Jewish religious homilies.
A heathen questioned Rabban Johanan be Zakkai, saying: The things you Jews do
appear to be a kind of sorcery. A heifer is brought, it is burned, is pounded into ash, and
its ash is gathered up. Then when one of you gets defiled by contact with a corpse, two
or three drops of the ash mixed with water are sprinkled upon him, and he is told, "You
are cleansed!" Rabban Johanan asked the heathen: "Has the spirit of madness ever
possessed you?" He replied: "No". "Have you ever seen a man whom the spirit of
madness has possessed?" The heathen replied: "Yes". "And what do you do for such a
man?" (The heathen said) "Roots are brought, the smoke of their burning is made to
rise about him, and water is sprinkled upon him until the spirit of madness flees".
Rabban Johanan then said: "Do not your ears hear what your mouth is saying? It is the
same with a man who is defiled by contact with a corpse; he, too, is possessed by a
spirit, the spirit of uncleanness, and, as of madness, Scripture says, I will cause false
prophets as well as the spirit of uncleanness to flee from the Land".
Now when the heathen left, Rabban Johanan's disciples said: "Our master, you put off
that heathen with a mere reed of an answer, but what answer will you give us?" Rabban
Johanan answered: "By your lives, I swear: the corpse does not have the power by
itself to defile, nor does the mixture of ash and water have the power by itself to
cleanse. The truth is that the purifying power of the Red Heifer is a decree of the Holy
One. The Holy One said: I have set it down as a statute; I have issued it as a decree. You
are not permitted to transgress my decree. This is the statute of the Torah.
So holiness, commonness, and uncleanness have nothing to do with the substance of the
object or the creature; they only gain such status as the Lord deems it. And if, as says Rabban
Johanan, God says pig meat is not food for you, then it isn't. If God says chicken is food for
you, then it is. There is nothing more to it than that; however as much as we humans might
question why pork is forbidden but chicken is permitted, we have no right to do anything but
obey. Here in Romans 14:14 the issue is the "commonness" of some kind of edible item thus
meaning (according to Paul) that it should not be eaten as food. But interestingly the rationale
and the point for Paul's injunction about food has less to do with obedience to the Torah food
laws and much more to do with loving your neighbor as yourself. Paul's injunction is that we
are to respect the other person's stance on such matters and not make it a bone of contention
that causes division. He is in no way saying it doesn't matter; but rather that it is up to God,
4 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
and not to a fellow Believer, to judge that person for not obeying the kosher food laws.
But now notice verse 15: it continues the subject by speaking of your brother (your fellow
Believer) being upset by the choice of food you eat. Thus by eating food that you know upsets
your fellow Believer (I'm assuming this means eating it in the presence of your fellow Believer)
you are going against the fundamental principle of loving your neighbor. Who is Paul speaking
to in his letter? Most often it is said that this is aimed at Believing Jews for being especially
rigid about food by maintaining kosher eating standards and thus when gentiles see them eat a
restricted diet it upsets the gentiles; but that is exactly the opposite of what these words say. In
fact simple logic asks why would gentiles be upset with Jews because Jews only ate certain
foods? So it is not an issue of what Jews eat, but what they don't eat. Further, nothing a Jew
eats would upset a gentile, even if that gentile thinks that restrictions don't apply to him.
Rather the upset occurs when it is gentile Believers who eat things that Believing Jews
consider common or unclean (and thus forbidden) that is the issue. It is gentiles Paul is
admonishing by saying that what they eat may be upsetting their brothers in Christ who are
Jews who eat kosher. So, says Paul in verse 15, gentiles don't let your unrestricted eating
habits (of eating things that upset those who eat kosher) destroy someone for who the Messiah
died (that is, another Believer). To destroy in this context means to offend. Thus gentiles
should honor Jews' convictions by eating kosher in their presence in order to show them
respect and not offending them. One can only imagine the contentious issues of diet when
gentile Believers began to be saved and especially at first joined Jewish synagogues.
Verse 16 is a bit cryptic but here's how we should take it. Paul is talking to those on one side
of the issue in verse 15, and then to those on the other side of issue in verse 16. So to
paraphrase these two verses to help us understand better let's try this: On the one hand don't
let your eating habits, gentiles, offend fellow Believers (Jew or gentile) who eat kosher. But on
the other hand, kosher eaters, don't let your devotion to eating kosher (a good thing) be turned
into something bad by demanding that your fellow Believer eat kosher because to do so
violates the overriding principle of loving your neighbor. And then in verse 17 Paul says this is
the case because the Kingdom of God is not based on wooden, mechanical instructions about
what you eat or what you drink such that it can cause divisions among Believers. Rather the
Kingdom of God is based on the righteousness, peace and joy given to us by means of the
Holy Spirit.
So here is the application for us in modern times: yes, Believers, God does instruct us to eat
Kosher. But if you don't first have the Holy Spirit in you, and you feel no conviction to follow
God's dietary laws, then to do so anyway is pointless and especially so if you do it only as an
outward show. At the same time if you are saved, and you do have the conviction to obey
God's dietary laws, then not only should you do so but you should not judge or ostracize other
Believers who have not come to that same conviction. Why is this? Because the spirit of God is
not one of slavery to the Law, but one of devotion to the Law out of love and gratitude for the
Law's creator. Thus while I fully believe that following God's dietary laws are for all Believers,
I will not make or end relationships with fellow Believers based on whether or not they, too,
hold that same conviction. At the same time, those Believers who have no conviction to obey
God's dietary laws need to honor my convictions should they invite me over for a meal. It is a
two way street and never should we get into battles with one another over kosher eating. And
5 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
Paul says in verse 18 that if we will go forward with this type of attitude then this is the proper
service of worship to our Messiah because it pleases God and it also allows others to see us
(as Messiah's representatives) in a good, proper, loving light that well represents our Savior.
It can only be that the issue of food and drink was a contentious one among the Roman
congregation (a mixed congregation of Jews and gentiles) that Paul spends so much time on it.
And Paul says that of all things to not battle over, it is this. But then we are thrown another
typical Paul curve ball in verse 20 when he says that all things are clean (and indeed he uses
the Greek word for clean, kathartos), but at the same time no one should cause anyone else
to fall away from Messiah due to food. What does he mean here? Naturally Western
Christianity claims that Paul says that because of Christ, the food laws are gone and now
every edible thing is OK for Believers to eat. And yet that doesn't fit with what Paul says here
and in others of his epistles. In fact, the wording says that ALL things are clean; that is, this
statement although it includes food goes beyond food such that the entire principle of clean
and unclean has been abolished as it applies to anything at all. That would make sense
because otherwise we have Paul saying that the principles of clean and unclean remain but
they now apply to everything but food. However this can't be right either because Paul talks
about the need to be cleansed in a number of his epistles. One of the more well known of his
statements in this regard is found in 1Corinthians.
1Corinthians 6:9-11 CJB
9
Don't you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God?
Don't delude yourselves- people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols,
who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in
active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who
assail people with contemptuous language, who rob- none of them will share in the
Kingdom of God.
11 Some of you used to do these things. But you have cleansed yourselves, you have
been set apart for God, you have come to be counted righteous through the power of
the Lord Yeshua the Messiah and the Spirit of our God.
But then there is also this from the John the Revelator:
Revelation 21:22-27 CJB
22 I saw no Temple in the city, for ADONAI, God of heaven's armies, is its Temple, as is
the Lamb. 23 The city has no need for the sun or the moon to shine on it, because God's
Sh'khinah gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light,
and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 Its gates will never close,
they stay open all day because night will not exist there, 26 and the honor and splendor
of the nations will be brought into it.
27 Nothing impure may enter it, nor anyone who does shameful things or lies; the only
ones who may enter are those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
6 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
So clearly the issues of obedience and of clean and unclean (ritually pure and ritually impure)
continue into the Messianic age and we should not take Paul as meaning that the status of
unclean has been abolished. So what does he mean? Considering his Jewishness, that he is
an educated Pharisee, what he has said throughout Romans, and that he lived during the era
of Judaism, Tradition and the Synagogue, then I think those several factors are the necessary
context for interpreting what Paul means by "all things are clean"; and he means that nothing
is created by God as unclean. At Creation God did not create unholy or unclean substances or
creatures or things. That is, inherently the physical substance of every created thing is
acceptable to God since He's the one who did the creating. We know this because it is
recorded in Genesis that God looked over everything that He created and pronounced it as
"good". However the spiritual and ritual status of unclean can be and is assigned by God to
some things under some circumstances for His own good reasons. This status, however, never
changes the physical make-up of a person, animal or object itself (in some magical way). A few
minutes ago I read you an excerpt from an ancient Jewish document that said essentially the
same thing. So Paul is but stating what was an accepted spiritual principle among Jews that all
things are created inherently clean, even if some are later deemed unclean (and therefore
unusable) by God for ritual purposes.
Nonetheless, says Paul to finish up this section, these issues (what we eat and what we drink)
should not be the cause of making a fellow Believer to stumble due to religious arguments
within a congregation. And since trust is the standard God uses to determine our salvation,
then it is on account of this trust and nothing else that we are to make the decision to eat
according to the Torah food laws. We should not eat kosher because of being brow beaten; not
because of thinking that somehow we are more pious or have more merit for doing so; and not
simply to conform to others in our group. However this same trust that leads us to eat
according to God's food laws also compels us to be respectful and loving to Believers who
don't.
Let's get a glimpse of Romans chapter 15 before we close for today.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 15 all
Once again we have to mentally set aside the chapter divisions that give us the sense that the
former subject has ended and a new subject as begun. This is because the first verse of
chapter 15 is based entirely on what Paul has previously said in chapter 14. That is, the "so"
to begin the chapter means "because of the principles I have just taught you". And Paul says
that because of these principles "we" who are strong must bear the weaknesses of those are
not strong. It is important that we pick up on the fact that Paul includes himself as part of the
strong because he uses the term "we". So which side of the kosher eating issue did Paul fall
on? The side that says kosher eating is abolished, or the side that says it continues on? In
order to know we have to look elsewhere in the New Testament to learn about Paul and how
he conducts himself. Listen to how he describes himself as he stands on trial before King
Agrippa.
Acts 26:1-5 CJB
7 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
CJB Acts 26:1 Agrippa said to Sha'ul, "You have permission to speak on your own
behalf." Then Sha'ul motioned with his hand and began his defense: 2
"King Agrippa, I
consider myself fortunate that it is before you today that I am defending myself against
all the charges made against me by Jews, 3
because you are so well informed about all
the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.
4
"So then! All Jews know how I lived my life from my youth on, both in my own country
and in Yerushalayim. 5
They have known me for a long time; and if they are willing,
they can testify that I have followed the strictest party in our religion- that is, I have lived
as a Parush.
Pharisees were super strict about the Torah food laws, even adding some burdensome
traditions that made it even stricter. As a Pharisee Paul of course followed their dietary rules.
And earlier in Acts when Paul was on trail standing before Governor Felix he said this about
himself:
Acts 24:14 CJB 14 "But this I do admit to you: I worship the God of our fathers in
accordance with the Way (which they call a sect). I continue to believe everything that
accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets.
Paul believes everything written in the Torah. The food laws are part of the Torah. Was Paul a
liar? Did he "believe" everything in the Torah, but he only obeyed some of it? If that is the
case, I don't know why we would listen to anything the man has to say. And earlier yet Paul
said this:
Acts 22:3 CJB 3
"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city and
trained at the feet of Gamli'el in every detail of the Torah of our forefathers. I was a
zealot for God, as all of you are today.
Paul was either lying or telling the truth in these 3 statements (and a few others to this same
effect). He either remained a highly trained, strictly Torah observant Jew or he was being a
hypocrite and a phony (which, by the way, some of the Early Church Fathers say he was
deceiving others by living one way and teaching another way but he can be excused for it
because he did it for the good of spreading the Gospel). Paul of course was no hypocrite as he
went to great lengths to prove when he went to meet James, Jesus' brother, in Jerusalem and
went into the Temple to pay the vow offerings for him and several other men. Paul followed the
Torah food laws as a Believer. And as he said to begin Romans 15, he (as part of the "we") is
what he considers "the strong". So clearly by Paul's definition it is the strong who eat a
kosher diet; not the weak as it is often taught.
So in continuing the theme of the strong and the weak Paul says it is self-evident that it is the
strong that must bear the weaknesses of the weak. I say self-evident because if the weak
could bear their own weaknesses they wouldn't be weak! He adds in verse 2 that we should
"please" our neighbor and choose our actions according to what is best for him. This of course
is just another way of stating the love your neighbor as yourself principle that Yeshua and the
Rabbis say the entire Torah stands upon and upon which Paul has based most of the Book of
8 / 9
Romans Lesson 33 - Chapter 14, 15
Romans. Here is the thing: while what Paul is calling for is for the strong to take the
responsibility to lovingly care for the weak, it is also a test of faith for the strong. It is anything
but human nature for the strong to want to help those weaker than themselves. Rather more
typically the strong want to dominate and impose their ways and doctrines upon the weak. The
strongest man who ever lived was Yeshua and He spent His life being a servant to others,
giving every ounce of His life for the good of the weak. He is our example. As He said: He
came to minister to the sick, not to the healthy. Just as Jesus shouldered our burdens (for we
are all weak compared to Him), the strong among us are to help shoulder the burdens of the
weak among us. And let's remember: we're talking here about the strong in the faith versus
the weak in the faith. Those who have more trust are to help those who, for the time being,
have less trust. Nonetheless the weak do have trust, they are saved because of that trust, and
they are just as valuable to the Kingdom of God as are the strong of faith.
We'll continue with chapter 15 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 34, Chapter 15
As we continue moving towards the conclusion of our study of Romans and undertake chapter
15, it is helpful to notice that Paul's instructions to the Believers of Rome shift and become
more general in nature. Up to this point, all through this exceptionally long letter, Paul has
switched back and forth between targeting the gentile part of his audience and then next
targeting the Jewish part. Starting in chapter 15 he is addressing all the Believers of Rome
without distinction.
We barely got started in Romans 15 last time so I'll briefly review what we discussed. Much of
chapter 14 involved a discussion about the weak in faith versus the strong in faith. And
interestingly in that chapter Paul dealt with the issue of ritual purity (clean and unclean) as the
central focus of his definition of just who is weak and who is strong. As an example he drew
attention to the issue of kosher eating. It is fascinating that almost any commentary on Romans
that one can find will make a remark that it must be the Jews who are weak, and the gentiles
who are therefore strong, because surely Paul is denouncing the Jewish custom of eating
kosher and following the Levitical dietary laws. However if one is to accept that then the first
verse of chapter 15 creates a problem because there Paul the Jew counts himself as among
the strong. And as I pointed out last time, Paul has used multiple opportunities to characterize
himself as a Pharisee of Pharisees, a Jew who continues to believe in and follow the Law
scrupulously, and therefore without doubt he himself eats kosher. Many of the early Church
fathers completely agree with that statement; but some (such as Chrysostom) explain it away
by saying that even though Paul continued to follow the Law of Moses including eating kosher,
he didn't really believe in it and only did so as a deception in order to keep up appearances of
being a good Jew so that he could evangelize other Jews. I find that ridiculous if not offensive
on its face. However it does demonstrate the length that otherwise excellent commentators will
go to in order to uphold a doctrine they hold dear.
So Paul of course ate kosher and he also categorized himself as one of the strong in faith.
However the difference between the strong in faith and the weak in faith is not so much
whether one eats kosher and the other doesn't as it is about how bothered and judgmental
they are to others who don't eat like they do. Thus the strong in faith, many of them personally
eating kosher and knowing that it is God's command that we do, ought not to demean the
Believing brother (certainly a gentile) who doesn't eat kosher nor should he demean the
Believing Jewish brother (certainly a Jew) who goes overboard on trying to be nearly perfect in
his diet by eating only vegetables (Romans 14:2) and abstaining from meat altogether. Recall
that generally speaking it was ritually unclean meat that was always the danger in kosher
eating. Vegetables and fruits had no prohibitions against them and extreme mishandling had to
happen in order to render them unclean. But there were a number of Biblical prohibitions on
various kinds of meats and how they were handled that made them legally edible or not.
1 / 8
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
So the strong in faith were to be kind and understanding of the weak in faith; not the other way
around. Therefore says Paul in chapter 15 verse 1, the strong should bend towards the weak
wherever possible in order to keep them in the fold. Let's talk about that for a moment. When
a new Believer comes to faith they are in a vulnerable position. They are operating on the
barest of knowledge and have almost no experience with God at all. The Holy Spirit has wooed
them into the Kingdom of God and the new Believer may have little understanding of much of
anything about the Lord and His ways. Therefore it would not be hard to convince them that
their newfound zeal for God was but a moment of psychological vulnerability; or perhaps they
were just mesmerized by a soaring message of salvation from an especially charismatic pastor
and got caught up in the emotion of a crowd. Even more, to ask the new Believer to
immediately begin to obey a long laundry list of commandments, some of which are daunting
or even nearly impossible in his current environment, is to risk him or her quickly giving up and
deciding that this is simply not doable for them to properly follow this new faith. It is the job of
the strong to lovingly nurture and guide the weak and make allowances for their weaknesses;
not to be harsh and demanding or to browbeat them. A good strong parent knows that you
make the rules and boundaries as few and as simple as possible for a toddler; only the
essentials that guard their safety and acquaint them with the concept of obedience. Otherwise
you risk overwhelming them with things that they are not mature enough yet to do; and they
will certainly fail and incur your wrath and this is bound to do damage to the relationship.
Let's re-read chapter 15 so we have it fresh in our minds.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 15 all
We've thoroughly discussed the first couple of verses already so let's move on to verse 3
where Paul uses a quote from Psalm 69:10 to validate his claim that even the Messiah (as an
example of the strong) didn't please only Himself. The quote is: "The insults of those
insulting you fell on me". So that we take this in the correct context, we readily know that the
"me" in this verse is Christ, but who is "you"? Who was having insults directed at him, but
Christ intervened and took those insults upon Himself? It is much easier to see when we look
at more of Psalm 69, a Psalm of David.
Psalm 69:6-10 CJB
6
God, you know how foolish I am; my guilt is not hidden from you. 7
Let those who put
their hope in you, Adonai ELOHIM-Tzva'ot, not be put to shame through me; let those
who are seeking you, God of Isra'el, not be disgraced through me. 8
For your sake I
suffer insults, shame covers my face. 9
I am estranged from my brothers, an alien to my
mother's children, 10 because zeal for your house is eating me up, and on me are falling
the insults of those insulting you.
So David was taking upon Himself the insults and offenses that were made against His Father
in Heaven. Paul imputes the same upon Christ. Thus even the strongest man in faith who ever
lived, Yeshua of Nazareth, did not hesitate to be insulted for the sake of another "person": His
Father. Thus those who are strong in faith ought to bear the insults meant not only for God, but
also for the weak.
2 / 8
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
Verse 4 has caused some amount of heartburn among Christians over the centuries, but none
more than in the past hundred years or so with the rise of what could be called modern
Evangelical Christianity. Here Paul refers to everything written in the past in the Scriptures that
was meant to give us ("us" here meaning Believers) encouragement and patience in hope.
The heartburn arises in that Paul of course only ever quotes the Old Testament, at least partly
because there was no such thing as a New Testament in his era; and here he says bluntly that
this is the source of a Christian's encouragement and hope. But the Evangelical Church says
that while it believes in both the Old and New Testaments, in fact the only relevant testament
for Christians is the New. So this verse is rather at odds with such a doctrine. Perhaps now is a
good time to repeat a hermeneutical principle that is important to the Hebrew Roots approach
to Bible study: it is that in the Bible, Old and New testaments, the term Scriptures only ever
refers to the Old Testament; the New Testament does not reference itself as being "Scripture".
Thus to read the Bible correctly we must understand that any use of the term Scriptures
automatically means the Old Testament. So to properly analyze the Bible we need to see it as
consisting of two pieces: The Scriptures and the New Testament. And for Paul, the Scriptures
(the Old Testament) is his Bible.
Let's move along now to verses 5 and 6. Here Paul says that while the Scriptures represent
the words of God, it is God Himself who actually gives us the encouragement for patience of
hope. And so it is God that we are to look to in order that we can obtain the same attitude as
our Messiah Yeshua of constantly wanting to glorify the Father in everything that we do. This is
directly connected to the issue of the strong in faith serving and protecting the weak. Therefore
in this context Paul is telling the strong that it glorifies God the Father for us to bear insults
made against Him, and for us to bend in service to the weaker in faith and to bear their
burdens. What I'd like you to notice here is Paul's specific reference to God the Father. He
says that our obtaining this attitude of Messiah glorifies the God and Father of our Lord
Yeshua; not that it glorifies Yeshua. Yeshua's goal, as ours should be, is always to glorify the
Father. I only point this out because too much within modern Christianity there is a belief that
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are co-equal. That is, there is no
hierarchy of authority or order of importance. Yeshua says otherwise and Paul's every
statement denies this possibility as here he once again puts the Father as above Yeshua and
puts the Father as the one to whom we are to direct our praise and glory. I only say this
because due to the populist doctrines of 21st century Evangelical Christianity there is this
subtle implication among Believers that we are essentially replacing God the Father with God
the Son since God the Father is the Old Testament God and God the Son is the New
Testament God. And since the Church is to be a New Testament Church, then obviously we
are to worship the New Testament God: Christ. Yet even Yeshua Himself (the supposed New
Testament God) disputes that when He directs us in just how we are to pray. He begins by
saying: (Matt 6:9-10 CJB) 9
You, therefore, pray like this: 'Our Father in heaven! May
your Name be kept holy. 10 May your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in
heaven.
Christ says we are to pray to the Father; not to Him. We are to endeavor to keep the Father's
name holy; not His. And this isn't the first time Messiah has said something like this. In
Matthew 12 we read this:
3 / 8
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
Matthew 12:31-32 CJB
31 Because of this, I tell you that people will be forgiven any sin and blasphemy, but
blaspheming the Ruach HaKodesh will not be forgiven. 32 One can say something
against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps on speaking against the
Ruach HaKodesh will never be forgiven, neither in the 'olam hazeh (the present world)
nor in the 'olam haba (the world to come).
I'm certainly not encouraging you to rashly say something against Christ or to diminish His
authority or high position as sitting at the Father's right hand. But clearly for Yeshua God the
Father and God the Holy Spirit hold a place of preeminence above Him and we need to keep
this in mind. Let us never stop praying IN THE NAME OF YESHUA; but we must always pray
TO the Father. The Old Testament God is the Creator God and the Father of us all; and He
remains as the New Testament God. Let us never try to relegate Him to the dust bin of history
as is all too common in some of the more popular pockets of the modern Western Church.
Verse 7 is essentially the conclusion that we are to draw from all that Paul has taught starting
with chapter 14 verse 1 and proceeding up to this point in chapter 15. The idea is that all
Believers are to welcome all other Believers into the congregation of Believers just as the
Messiah has welcomed all of us. Whether weak or strong in faith, whether brand new in the
faith or having held the faith for some years and thus are more spiritually mature; whether one
regularly stumbles and falls or one is more devout and consistent in their faith, we all belong to
the Kingdom of Heaven thanks to what Christ did for us and we should not be judgmental
towards our fellow Believers or question their place in the Kingdom.
Verse 8 puts the spotlight on the reality that Yeshua is the Messiah of the Jews. Whatever
benefit gentiles receive from Yeshua it is because of the covenants God made with the Hebrew
Patriarchs. I want to quote to you from C.E.B. Cranfield's commentary on Romans that I'm not
sure can be improved upon as regards this verse.
Christ has become the servant of the Jewish people (the people of the
circumcision).....inasmuch as He was born a Jew, of the seed of David according to the
flesh, lived almost all His life within the confines of Palestine, limiting His personal
ministry almost exclusively to Jews, and both was in His earthly life and atoning death
and also still is, as the exalted Lord, the Messiah of Israel.
This fits hand in glove with what Paul had to say in Romans 11 about Yeshua being the
Messiah of Israel and that it was for the sake of saving all Israel that God has shown mercy to
the gentiles. Now he adds to it that Yeshua's advent and life's mission, and the inclusion of
gentiles into the Kingdom, were also to keep God's promises that He made to Israel's
Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Once again, as in Romans 11, we see Paul highlight
the special priority and place of the Jews in God's eyes so that gentiles won't get the wrong
idea of where it is that we fit in God's plan.
What does this mean? It means that Christ is NOT the gentile Messiah because there is no
such thing. It means that the Jews have already received their Messiah even though the vast
4 / 8
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
bulk of Jews are still waiting for someone else. If Christ is not the Messiah of the Jews, and if
He is not the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to the Hebrew Patriarchs, then gentile
Christians have no Messiah and our faith is but foolishness. We are alive in our sins and dead
to God. We are doomed to an eternity of torments and without hope. Key to properly
understanding the New Testament is to internalize and realize that Christ was Jewish. Several
years ago I was giving a 10 part lecture at a church and I began my talk with the words that
Christ was, and is, a Jew. An elderly man made a sour looking face, looked over to his wife
and mouthed the words "that's not true"; she said something back and he got up and left. The
next week as I was starting part 2, to my surprise the man returned and before I could get
started asked if he could speak to the group. He stood up and apologized and said that after
being a church-going Christian for 50 years, he had never understood that Jesus was actually
a Jew. He had never come to grips with the reality that His Savior was Jewish and the initial
thought of it had made him angry and uncomfortable. Understanding Yeshua in His Jewish
context is what helps us to understand His actions and His immutable instructions to us.
In verse 9 Paul gives us a second reason for God the Father making His son Yeshua a servant
to the Jewish people; it was to demonstrate the depth of the Father's mercy so that seeing it, it
would cause gentiles to seek what the Jews had received and thus glorify the God of Israel.
And even this had a reason behind it: it was to fulfill what had been prophesied in the
Scriptures. Paul paraphrases from Psalm 18:50, which David took from 2nd Samuel 22:50, to
make his case: Psalm 18:50 CJB 50 "So I give thanks to you, ADONAI, among the nations;
I sing praises to your name.
I realize that the CJB uses the term "nations" in Psalms 18 but uses the term "gentiles" in
Romans 15:9; however those two terms mean essentially the same thing. The word nations
and the word gentiles are the same word in Hebrew thought: goyim. This is because in the
Bible, since early in the Torah when through Abraham God separated the world into 2 distinct
categories of people (Hebrews and gentiles), the term nations then evolved to automatically
mean gentile nations. This is because prior to the covenant God made with Abraham there
was no need to specify Hebrews versus everyone else because only 1 unified category of
people existed throughout the entire planet. This passage from Psalm 18 is the first of four Old
Testament quotations that Paul is going to use to support his case as concerns the prophetic
inclusion of gentiles into the redemption equation. It is important to notice something that the
Jewish Believers would have caught on to quite quickly: he used quotes from the 3 recognized
divisions of the Hebrew Bible as it was seen in his day: from the Prophets, from the Torah, and
from the Writings. Actually he went so far in his four quotes as to take one from the Former
Prophets plus one from the Latter Prophets, one from the Torah, and one from the Writings
(these are called Torah, Ketuvim and Nevi'im in Hebrew). Why did Paul do this? To show
conclusively how the entire Old Testament pointed not only to Christ, but also to the eventual
inclusion of gentiles as a result of Yeshua's advent.
Thus Romans 15:10 is a passage taken from Deuteronomy 32; 15:11 is a passage taken from
Psalm 117; and 15:12 is taken from Isaiah 11. And as we see they all prophesy the future
inclusion of gentiles into the congregation of God. So the conclusion is that the Jews of Rome
should welcome gentiles and not look down upon them as suspect, or as unworthy, or as not
belonging, or as the weak in faith just because they know so little about the Hebrew Bible, the
5 / 8
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
redemption history of Israel that begins in the Torah, nor even of the Hebrew Prophets who
foretold of gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel. Rather they should be fully welcomed
to join the Jewish synagogue congregations and prayer groups in the same spirit that Messiah
Yeshua welcomed Jews and gentiles alike to participate in the redemption that He brought to
them.
Verse 13 is a rather typical Jewish-style blessing; it is a prayer mixed with a wish. It begins by
speaking of God as the God of hope. I'll remind you yet again that when Paul speaks of hope
he means it in terms of hope for resurrection from the dead. Little has unnerved and occupied
the minds of humankind as has our own death. Some cultures glorify death, others dread it.
Some welcome death; others see it as unnatural and the result of upsetting the gods. Some
had elaborate death cults (such as the Egyptians), and for others it was simply a mystery and
death rituals were simple (like with the Hebrews). Thus among Jews what happened after
death was mostly unknown; life was, and remains, the most important and pleasant part of
human existence in the Jewish mindset. However the concept of resurrection (reanimation,
coming alive again after death) was a hot topic in Paul's era. Thus perhaps the most
welcoming and attractive news Paul brought along with the Gospel of Messiah Yeshua was the
hope of bodily resurrection after death. Paul teaches that this hope is available for anyone,
Jew or gentile, who puts their trust in Yeshua as Lord and Savior. However the actual power to
make this hope a reality and not merely a comforting theory is contained in the power of God's
Holy Spirit; it does not come from within us or from other humans. Once again I'd like to
demonstrate to you that as true and profound as that line of thought is it was not an original
thought of Paul or something that was new to Jewish theology as a result of the advent of
Christ. Redemption and an accompanying hope for resurrection by the power of God is not
something that was born anew from Christianity.
Listen to this excerpt taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Essene Jewish
community before the birth of Christ. This is taken from scroll 1QS.
For to God belongs my justification, and the perfection of my way, and the uprightness
of my heart are in His hand; by His righteousness are my rebellions blotted out. For He
has poured forth from the found of His knowledge the light that enlightens me, and my
eye has beheld His marvels and the light of my heart pierces the mystery to come
......From His wondrous mysteries is the light in my heart, in the everlasting Being has my
eye beheld wisdom because knowledge is hidden from men and the counsel of
prudence from the sons of men. The fountain of righteousness, the reservoir of power,
and the dwelling place of glory are denied to the assembly of flesh; but God has given
them as an everlasting possession to those whom He has chosen. He has granted them
a share in the lot of the Saints, and has united their assembly, the Council of the
Community, with the Sons of Heaven. And the assembly of the holy fabric shall belong
to an eternal planting for all time to come.
But now in verse 14 Paul switches both his tone and the subject. It is my opinion that the
purpose of these words is that after considering the forceful thought, theology, and impressive
list of Halakhot (religious rulings) that Paul has laid out for Believers, Paul is now trying to
soften his tone a little. He fears he might have come off too heavy handed, especially
6 / 8
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
considering he didn't start the congregation of Rome and yet is declaring his authority over it.
He doesn't want the Believers of Rome to think that he thinks they are much in need of a good
dressing down or that they are ignorant, so he says that he is convinced that the Believers of
the Roman congregation are full of goodness, and have a great deal of knowledge, and are
well able to teach one another proper doctrine. However ......there are some things that Paul
thought needed to be addressed as more of a reminder than as teaching new doctrine that
they didn't know. Paul's statement goes a long way in destroying the rather standard
contention of most Christian Bible commentators that Romans is essentially a carefully crafted
systematic theology for Christians created from scratch by Paul and he sent it, in full, to the
Believers of Rome (perhaps as a trial balloon to see how well it might be received). Rather it is
clear that the subjects he covered were because of something he must have heard about the
congregation in Rome; things he felt they needed to be reminded of.
But by what right should Paul be able to intervene in a congregation that he had no hand in
creating? He says it is because the grace that God gave him of being a servant of the Messiah
for gentiles, and because he had the priestly duty of presenting the Good News so that gentiles
would be made an acceptable offering, made holy by the Holy Spirit. There's much here to
discuss. First Paul has taken quite seriously the commission he received on the road to
Damascus by none other than the risen Christ Himself. His commission was to be as the
Apostle to the gentiles. But clearly Paul was not the only Jew who was evangelizing gentiles in
the name of Yeshua. Even so, Paul took Christ's commission to mean that he was to be the
chief evangelist and was to be head of the spear in taking the Gospel to the gentile world. In
fact, he was to be the authority over the gentiles who came to faith. So he felt that he had been
given the authority to intervene virtually anywhere in the known world outside of the Holy Land
where James, Jesus' brother, was the head of the congregation of Believers that consisted
almost exclusively of Jews.
So what does Paul mean by his "priestly" duty to present the good news? Here's the thing to
understand: according to the Torah it was one of the prime duties and great honors of the
Levite Priests to keep and teach God's Word to God's chosen people. For centuries they had
failed at that and instead the office of priest had become politicized and an occupation meant
to enrich oneself or merely to gain special privilege and social status. The synagogue was now
where most actual Bible teaching took place and it certainly was not priests who taught in the
synagogues. However in a sort of restoration-of-the-Torah mindset, Paul describes the duty of
preaching the Gospel as being priestly in its fundamental nature since the Gospel is contained
in the Word of God. Thus it was always the priests who had been intended to teach God's
people the Gospel. So in continuing the metaphor of Temple and priest Paul explains that
those gentiles who come to belief in Yeshua are as an offering made holy by the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit, which is then presented to God. That is, all offerings made to God at the
Temple begin as ordinary and common things; but by setting them apart and devoting them to
God this makes them holy property and thus suitable for presenting them to God. The Holy
Spirit, through Yeshua, makes the gentiles holy and in this way they become an acceptable
offering to God.
Further explaining himself to the receivers of his letter in Rome, in verses 17 and 18 Paul
makes it clear that whatever he has said that might feel to a reader as a personal boast about
7 / 8
Romans Lesson 34 - Chapter 15
his accomplishments is not. Rather he is proud, or boasting, about what Yeshua has done
through him. As a modern day application it is not at all wrong to be proud of what God has
done with Seed of Abraham Ministries and Torah Class as long as we understand that we are
merely tools in God's toolbox and everything good that has come from our efforts is Him
operating through His willing vessels. It is God who merits the glory and not us. Philippians
4:13 CJB 13 I can do all things through him who gives me power.
So in verse 19 Paul continues to explain that because of the power of God through him, he has
spread the Gospel to the far reaches, all the way from the center of Yehoveh worship in
Jerusalem to Illyricum in the pagan Roman Empire. We have not seen in any of Paul's writings
that he had been to the province of Illyricum, but that hardly means he didn't go there. The
notion that all of Paul's letters have survived, or all of his writings are known to us, or that
contained within those letters and writings are complete journals of everything that he did, all
the adventures and circumstances that he encountered, and detailed lists of every place that
he ever went cannot be taken seriously. Since Illyricum is north of Macedonia and we know he
was in the area of Macedonia then it is entirely probable that he made it as far as Illyricum;
there is no reason to doubt him in this. The idea is simply to inform his readers of the furthest
reaches of his ministry to the North West.
We'll pause here for today and finish up chapter 15 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Romans Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 Cont
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 35, Chapter 15 continued
I want to begin today by giving you a thought-provoking tidbit of history about the Book of
Romans that you need to carefully weigh. This information reveals something about the book
itself but perhaps even more about the uneven history of the development of Christianity in
general.
We are about halfway through our study of Romans chapter 15. However there is much
scholarly controversy about the final two chapters of the Book of Romans. One of the
controversies is whether or not chapters 15 and 16 were written by Paul and perhaps were
added by someone at a much later date. Another is a contention that Paul indeed wrote the
first 14 chapters of Romans as a general systematic theology of Christianity meant to be sent
out to all the Believing congregations; only later did he revise it by adding chapters 15 and 16
before sending it to the congregation in Rome.
As one can easily imagine much of the reason for these controversies, and where a Bible
scholar chooses to take his stand in his conclusions about them, centers around the particular
doctrines he or she holds. The reality is that Romans chapters 15 and 16 put up to grave doubt
some of the more common Church doctrines such as Paul not just converting to Christianity,
but also leaving his Jewishness behind and essentially converting to a gentile. What better way
to resolve that dispute than to simply declare chapters 15 and 16 as invalid or of questionable
authorship, inspiration or value?
It is true that ancient Greek manuscripts of the Book of Romans are not identical; there are
variations and differences, often depending on the region where they are found. Some of the
earliest manuscripts of the Book of Romans do end at chapter 14. Others include chapter 15
but not 16, some slightly rearrange a few of the verses, and still others contain all 16 chapters.
But what is it about chapter 15 or 16 (or both) that causes such heartburn for some Christian
Bible commentators? Generally speaking it is because of the heavy concentration of Old
Testament Scripture references that are used and Paul's declaration that it is these that he
considers as the Holy Scriptures. Paul also strongly insists that it is the Father, the God of the
Old Testament, that is to be glorified and The Son, the God of the New Testament, is subject
to the Father. This line of thinking casts serious doubt upon the beliefs of that part of
Christianity that insists upon a rigid Trinitarian doctrine that demands that the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit are co-equal "persons". That is, there is no authority structure or hierarchy among
them, and there is no "person" of the three who is higher or preeminent over the other two. As
I have mentioned before, while the modern Church is careful not to say out loud out that the
God of the Old Testament is today therefore the old and former God and so largely irrelevant;
and the old and former God has given way to Jesus, the new God of the New Testament, in
fact some of the most widespread, fundamental Church doctrines operate upon that
assumption. Paul's statements especially in chapter 15 blow holes in that Church tradition.
1 / 7
Romans Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 Cont
The early Church Father Origen has recorded for us the reason that the very early Greek
manuscripts of the Book of Romans end at chapter 14: Marcion removed chapters 15 and 16.
We've discussed Marcion before. He was a wealthy and powerful gentile shipping magnate
who claimed Christianity in the mid 2nd century. His used his wealth to gain substantial
influence in the Church. He was openly anti-Semitic, despised Jews, and so was greatly
agitated by the heavy focus of the Old Testament on Israel and the Hebrews. It was he who
first advocated that Christians should set aside the Holy Scriptures (the Old Testament) and
create a Christian Bible to replace it. His suggestion for what would be contained in the new
Christian Bible was the Gospel accounts, several of Paul's letters (some of which he
personally edited), and a couple more documents. The Church Bishops were appalled at such
a suggestion and branded him a heretic. However as the years passed and Christianity quickly
morphed into a gentiles-only faith and much of the Church separated itself more and more
from its Hebraic faith heritage, Marcion's concept of a new Christian Bible was resurrected
and by around 200 – 220 A.D. a number of Church Bishops from various regions more or less
followed Marcion's formula and the New Testament was created. Not surprisingly these
Church Bishops incorporated some of the documents that Marcion had personally edited, and
one of those was the Book of Romans. Marcion had edited out of Romans what we today call
chapters 15 and 16 for the obvious reason that it exposed Paul's reverence for, and reliance
in, the Old Testament as well confirming his staunch Jewishness. It would be many years later
before other Church Bishops from other regions of the world who had older copies of Paul's
letter to the Romans at their disposal began lobbying to restore the final two chapters. And so
over the next many years various Churches added some elements of those 2 chapters, others
added them fully but in edited form, and others accepted them in total as-is.
It shouldn't shock us for these various forms of the Book of Romans to exist. It is, after all,
human beings with different agendas who were making the decisions about the final form of
this document and others of the New Testament documents as well. I've mentioned before
that the Book of Hebrews, for instance, has been included, then removed, re-included, and
removed again from the New Testament over the centuries, and in the Western version of the
New Testament Hebrews was only added back in again 200 years ago. Some like Marcion and
others of his anti-Jewish ilk did all they could to wring any favorable Jewish flavor out of the
New Testament and wanted it to be a gentile oriented work. But others had reasonable and
pragmatic reasons for leaving certain sections of Romans out; for instance, chapter 16, which
as we'll see next week was either an addendum or simply a non-theological ending to the
letter that was mostly about certain people who were with Paul that knew many of the folks in
the congregation of Rome and simply wanted to say "hello". So as Paul's long letter went into
circulation after the Romans received it and released it for general consumption, and as paper
was scarce and expensive, then it makes sense that what we call chapter 16 would be left out
for all the other congregations to see because it was mostly personal and had no relevance to
other congregations (to their way of thinking).
One more historical note that is especially pertinent to our study of Romans 15: Paul was
probably in the Province of Achaia when he wrote this letter. He felt he had mostly completed
his mission of evangelizing the east as a pioneer of the Gospel of Christ as he explained in
verse 19 of Romans 15 that he had ventured all the way to Illyricum. As a result he was ready,
now, to move his mission field towards the west to Italy and then from there to Spain. In fact a
2 / 7
Romans Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 Cont
case could be made that Paul was more or less preparing for his trip to Rome by sending the
Roman congregation this letter in advance and informing them of his plans. I'll remind you that
a few years later (4 years perhaps) he indeed did wind up in Rome but not in the manner in
which he had hoped; he arrived as a prisoner who was going to plead his case before Caesar.
The Book of Acts indicates that he met with several prominent Jews in the Roman Jewish
community but there's nothing explicit that says that he had interaction with the congregation
that he had sent his letter to. And as far as anyone knows, Rome is as far to the west as he
ever journeyed; he never made it to Spain.
Let's re-read part of Romans chapter 15.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 15:17 – end
In verse 20 Paul makes it clear that he wanted to pioneer new areas for the Gospel and not
attach himself to the work of others who came before him. This is further proof that Paul was
not the only Believing Jewish evangelist of the Good News and more it shows that Paul was
not the boss, so to speak, of any Believers or organization of Believers who undertook an
evangelistic mission. What set Paul apart from the others was that he was an Apostle
appointed directly by Christ and that gentiles were to be his primary mission field. It was simply
pragmatism that led to Paul usually winding up at synagogues everywhere he went because
there he would find some number of gentiles who had interest in the Jewish faith. It was much
less of a leap for a gentile to trust in Messiah Yeshua from already having some knowledge of
the Bible and to some degree identifying with the Jewish faith than it was for a pagan gentile
who had no familiarity with the Scriptures. Paul had to begin by instructing them in the basic
concept of sin and thus the need for a Savior. These were uniquely Jewish concepts for which
pagans had no basis for understanding. This is what makes the rapid spread of Christianity
among gentiles all the more astounding and downright miraculous.
So then in verse 22 Paul explains that the reason he has never been to Rome is because he
was prevented from it by all the missionary work he was doing in pioneering new areas.
Apparently even before Paul began his evangelistic efforts the congregation of Rome was
already established. Just who established it we don't know. It is interesting that Paul sees
himself as a sort of Johnny Appleseed of planting Believing congregations. He has no illusions
that his purpose is to start a congregation, stay and grow it, and behave as we think of a
Pastor. Paul's purpose was not to be a long-term shepherd or caretaker over a particular
group of Believers. In fact, I don't think Paul had the demeanor of a Pastor. Paul was all
business; he was a scholar, a teacher and authoritarian. His goal was to spread the Gospel of
Christ as far as possible to as many as possible as quickly as possible. So Paul devised a
strategy; he went around establishing Believing congregations by wandering into a town where
there was a Jewish community where he would usually be welcome. Next he would convince
some number of Jews and gentiles that Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah, he would select a
leader, help the leader to set up an organization, establish someplace for the Believers to
meet, and all during this time instruct the leadership in proper doctrine. Once accomplished, he
moved on. He kept track of the various groups he created through letters; and through these
letters he reproved them, commended them, and taught them.
3 / 7
Romans Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 Cont
In verse 24 Paul announces that he intends to go to Spain. Does this mean that as far as Paul
knows the Gospel has not yet been preached there? I don't know; but I rather think so
considering what he just said. However Paul will take a route to Spain that necessarily has him
going through Italy. In Italy he'll go to Rome and spend time with the Roman congregation.
Whether by road or by sea Rome isn't really a natural stop on the way to Spain; he would
have to make a significant detour. By explaining to the Roman congregation that his ultimate
destination was Spain, they would immediately understand that his coming to Rome required
some extra time and effort on his part. But we must also understand that in Paul's day Spain
was seen as one of the furthest places on earth that a person could travel (at least it seemed
that way from a Middle Easterners perspective); it could take as much as a full year to get
there.
In the first chapter of the Book of Acts we read this:
Acts 1:8 CJB 8
But you will receive power when the Ruach HaKodesh comes upon you;
you will be my witnesses both in Yerushalayim and in all Y'hudah and Shomron, indeed
to the ends of the earth!"
So in a sense, by going to Spain Paul would have been following Yeshua's instructions by
evangelizing the west as representative of the "ends of the earth".
What was Paul's motive for stopping in Rome? After all, this was not a congregation that he
had established and he didn't seem to personally know the leadership. No doubt it had
something to do with the City of Rome being the hub of the known world and therefore also the
religious power center of the known world. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint Rome was all
important and since the city was so heavily populated likely it had a pretty large congregation
of Believers (perhaps even more than one congregation). But Paul also made it clear that he
hoped for help from the Believers in Rome to get him to Spain. Likely this help meant monetary
help, perhaps even some of the members coming with him to Spain to help. No matter how he
might get to Spain it was going to be a long, tiring and risky journey. So staying in Rome to rest
for several weeks to recuperate would have been desirable even though it required a
substantial detour.
He next explains that before he undertakes his trip to Spain, first he must go to Jerusalem;
itself a long and challenging trip. He says he is going to be taking aid for God's people there.
In other passages in others of his books he says that it is also to go to Jerusalem to fulfill the
Torah commandment to make pilgrimage to the Temple for the occasion of the Biblical Festival
of Shavuot.
When he mentions bring aid he is speaking of the collection of money he had been taking from
the various congregations he was visiting on his missionary trips around the Mediterranean. To
show you just how interconnected Paul's letters are and why we must always look to his other
letters to other congregations to give us the fullest context for what he means by many of his
challenging comments, we will read about this same collection of charity and Paul's trip to
bring it to Jerusalem in a few different places in the New Testament. Just as a small sampling:
4 / 7
Romans Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 Cont
Acts 24:17-18 CJB
17 "After an absence of several years, I came to Yerushalayim to bring a charitable gift to
my nation and to offer sacrifices. 18 It was in connection with the latter that they found
me in the Temple. I had been ceremonially purified, I was not with a crowd, and I was
not causing a disturbance.
Notice that Paul intended on making sacrifices at the Temple. Doesn't much sound like a man
who has turned his back on the Torah or his Jewishness does it? It seems that Paul certainly
doesn't think that Yeshua abolished the sacrificial system, even though most Christian
commentators claim Paul teaches against it. In his letter to the Corinthians Paul also speaks of
this same trip to Jerusalem from a little different perspective.
1Corinthians 16:1-8 CJB
CJB 1 Corinthians 16:1 Now, in regard to the collection being made for God's people: you
are to do the same as I directed the congregations in Galatia to do. 2
Every week, on
Motza'ei-Shabbat, each of you should set some money aside, according to his
resources, and save it up; so that when I come I won't have to do fundraising. 3
And
when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the people you have approved, and I
will send them to carry your gift to Yerushalayim.
4
If it seems appropriate that I go too, they will go along with me. 5
I will visit you after I
have gone through Macedonia, for I am intending to pass through Macedonia, 6
and I
may stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may help me continue my
travels wherever I may go. 7
For I don't want to see you now, when I am only passing
through; because I am hoping to spend some time with you, if the Lord allows it. 8
But I
will remain in Ephesus until Shavu'ot......
Moving on to Romans 15:27, Paul tells the Roman Believers that while it was generous and
kind of the various Believing congregations in the far-flung Diaspora to donate these funds for
the poor Jewish Believers in Jerusalem, in fact what they did was closer to paying a debt than
to giving charity. Apparently a great many gentiles had donated; so Paul notes that since the
gentiles shared in the Jews' spiritual heritage, then it behooved the gentiles to pay back by
helping the Jews in material matters. While the principle of sharing what we have with a
brother in Christ is self-evident in this issue of taking aid to the Believers in Jerusalem, it also
follows along with Paul highlighting the Biblical principle of "love your neighbor" that he has
been preaching since Romans chapter 12. But in this same passage I also want to highlight
that Paul makes the point that gentiles don't have our own separate spiritual heritage; by
grace gentiles are allowed to share in what God gave to the Jews. It is the Jews' God-given
spiritual heritage that gentiles can also enjoy through their trust in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus
Christ. This is another of those passages that drives a number of Christian scholars to want to
find sufficient fault with Romans chapter 15 to disregard much, if not all, of the entire chapter
as not having been written by Paul. This is because it clearly refutes the rather standard
Christian doctrine of gentiles possessing a different and superior spiritual heritage than the
Jews.
5 / 7
Romans Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 Cont
In verse 28 Paul says that once he has completed this task of collecting donations and bringing
the aid to the brothers in Jerusalem he will then begin to focus on his intention of going to
Spain and stopping in Rome on the way. But then Paul says something rather cryptic; he says
that he knows when he comes to the brothers in Rome that it will be "with the full measure of
the Messiah's blessings". Nice words; but what do they mean? What is the "full measure of
the Messiah's blessings"? Let me tell you in advance that this is another of those statements
in Romans 15 that many Bible commentators wish wasn't there because it has a direct
connection to the Hebrew heritage of salvation. "The Messiah's blessings" that Paul speaks
of are contained in the Father's promise to Abraham (the Abrahamic Covenant) that in his
seed all the nations of the world would be blessed. In other words, Paul is saying that his
coming to Rome, the pagan capital of the world, and his coming to be with Christ Believers in
Rome consisting of both Jews and gentiles, is nothing less than the prophetic fulfillment of
God's promise to Abraham 1800 years before Yeshua was born. Paul fleshes out what he
means by "the full measure of the Messiah's blessings" in the Book of Galatians.
Galatians 3:13-16 CJB
13 The Messiah redeemed us from the curse pronounced in the Torah by becoming
cursed on our behalf; for the Tanakh says, "Everyone who hangs from a stake comes
under a curse." 14 Yeshua the Messiah did this so that in union with him the Gentiles
might receive the blessing announced to Avraham, so that through trusting and being
faithful, we might receive what was promised, namely, the Spirit. 15 Brothers, let me
make an analogy from everyday life: when someone swears an oath, no one else can set
it aside or add to it. 16 Now the promises were made to Avraham and to his seed. It
doesn't say, "and to seeds," as if to many; on the contrary, it speaks of one- "and to
your seed"- and this "one" is the Messiah.
Paul then asks the Believers in Rome to join together in prayer for Paul about his upcoming trip
to Jerusalem; he is expecting opposition the moment he enters Judea. Clearly Paul sees
danger in his going to the Roman province of Judea because among the majority of Jews who
don't believe in Yeshua are many (mainly the Zealots) who would harm Paul. This is a good
time to remind you that while it is the common mantra among Christians that the danger that
Paul was always in was because he believed in Jesus Christ that isn't really the case. Some
new Messiah figure or another was always coming along that various groups of Jews believed
in; it was hardly a new or rare phenomenon. Certainly that Paul thought Yeshua was divine
offended the most pious, especially the Pharisees. But the reason that Paul was always facing
the prospect of physical violence had to do with his befriending of gentiles.
Zealots were radical militant Jews who were itching for an armed rebellion against Rome; they
wanted to fight for their freedom from Rome. And just as it always is for human beings, we tend
to stereotype entire groups of people simply because someone who looks like them or bears
the same affiliations might be seen as our enemy. The Zealots hated all gentiles because to
their minds they represented Rome.....the oppressors of the Jews. Clearly all gentiles didn't
oppress Jews. Besides that, the oppression was a political oppression and not a religious
oppression. It is well documented that generally speaking the Roman government bent over
backwards to stay clear of Jewish religious matters and accommodated Jewish beliefs
6 / 7
Romans Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 Cont
wherever possible. The Romans were known for being tolerant of all gods and religious
systems provided they weren't advocating rebellion.
Therefore in the eyes of the Jewish Zealots Paul was seen as a political traitor to his people. It
isn't that the treason was that he might have renounced his Jewishness and taken on a gentile
identity (even though thousands upon thousands of Jews, especially in the Diaspora, had done
that). Rather it is that he kept on staunchly identifying himself as a Jew at the same time he
cavorted with the enemy: the gentiles. That, of course, was a purely political viewpoint. But
from the religious perspective Paul was also offering unclean gentiles the opportunity to
partake of sacred Jewish religious ideals.....while remaining as gentiles. He would not have
been in near as much danger, if any, had he agreed with the circumcision faction that in order
to worship the Jewish Messiah a gentile had to convert and become a Jew by means of
circumcision. Then Paul's association with gentiles would have been looked at more as a Jew
evangelizing for Judaism and Jewishness; that is, Paul would have been seen as one who was
working to convert gentiles to Jews.
Thus when Paul says in verse 31 that he wants the Believers in Rome to pray that the
unbelievers in Jerusalem will find his "service" acceptable to them, he is speaking of Temple
service; he is referring to the fact that one of the reasons he desires to go to Jerusalem is to
sacrifice at the Temple. Paul is hoping that the unbelievers and the Zealots will see that he
remains a good, loyal, Torah observant Jew. Sacrificing is something that James, the brother
of Yeshua, had advised Paul to do some years earlier when he had come to Jerusalem for
different reasons. He felt that doing so would go a long way to proving that Paul remained loyal
to the Law of Moses, which was at the heart of being Jewish.
So, says Paul in verse 32, after he goes to Jerusalem and faces all that he fears he might, then
he'll be ready to go to Rome and stay awhile to rest. Paul ends this long letter to the Believers
in Rome rather typically with a blessing. This blessing is both a wish and a prayer. In calling
God the God of peace (or better, in Hebrew, shalom), Paul is acknowledging that all well
being, all blessing, comes from God.
Next week we will take up the final chapter of Romans and conclude our study of this perhaps
the most influential of all of Paul's writings.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7 / 7
Romans Lesson 36 - Chapter 16 END
THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 36, Chapter 16 END
The early Church Father Chrysostom of the early 5th century said this about Romans chapter
16:
"I think there are many, even some apparently good commentators, who hurry over this
part of the epistle because they think it is superfluous and of little importance. They
probably think much the same about the genealogies of the Gospels. Because it is a
catalogue of names, they think they can get nothing good out of it. People who mine
gold are careful even about the smallest fragments, but these commentators ignore
even huge bars of gold!"
Half or more of Romans chapter 16 seems about as useful as reading a table of contents in a
book because indeed it is a list of names to close Paul's letter to the Romans; but there's
more in this chapter than only that. For one thing we get a glimpse of the important role that
women played in the Messianic movement in Paul's day. Even more we must understand that
the majority of these women are Jewish women serving in Jewish synagogues because so␂called Christianity was still mostly a sect of Judaism and would remain so until after Paul was
martyred. It is fascinating that in an age when male dominance was universal and
unquestioned that women played such a prominent role in the movement that Yeshua started.
However no doubt this was the case mostly in the Diaspora and not so much in the Holy Land
where tradition and the ancient ways were carefully guarded by the Zealots.
Let's read Romans chapter 16.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 16 all
We find Paul accomplish a number of things in this final chapter. He introduces Phoebe, a
female Believer, to the congregation in Rome. He also asks that the members of the Roman
congregation would greet one another with a "holy kiss" (we'll get into the meaning of that
shortly). He includes greetings from others of the local congregation (possibly in Corinth) from
where he is writing this letter. A strong note of caution is issued for the Roman Believers to
beware of false teachers in their midst. He asks the Believers to remember that despite all the
difficulties within and without of their congregation final spiritual victory is coming. And lastly
Paul prays on behalf of the Romans that Messiah Yeshua would be with them.
Clearly Paul personally knows, or at least knows of, several people in the Roman congregation
and has had communication with them. I point this out because since the consensus among
Christian commentators has been, for centuries, that this letter to the Romans is actually the
formulation of a systematic Christian theology designed by Paul to be followed by all the
1 / 7
Romans Lesson 36 - Chapter 16 END
churches and in no way was it aimed at the Roman Believers, his acknowledged relationship
with some of the Roman Believers explains how it is that he knew what was going on in Rome
so that he tailored this letter (as he has all his other letters) to addressing issues that
concerned their specific congregation. This letter was by no means an attempt at constructing
a universal Christian systematic theology.
Paul begins by introducing Phoebe who, no doubt, is the one who is going to be carrying this
letter to the Roman congregation. The CJB calls her a Shamash of the congregation (meaning
of the local congregation). In Judaism this meant that she held an official office of some sort in
her synagogue; she was someone who had duties and authority to carry tasks that could range
from caring for the building to serving as President over the synagogue. Christianity has
tended to call her a deacon or deaconess, which in Christian cultural terms accurately depicts
her position. Paul is asking the Roman congregation to accept her as more or less an agent for
Paul. To receive her in the Lord means that she belongs to the body of Messiah and is to be
treated in such a manner. This request is much less about making it plain that she is a Believer
and much more about her being his female representative. Paul briefly states that her
qualifications are that she had been a substantial help to him in his mission of evangelism and
has also helped others of the faith.
In verse 3 Paul speaks of some familiar names to us: Priscilla and Aquila. We hear of this
influential couple in the Book of Acts, 1st Corinthians, and in 2nd Timothy. It has always been a
point of focus among Bible scholars how the female's name is mentioned first whenever this
couple of spoken of; exactly why is purely speculation but it is unusual. Apparently Priscilla is
the more known and active of the two. Her husband Aquila was a Jew who lived in Rome until
Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews (or at least most Jews) from the City in 52 A.D. It
seems that this married couple who were already Believers moved from Rome to Corinth.
There they ran into Paul and found out that they shared the occupation of tent making as well
as faith in the Jewish Messiah. Whether Aquila's wife was born a Jew we don't know for
certain, but it would have been most unusual for a Jew to marry a gentile woman. So without
other evidence there is no reason to think that Priscilla was anything other than a Jew. That we
hear of their names so often in the New Testament, and that they are presented so casually,
they must have been very well known and prominent members of the Believing community.
It is clear that Priscilla and Aquila had recently moved back to Rome because Paul is not
introducing them in his letter; rather he's asking that his greetings be given to them. This helps
us a bit in determining the date of this letter since Emperor Claudius who expelled the Jews
from Rome in 52 A.D. died in 54 A.D. and the expulsion decree died along with him. So this
letter was written sometime shortly after 54 A.D. Paul goes on to explain that Priscilla and
Aquila were so devoted to Paul that they risked their own lives to save him from some
dangerous situation. There is no record of this in any Bible book or anywhere else; so we don't
know what the incident might have been. Notice how Paul mentions to also give greetings to
the congregation that meets in Priscilla and Aquila's house in Rome. There were no such
things as Church buildings in this era. Depending on the situation the congregations either met
in Synagogues or in people's homes. In fact back in our study on the Book of Acts I discussed
with you that it is a great misnomer and can be quite confusing for the Bible student to say that
by now Believers in Yeshua were called "Christians". Briefly the Greek term christos was
2 / 7
Romans Lesson 36 - Chapter 16 END
translating the Hebrew word mashiach (meaning messiah). Christos was not a proper name
like it has become in English. That is, Christians speak today of Christ almost as though that is
Jesus's alternate name. All it meant in Paul's day was messiah. So the word "Christian" (an
English word) was not uttered in New Testament times and wouldn't be until much later.
Rather the term christos would have indicated Messianics (meaning believers in the Jewish
Messiah Yeshua; or at least that was the intent of the word.
Further, the Greek word that is invariably translated to "church" in English is also a misnomer
and creates confusion. Ekklesia is the Greek word found in the New Testament and it is a
general word that means gathering or assembly. When the New Testament refers to ekklesia
most often it means a gathering of Believers; the word "church" didn't exist. Thus there were
also no such things as "churches", meaning church buildings. When we can grasp that the
terms Christians and Church didn't exist until a very long time after the Bible was closed up,
then we can discard the gentiles-only flavor that has been erroneously added to the New
Testament. The New Testament was just as Jewish as the Old.
From verses 5 through 15 we get the long list of names that Chrysostom spoke of. We'll not
dwell here too long except to say a few words about them. First recognize that all of these
names were members of the Roman congregation whom Paul obviously knew. Whether he
had personally met them or merely corresponded with them we don't know. Nonetheless to
mention them individually meant that he had a friendly relationship with each of them.
The first greeting is to Epaenetus, which is a fairly common Roman name. It seems he held a
special place to Paul as he was among the very first successes Paul had and the first name to
be mentioned. It is also self-evident that this Believer relocated from Asia to the city of Rome;
however nothing is suggested as to the reason for his move. I would suggest that because of
the timing, and his being the first to be greeted by Paul, he could very well have been
instrumental in establishing the first Believing congregation in the capital of Rome.
Next is a greeting to Mary. This woman could be either Roman or Jewish because the name
was used by both, so she could have been either a Jew or a gentile. Apparently Mary was
person that Paul heard was a faithful servant to her congregation and worked very diligently at
it.
Next are Andronicus and Junia whom Paul describes as his kinsmen. Although the CJB calls
them relatives that might be a stretch as the Greek word suggenes more usually means fellow
countryman (although relative is a legitimate alternate translation). So probably the intent is
merely to say that Andronicus and Junia were Jews. Paul says they were in prison with him.
We don't know if he means literally that they were imprisoned at the same time as he was or if
it means that they too had been imprisoned for some offense that arose from their faith and so
they had that in common. We know that Paul had a few stints in jail but these two people were
never mentioned in the New Testament in any other letters. It is fairly clear that Andronicus
and Junias are a male and female respectively, but we don't know for certain if they were a
married couple. They were well known and Paul says that they were Believers before he was.
Ampliatus is called a friend, and no more is said.
3 / 7
Romans Lesson 36 - Chapter 16 END
Urbanus and Stachys are common Roman slave names. It is known that many freedmen
joined the Messianic movement.
Appeles is asked to greet the household of Aristobulus in Paul's name. There is some
suggestion that this Aristobulus could well be the grandson of Herod the Great as Josephus
tells us that a fellow named Aritstobulus was a good friend and confidant of Emperor Claudius
and thus lived in Rome. The next verse that adds greetings to Herodion only adds to the
possibility that as unlikely as it might seem, some members of the Herod dynasty actually
came to belief in Messiah Yeshua. Paul again indentifies this person as a kinsman so for sure
he was Jewish.
Two women are acclaimed as meriting greetings: Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Some scholars
have supposed that because they are named together that they were sisters; perhaps even
twins due to the similarity of their names. However that is pure speculation. I just want us to
continue to take note of the heavy involvement of women in the movement and how they are
given acclimation just as are the men. So very early in the Believing movement the equal worth
of women to men was embedded in the faith. That doesn't mean that their cultural roles
changed; it is only that women were not shoved to the background or given less value than
males. In fact we see that women were in leadership within the movement, even though it was
usually leadership over other women.
Another female named Persis is greeted as yet another hard worker for the Roman
congregation.
Next Paul says "hello" to Rufus and his mother, whom he says was as a mother to him too.
This gives us some insight into an unusually close relationship that Paul had with this family.
In verse 14 Paul continues his greetings to Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and
Olympus and others of God's people who are with them. This gives us a strong hint that this is
speaking of another and separate Believing congregation. Rome was a large and diverse city;
there was room and necessity for a number of Believing congregations.
After the greetings to individuals Paul returns to offering instruction as he says the Roman
Believers are to greet one another with a holy kiss. In the Middle East and elsewhere to this
day it is customary to be greeted with a kiss, usually on both cheeks. This is not a romantic
kiss, but rather it is an indication of brotherhood. Sometimes it is merely a show of respect. A
holy kiss was a display of fellowship that was known to have become traditional within the early
Messianic community. Perhaps there was a certain protocol and way it occurred that made it
recognizably different from the more ordinary and common kiss-greeting of the era. It actually
became part of worship services in the early church.
Some Bible commentators have suggested that Paul is warning the Believers in Rome to be
sure to greet one another with a "holy" kind of kiss as opposed to a "romantic" kind of kiss
due to the number of women who were part of the congregation. This can only be because
these commentators aren't aware of the practice of the "holy kiss" as a standard greeting
among Believers. That is, a holy kiss became a hallmark of Believers and Paul was urging the
4 / 7
Romans Lesson 36 - Chapter 16 END
Romans to adopt the practice.
Then in verse 17 Paul continues with something that for some reason he waited until now to
address: to watch out for false teachers who cause divisions among the Believers. He goes so
far as to say to keep away from them. Paul seeks for Believers to shun other professed
Believers who seem to always be causing strife. If you have been a Believer long enough, and
attended a congregation long enough, you have met such people. Paul stops short of saying
that the trouble makers should be expelled; but he does explicitly instruct to have nothing to do
with such members. For the most part Paul equates this strife as being the result of false
teaching. He then goes on to explain that these teachers who cause such strife with their false
teaching are only in it for themselves. He says they are only there to feed their own bellies (no
doubt an expression that means their actions are self-serving).
I prefer to stay away from judging other Bible teachers and pastors because we are called not
to judge. And yet we must take that instruction as a generality and not as an absolute since
here we have Paul virtually telling the Believers in Rome that they are to shun those who teach
falsities and/or teach only for self profit. Thus the biblical order not "to judge" cannot mean to
turn our brains off and turn a blind eye to what is obviously insincere, wrong or even criminal
behavior. So here I'll take the opportunity to say to you how little regard I personally have for
any number of Television Evangelists who certainly seem to be using the Gospel primarily as a
means to get rich. When the constant refrain from a pastor or teacher is to send money, or to
"plant a seed", or to buy them a jet so they can go to more places faster to spread the Gospel,
be skeptical. When every message begins and ends with talking about a book they wrote and
want you to buy; be skeptical. I'll not name names but we all know who they are. This doesn't
mean that they are not real Believers. But just as with Paul's instruction that doesn't
necessarily question a false teacher's salvation, but only his impure motives, so we should do
the same. Believers aren't perfect; just saved. Money and fame can be irresistible temptations
even for a Believer. Sadly all the through the ages we have names of Christians who have
succumbed to the pressures and wound up becoming great swindlers: Jim Baker being one of
the most infamous of the modern era. Paul is crystal clear that we are to have nothing to do
with Believers like this.
Let me say this another way because it is important that we hear and understand that such
unethical and illegal activity among renowned Christians is nothing new. Paul is addressing
this issue because he perceives a threat from within the body itself; not from outsiders. He
doesn't label any of these false teachers as pretenders. Being on the inside and gaining a
relationship and familiarity with the congregation opens the doors wide for the unsuspecting to
be fleeced and deceived. I am aware of a situation whereby a bookkeeper for a medium sized
church stole well over a million dollars over a period of years. The irregularities in accounting
were noticed but since the gentlemen was well known no one felt comfortable enough to
confront him so many years passed as the losses kept mounting up. Finally when there was no
more denying it and he confessed upon being confronted, the Senior Pastor didn't want to turn
him in to law enforcement for embezzlement because he felt that Believers don't judge other
Believers. Fortunately lay leaders with a bit more balanced view demanded justice and the
person was arrested and sentenced to prison. While the money was never recovered, at least
the outflow stopped and the culprit was punished.
5 / 7
Romans Lesson 36 - Chapter 16 END
Thus it is in the context of looking out for false teachers and for those who only want to serve
themselves by using the Lord's name that Paul says Believers are to be wise concerning good
and innocent concerning evil. We are to learn and understand what good is in God's eyes so
that we can be wise enough to know the difference between good and evil; sometimes the
differences can be subtle. Or more often than not, as society evolves the notion of what is
good and what is evil evolves and inevitably it evolves away from God's definition. And while
we ought not to become explorers and experts in the ways of evil with the notion that by doing
so we can learn to recognize and avoid it, we also must not look the other way and make
excuses for evil when we see it in ourselves or in our brothers and sisters in the Lord. And
again in the context in which Paul has been speaking we must be especially on guard against
folks who would cause strife and division within the body. What to do when that happens? Paul
says to stay away from them. Give them no influence and no forum to spread their dissention.
The good news says Paul, is that the congregation of Rome is known for being obedient and
for this he rejoices. Thus to this point, even though he obviously has heard about the presence
of those who are causing strife and promoting false teaching within the Roman congregation,
on balance it has remained faithful.
Verse 20 is in some ways odd. In fact many Bible commentators are certain that it doesn't
belong here and is out of place; it is not of Paul. However as I have mentioned, there is a
thread within Christianity that for various doctrinal reasons does not want Romans chapters 15
and 16 to be seen as authentic or legitimate. C.E.B. Cranfield is not one of these and he says
this about this verse: ".....it is Paul's autograph authentication of his letter. It was
customary for the sender of a letter, when the laborious task of actually writing the text
had been fulfilled by someone else, to add a concluding greeting in his own hand. This
served to authenticate the letter as a signature does today."
There really is no need to debate it further. Chapters 15 and 16 are legitimate and their
contents should be trusted even though certain things said in them shoots holes is the
doctrines that some denominations insist upon. Therefore what occurs from verse 21 on is sort
of a postscript: a PS. Therefore after Paul has finished saying everything of substance that he
wants to impart to the Believers in Rome, he now wants to add that 4 fellows who are with him
in Corinth want to get in on the act and say hello to their fellow Believers in Rome. Timothy we
know of as Paul's most trusted companion and helper. Lucius we don't know anything about
although there is a Lucius mentioned in Acts 13 and perhaps this is the same person. Jason
might well be the same Jason mentioned in Acts 17. He was a well regarded Believer who
resided in Thessalonica and was described as a close acquaintance of Paul's. Sosipater is
spoken of in Acts 20 but it is not possible to determine if this is the same fellow.
Tertius, to whom Paul has been dictating, now adds his own personal greeting. Paul
customarily used a scribe to write his letters for him and it was equally customary that the
scribe would add his own personal greeting at the end of a letter if it seemed appropriate.
Verse 23 returns to Paul. Here he gives recognition to his host, Gaius, in whose home not only
has Paul been residing but it was also where the local congregation met. He offers Gaius's
greetings as well. Very probably this is the same Gaius that Paul baptized because Gaius lived
6 / 7
Romans Lesson 36 - Chapter 16 END
in Corinth.
Erastus is the city treasurer of Corinth. In fact in a wonderful archaeological artifact discovered
in the plaza of the theater in Corinth that dates to the same time as Paul's letter, we find an
inscription on a plaque that says: "Erastus in return for his aedileship laid the pavement at his
own expense." Aedilship refers to what a business manager does. So clearly this Erastus was
responsible for the public infrastructure. Quartus is unknown to us.
There is a verse 24 in some Greek manuscripts that most English Bibles omit because it is so
certain that it was added by someone long after the letter was completed. It doesn't harm
anything but I know of no one who believes it to be original. It reads: The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you all. Amen.
In what can only be described as a doxology (a short hymn of praise to end a service) Paul
more or less sums up all that he has taught in his letter. He of course gives all glory to God (for
Paul, this means The Father). He speaks of the secret truth (the mystery or musterion in
Greek) that the Lord has revealed through His Son Yeshua; the truth of the Good News. It is a
truth that has been hidden in plain sight for ages and ages. It is a truth that was embedded and
foretold in the prophetic writings; it is the command of the eternal God and Paul certifies that it
has been communicated to the gentiles in order to promote within them a faith in the God of
Israel that is based upon trust.
Only God is wise, says Paul; and God's wisdom comes to us through Yeshua the Messiah the
Son of God.
I'd like to close today with this thought. In 1st Corinthians Paul said this:
1Corinthians 1:22-25 CJB
22 Precisely because Jews ask for signs and Greeks try to find wisdom,
23 we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an
obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and
Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and God's wisdom! 25 For God's "nonsense"
is wiser than humanity's "wisdom." And God's "weakness" is stronger than humanity's
"strength."
This completes our study of the Book of Romans.

7 / 7