Romans 3:25-26 "Good News for the Whole World (Part 2)"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

(NET) Romans 3:25 God publicly displayed³⁰ him³¹ at his death³² as the mercy seat³³ accessible through faith.³⁴ This was to demonstrate³⁵ his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.³⁶ 26 This was³⁷ also to demonstrate³⁸ his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just³⁹ and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.⁴⁰

Notes:

³⁰ tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³¹ tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³² tn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tō aujtou haimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proetheto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999).

³³ tn The word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, ” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁴ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).

³⁵ tn Grk “for a demonstration,” giving the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁶ tn Grk “because of the passing over of sins previously committed in the forbearance of God.”

³⁷ tn The words “This was” have been repeated from the previous verse to clarify that this is a continuation of that thought. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁸ tn Grk “toward a demonstration,” repeating and expanding the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a.

³⁹ tn Or “righteous.”

⁴⁰ tn Or “of the one who has faith in Jesus.” See note on “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in v. 22 for the rationale behind the translation “Jesus’ faithfulness.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: Carl Palmer quotes Socrates saying, about 500 years before Christ, that perhaps the diety can forgive sin; but that Socrates didn't see how. Carl says that the biggest problem in the universe is not sin, but how God could recieve people like us into His presence while maintaining His perfect justice: God's mercy/grace in conflict with His justice. Carl asks if anyone else has wondered how God could do that? Yes, I have thought of that.

Carl says that if we do not have a problem with the idea of God spending eternity with us; then we are missing one, or both, of these things:

1. The Holiness of a God who cannot, and will not, bring imperfection into His presence without changing it; and/or
2. the enormity of our own sin.

God's plan examined in Romans not only allows God to cover our sin so we are not abhorant to His sight and a stench to His nostrils; but also to create a method for us shedding our "old man" and transforming ourselves into a "new thing" that is truly righteous - not just cleaning us up by covering us in the righteousness of His Son. This is God's plan for our spiritually-powered transformation and not some spiritual perfume to cover up our smell. The brilliance of God is that He has figured out a way to both punish all unrighteousness; and redeem humanity for eternity. Very cool beans indeed.

This plan had been in place for awhile. Substitutionary atonement is not a Christian invention:

Yom Kippur, the most important day in the religious calendar of Israel, falling on the 10th day of Tishri (the Hebrew month corresponding to mid-September through mid-October). On that day the high priest entered the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle (or temple) to atone for the sins of all Israel . . .

Although many additional rites were added over the centuries, the basic description of the original Day of Atonement is Leviticus 16. Complex and detailed ceremonies all focused on the central objective of complete atonement by sacrifice. First, the high priest removed his official garments, made for beauty and glory, and clothed himself in white linen as a symbol of repentance as he went about the duties of the day. Next, he offered a bull calf as a sin offering for the priests and himself. That done, he entered the Holy of Holies with a censer of live coals from the altar of incense, filling the area with incense. He sprinkled the bullock’s blood on the mercy seat and on the floor before the ark of the covenant. Then he cast lots over two live goats brought by the people. He killed one of the goats as a sin offering for the nation, taking the blood inside the veil and sprinkling it as before, thus atoning even for the Holy Place. He confessed the sins of the nation over the live goat as he placed his hands on its head. Finally he sent the live goat, called the scapegoat (i.e., the escape goat), into the wilderness. Symbolically it carried away the sins of the people. Then the high priest clothed himself in his usual apparel and offered a burnt offering for himself and one for the people with the fat of the sin offering. Outside the camp the flesh of the bull calf and goat was burned .

The Day of Atonement became so central to Judaism that it survived the destruction of the temple in ad 70 and the end of the sacrificial system. It is the highest holy day of Judaism today . . . In biblical times, celebration of the Day of Atonement showed that Israel believed the cleansing of their sins was accomplished by the rites commanded by God. The forgiveness and grace of God were granted them and were the basis for their continued fellowship with God as his covenant people. Because it was designated as a sabbath of solemn rest (Lv 16:31; 23:32), all work was forbidden on that day as on the weekly observance of the Sabbath.

As with all the prescribed sacrifices throughout the year, the question arises as to the need for a special time for atonement. It is clear that the ritual was meant to avert God’s wrath for sins already committed as well as to guarantee the continued presence of God. The sacrifice of the first goat and the sending away of the scapegoat were intended to cleanse the nation, the priesthood, and the sanctuary from sin. The intent of the whole sacrificial system reached its highest expression on that day, called by some the “Good Friday of the OT.” The daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices left something undone, so that the high priest could not enter the holiest place throughout the year. On that one day, however, he was permitted to enter with sacrificial blood as he solemnly represented the nation before the bloodstained mercy seat.

Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (130). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

Jesus as Mercy Seat vs Sacrifice: The NET Bible translators went a very different direction from most (all?) of the previous translations. It is generally true that no real points of theology are bound up in the many differences of translation that one can find. This is an exception to that. This is how the NIV (and everyone else?) translates verse 25:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

This is certainly the standard orthodox/conservative view of Christ - He was the sacrifice whose blood was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat to atone, once and for all times, for the sins of God's people. The NET Bible translates the verse this way:

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

This makes Christ not the sacrifice to atone for sins, but the place of atonement itself. There may be (probably are) places where Jesus is referred to as the sacrifice itself - but it seems to be a common translation error here. However, this is all Greek to me, so those who feel capable of following the translators' logic can look at the translation notes (32 and 33) to the two verses above; and please comment at will. Incidentally, the extensive translation notes are the reason I am using the NET for this series.

From the note sheet: Going deeper into the word --

1. What is the significance of the words “But now…”? (3:21)
2. What does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God”?
3. Do you regard yourself as someone who has been “justified freely by His grace”? (3:24)
4. How would you explain that Jesus is “a sacrifice of atonement”?
5. Why is it essential for God to be reveal Himself as both “just and the one who justifies” those who have faith in Jesus?

Next: 3:25-26 -- "One God, One Faith, One People"

Read more!

Romans 3:21-25a "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

(NET) Romans 3:21 But now²⁶ apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets)²⁷ has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ²⁸ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified²⁹ freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed³⁰ him³¹ at his death³² as the mercy seat³³ accessible through faith.³⁴ . . .

Notes:

²⁶ tn Νυνὶ δέ (Nuni de, “But now”) could be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force, but most recent interpreters take it as temporal, referring to a new phase in salvation history.

²⁷ tn Grk “being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” a remark which is virtually parenthetical to Paul’s argument.

²⁸ tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

sn ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

²⁹ tn Or “declared righteous.” Grk “being justified,” as a continuation of the preceding clause. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁰ tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³¹ tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³² tn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tō aujtou haimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proetheto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999).

³³ tn The word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, ” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁴ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: A quick review of the book up to now might be helpful:

• 1:1-15 -- Introduction
• 1:16-17 -- the theme of the entire book.

  16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

• 1:18 - 3:20 -- The first sharp turn in Romans. Paul goes in to a long explanation of why everyone, Jews and Gentiles, are "under sin" and subject to God's wrath. Indeed, Paul goes to great lengths to prove that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." One of the folks commenting on this section has gone as far as to suggest that Paul did not write a great deal of this section because it is such a sharp departure from the previous verses - and the ones we will now move into.

As Chris Thatcher (this weeks speaker) points out this passage, starting with "But now . . .", marks a another sharp turn, or hinge, in the book of Romans. Indeed, he states (and I agree) that if Romans had ended with 3;19 that this would be a supremely depressing letter that would not be in the Christian canon, and if it was would mark Christianity as one of the most negative, depressing religions on the planet.

Indeed, one of those commenting on the last section of Romans pointed out:

Other people like me let our conscience eat us alive from the inside out because when we read scripture like this that remind us how flawed we are already convinced. So to hear it from a source of authority simply consumes us.

And we don't get back up.

Some people will thrive on this and use the other chapters in the Bible to build themselves back up and make better people of themselves but with a newly polished mirror.

Other people, like me, like my father, listen to the reminders of how flawed we are, stare into that mirror long enough - and then out of guilt, frustration and desperation we smash our face right into the glass and the shards do the rest.

This is true of both followers of Christ and non-followers of Christ - and it comes partially, IMO, because we do not do a good enough job showing how God loves us despite our flaws. I will offer my bedrock set of verses from later in Romans that I use for this purpose

Romans 7:15-25 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

We all, Christian or not, have a body of "laws" - a morality - that we desire to follow. And, I am convinced, we are convicted by that body of laws - none of us live up to our own expectations. Paul sees this dichotomy in himself: as much as he loves God and wants to do right he still does wrong. Paul attributes this to our sin nature (the law of sin in our members) that actually wars with our own conscience and morality. It is not Paul who does wrong, but that law of sin residing with him in his body.

This is what Paul meant by us living "under sin" in the last section of Romans 3. Now the good news: just as, right after the Romans 7 passage quoted above, Romans 8 began

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh.

now Romans 3:21 continues

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Jesus is the rope thrown by God to drowning humans (or, to keep myself PC at Street Prophets - one of those ropes :-)). As Chris Thatcher said it, at the train wreck Paul outlines in the previous section - where every car and every passenger is involved - God shows up in the person of Jesus. Moreover, God shows up apart from any law or set of rules humans can follow - Jews and gentiles are equal.

Paul begins his primary view that the Mosaic law (or, IMO, any set of ethics and morality) does not make us righteous or even give us something to base moral superiority on; but actually should engender humility and make us realize that we are incapable of righteousness - these rules should teach us that we are incapable of following our own moral codes.

Not that Paul is talking about political entities here, but I think there is some application to political life as well. Folks, and countries, have underlying political ideologies along with moral ideas and rules in which they believe. These ideologies should also not engender pride or self-righteousness - but humiility - because people and countries do not follow their political ideals any better than folks follow their morals codes and laws.

From the notesheet: Question for individuals or groups --

1. Describe your heart’s response to God’s revelation, rescue, and provision in Jesus Christ.
2. Looking ahead in Romans, what are the implications for you if you now have God’s righteousness by faith in Christ and your sin is atoned for?
3. If someone asked, how would you explain the gospel based on what we have covered in Romans so far?

Next: 3:25-26 -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 2)"

Read more!

Romans 3:9-20:"The Biggest Problem in the World "

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin, 10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one, 11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”¹⁵ 13 “Their throats are open graves,¹⁶ they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”¹⁷ 14 “Their mouths are¹⁸ full of cursing and bitterness.”¹⁹ 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 ruin and misery are in their paths, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.”²⁰ 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”²¹ 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under²² the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no one is declared righteous before him²³ by the works of the law,²⁴ for through the law comes²⁵ the knowledge of sin.

Notes:

¹⁵ sn Verses 10–12 are a quotation from Ps 14:1–3.
¹⁶ tn Grk “their throat is an opened grave.”
¹⁷ sn A quotation from Pss 5:9; 140:3.

¹⁸ tn Grk “whose mouth is.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

¹⁹ sn A quotation from Ps 10:7.
²⁰ sn Rom 3:15–17 is a quotation from Isa 59:7–8.
²¹ sn A quotation from Ps 36:1.
²² tn Grk “in,” “in connection with.”
²³ sn An allusion to Ps 143:2.

²⁴ tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general.

²⁵ tn Grk “is.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My comments: Romans is the most complete presentation of the Gospel in the New Testament, and Paul has started out to show that God wishes everyone to be saved - but first has to show that everyone needs saving. So, the first three chapters have systematically shown that everyone is lost. This is really the last week of Paul presenting the problem, before launching into God's solution to the problem.

This solution is what most people think of as "the Gospel" - but it all really is the Good News. That Good News is not only that we need saving, but that there is a plan to save us.

In the first three chapters, Paul does not prove that everyone is a sinner - he makes that accusation or charge. It is the indictment of a prosecutor, and not the verdict of a jury or judge. However, Paul is not accusing us of doing bad things or failing to do good things - he is saying that we are "under sin". He views it as a dark force, or a disease, that everyone is enslaved and/or controlled by. It is this force that makes us commit acts - sins - that most people want to think about when you talk about sin. So, his central charge is that

all people are enslaved to sin.

To support this charge, Carl Palmer points out that Paul uses a rabbinical method called "stringing pearls" - he reaches back into scripture and finds 8 verses to support his view.

• All people are condemned by their character (vvs 10-12):
  • Ecclesiastes 7:20
  • Psalm 14:1
  • Psalm 14:2; 53:2
  • Psalm 14:3; 53:3
• All people are condemned by their conduct (vvs 13-17):
  • Psalm 5:8; 140:3
  • Psalm 10:7
  • Isaiah 59:7-8
• The root cause is "no fear of God": Psalm 36:1
• The conclusion (vss 19-20):
  • The law silences every mouth
  • The world makes the whole world accountable to God
  • The law makes no one righteous in His sight
  • The law brings consciousness of sin

Next: 3:21-25a -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

Read more!

Romans 3:1-8:"Faithlessness and Faithfulness"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Actually, there are many advantages.¹ First of all,² the Jews³ were entrusted with the oracles of God.⁴ 3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being⁵ shown up as a liar,⁶ just as it is written: “so that you will be justified⁷ in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”⁸ 5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates⁹ the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he?¹⁰ (I am speaking in human terms.)¹¹ 6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? 7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances¹² his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? – as some who slander us allege that we say.¹³ (Their¹⁴ condemnation is deserved!)

Notes:

¹ tn Grk “much in every way.”

² tc ‡ Most witnesses (א A D2 33 M) have γάρ (gar) after μέν (men), though some significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses lack the conjunction (B D* G Ψ 81 365 1506 2464* pc latt). A few mss have γάρ, but not μέν (6 1739 1881). γάρ was frequently added by scribes as a clarifying conjunction, making it suspect here. NA27 has the γάρ in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

tn Grk “first indeed that.”

³ tn Grk “they were.”

⁴ tn The referent of λόγια (logia, “oracles”) has been variously understood: (1) BDAG 598 s.v. λόγιον takes the term to refer here to “God’s promises to the Jews”; (2) some have taken this to refer more narrowly to the national promises of messianic salvation given to Israel (so S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Studies in Romans: Part VII: The Jews and the Oracles of God,” BSac 130 [1973]: 245); (3) perhaps the most widespread interpretation sees the term as referring to the entire OT generally.

⁵ tn Grk “every man”; but ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) is used in a generic sense here to stress humanity rather than masculinity.

⁶ tn Grk “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” The words “proven” and “shown up” are supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning.

⁷ tn Grk “might be justified,” a subjunctive verb, but in this type of clause it carries the same sense as the future indicative verb in the latter part. “Will” is more idiomatic in contemporary English.

⁸ tn Or “prevail when you judge.” A quotation from Ps 51:4.

⁹ tn Or “shows clearly.”

¹⁰ tn Grk “That God is not unjust to inflict wrath, is he?”

¹¹ sn The same expression occurs in Gal 3:15, and similar phrases in Rom 6:19 and 1 Cor 9:8.

¹² tn Grk “abounded unto.”

¹³ tn Grk “(as we are slandered and some affirm that we say…).”

¹⁴ tn Grk “whose.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, this relative clause was rendered as a new sentence in the translation.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

From the Note Sheet: Going deeper in the word . . .

1. Do we sometimes doubt how God could be perfectly fair and “just” in judging our sin and failure? What should we do?
2. How does the cross of Jesus include both the “holy righteousness” of God to “judge” sin—and also the “faithful righteousness” of God to “save” sinners?
3. Do you regard yourself as someone to whom God has “entrusted” with “the very words of God”? If so, what does that mean to you?
4. Is it possible that we who follow Jesus could fail to live “faithfully” as “God’s messenger people”—to this generation?
5. How can we grow in trusting God—when we do not understand Him and His ways?
   

My Comments: Carl organized this message around 4 questions that a Jew might ask in response to the Gospel message, and Paul's answers in the passage:

1. If belonging to God’s “chosen people” and having the sign of His covenant (circumcision) do not save from God’s wrath . . . Is there any advantage to being a Jew? Paul really doesn't answer this question until Romans 9:

4 . . . To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.

Carl points out that God has given the Jews tremendous blessings. They were given the Law and the prophets so that they could have three great priviledges:

• know reality…truth… relationship with God. (Encounter God)
• experience the best way to live. (Embody God)
• become “light” to the nations. (Extend God to others)

These three priviledges should be familiar to Christians now - these are what God desires for us today where we are. Indeed, this is what God has desired for His people throughout the ages.

2. But, if some of the Jews did not truly believe God, does that mean God has been unfaithful… or will forget His promises? This is where Carl introduces the title of the message - "Faithlessness and Faithfulness". Paul says that yes, people have been faithless to God - but God keeps His promises. The quantity of human compromise in the world does not affect God's faithfulness at all. Everyone could be unfaithful in the world - and God would still be faithful

3. If the “evil” of our sin has brought the “good” of the Gospel — why does God condemn us? If God’s righteousness is seen more clearly because of our unrighteousness — is God unjust to bring His wrath on us? After all, if - as you say Paul - everything up to know has proved that we all - Gentile and Jew, with or without the Law - are sinners, and this has brought the Good of Christ as part of the Sovereign plan of God - haven't we helped bring the Good of Christ? This is very close to fitting in with the whole "God created evil" logic of folks who say that we are not responsible, or God is not Good, because of the existence of evil. Therefore, God has no grounds to judge humans because he brought the evil on Himself. Paul's answer is, of course, that we are responsible, that God is not evil, and that therefore He has the position to judge us. [See this series]. Paul covers this topic more in Chapter 9 as well.

4. If my sin (“falsehood”) reveals God’s truthfulness and increases His glory — why would God condemn me as a sinner? Of course, very similiar to question #3 - except that is is about falsehood and truthfulness instead righteousness and unrighteousness.

Carl mentioned in an earlier message that Romans 1-3 are like the black cloth that jewelers use as a backdrop when they display diamonds. The dark background elevates the glory of the stone. Here the question is: if my dark background elevates the Glory of God and helps His purposes - why take it out on the "poor dark cloth"? Carl says, rightly, that his is ludicrous, stupid, [pick your adjective]. He says he has 3 sons, and it would be like him saying that he loves it when his sons do wrong, because it makes him (Carl) look good. No father thinks like that.

It also is connected to the idea that we are somehow puppets - doing right and wrong at God's Will; and therefore without blame when we do wrong because it is just part of God's overall plan. Indeed, Paul takes it to the extreme, and reports on folks who misread him as saying we should actually sin more so that God's Glory can increase. This nonsense will be covered in Chapter 6

All of the themes of the first three chapters are going to be explored in greater detail later in the letter. Carl compares it to the overture of a symphony - where the themes of the overall work are touched on and expanded on later.

Next: 3:9-20 -- "The Biggest Problem in the World"

Read more!

Romans 2:17-29:"True Covenant Membership"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using the pastor's - in this case Matt Bowen - titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!

Philosophy Humor Plantinga on Fundamentalism

Jeremy at Parableman in a comment at Fundamentally Changed pointed to a post by Cynthia Nielsen at Per Caritatem quoting Alvin Plantinga's look into the "real" use of the word "fundamentalist". [I hurt my arm with all those hat tips]

Alvin Plantinga:

In 1980, Plantinga was described by Time magazine as "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God." He was portrayed in that same article as a central figure in a "quiet revolution" regarding the respectability of belief in God among academic philosophers. Plantinga has delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures on three separate occasions . . . Plantinga is currently the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

Ok, now the quote:

Read more!

Romans 2:6-16:"God's Impartial Judgment"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!

Christian Carnival CCLXXXVII (287)

After a fairly long hiatus as an active blogger, it is nice to come back and host another Christian Carnival. As near as I can tell, this is my 13th Carnival, and it is always a pleasure.

The posts are in the order that I recieved them in.

FMF presents "Help a Reader: Knowing a Pastor's Salary" posted at Free Money Finance.

Often I hear people say that they don't give to their church because they don't trust how the money is being spent, don't like the fact that the pastor drives such and such of a car, and the like. Yet they continue to go to the church. They just don't give to it. Here are my thoughts for these people:

Trent Cotton presents "Enemy Behind the Lines- Self-Righteousness" posted at Christian Men-Christian Warriors.

A look at Romans 2:1-3

e-Mom presents "Bible Study: The Apostle Paul" posted at C h r y s a l i s.

Paul is the Ultimate Family Man. Article discusses Paul as "father," "mother," family member, and how he teaches tha tevery family member is a minister. Bonus: Information about visiting Turkey "the other Holy Land" with the BAS.

ChristianPF presents "How much money does a Christian need?" posted at Christian Personal Finance.

How much money should we be seeking as Christians - and why should we be seeking it?

Kiesha presents "The Magnificence of God's Plan" posted at Highly Favored.

This story is going to sound too magnificent to be true, but I promise you this this just recently happened to me and is completely true. I'm sharing it because it is a great example of the magnitude of God's glory

gp presents "Runnin’ Free « Musings from Montana" posted at Manely Montana.

G-ds creatures teach us life lessons

Brooklyn White presents "100 Best Blogs for Christian Moms" posted at Online Christian Colleges.

Whether looking for a single voice in a certain denomination or for a community of others just like you, Christian mothers will enjoy these top 100 blogs. Don’t forget to grab dad and the kids if you find one or more you really like.

Jeremy presents "Articles - God Gave Rock and Roll to You" posted at yourchristianvoice.

I've talked with quite a few people lately who maintain that Christian rock music and Christian rap are sinful and lead to a life of rejecting God. I simply can't fathom how they come up with this idea

Keith Tusing presents "Leadership is Tough" posted at Children's Ministry Buzz.

if you’re going to be the leader here are some things you’re going to need to stay in the game:

Casey presents "Mixing Faith and Business" posted at Casey @ TheLimitless.

Bringing your faith into business transactions can be a tricky situation. This post hopes to look at when and how it may be appropriate.

Barry Wallace presents "Zero-Sum Games, Parenting, and Theology" posted at who am i? .

Blog team member Derek Ashton describes an interesting experiment he conducted with his kids, and the possible theological implications.

michelle presents "07.27.09" posted at Thoughts and Confessions of a Girl Who Loves Jesus....

It's all about prayer.

Weekend Fisher presents "Jesus and the meaning of truth" posted at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength.

Weekend Fisher considers what it does to our idea of truth when Truth is the person of Jesus rather than an abstract idea.

SandiKML presents "WAITING ON GOD" posted at GOD'S SPACE.

Waiting on God is where a lot of us are in our lives right now . . . The question which perhaps we need to consider is "How do we wait on God?"

For His Glory presents "Smorgasbord Tuesday: Access to the Thoughts of God" posted at For His Glory.

Did you know that as a Christian you have access to the secret thoughts of God? This post discusses what the Bible has to say about our access.

NCSue presents "In the garden with God - *" posted at IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING.

In rereading the first few chapters of Genesis, I was struck by something I hadn't fully explored before. Why did God ask Where are you?

Henry Neufeld presents "Pastoral Candidate" posted at Jevlir Caravansary.

Is this how YOUR pastor search would go? (Note: Jevlir Caravansary (jevlir.com) is next week's Christian Carnival host)

Jeremy Pierce presents "Calminianism" posted at Parableman.

A response to Craig Blomberg's recent post on Calminianism.

Erik D. presents "I am the World's Worst Fundamentalist" posted at Fundamentally Changed.

Fundamentally Changed contributor Erik D. writes about his journey in fundamentalist Christianity

Rey presents "Reasons For Civil Disobedience" posted at The Bible Archive.

As part of my series on illegal immigration and a Christian's responsibility, I posted this examination of three cases of civil disobedience to examine the motivating factors and see if there are any principles that might carry over into the immigration issue.

Shontta presents "Blessed in His Image" posted at Covenant Blessing.

Shontta looks at the implications of us being created imago dei - in the image of God

John presents "Original Sin?" posted at Brain Cramps for God.

This is another of those long comments I made on another blog.

One nice thing - other than these great posts - about the Christian Carnival is that there is always one forming: send your submissions to blog carnival for the next Carnival.

Another one: There are a whole lot of past Christian Carnivals you can look at as well.

Enjoy

Read more!

The Obama DOJ and the Federal DOMA

This popped up at The Volokh Conspiracy (HT: Parableman) and seems like a discussion item.

The Obama Justice Department yesterday filed a brief urging a California district court to dismiss a little-known constitutional challenge to DOMA filed in late 2008 by a married gay couple . . . For lots of reasons, gay-marriage advocacy groups would like to see this case go away . . . A dismissal on jurisdictional grounds would nicely suit that purpose, and that seems to me the most likely outcome.

But the DOJ brief goes further than it needs to go at this point in the case by addressing the merits of the constitutional issues in the case, . . .

Of most interest is what the DOJ has to say about the due process and equal protection claims, rejecting just about every single variation of an argument that gay-rights scholars and litigants have made over the past 30 years.

Certainly, there can be lots of discussion on the Federal DOMA and it's constitutional merits - but what caught my conservative eye was Carpenter's point of interest #3:

(3) The Obama DOJ also has new understanding of federalism:

[B]ecause Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States. Given the strength of competing convictions on this still-evolving issue, Congress could reasonably decide that federal benefits funded by taxpayers throughout the nation should not be used to foster a form of marriage that only some States recognize, and that other States do not. (emphasis added)

Historically federal marriage benefits have been available to anyone married under state law. The federal definition was parasitic on the state definition. If a state chose to allow 14-year-olds to marry, but most states did not allow that, nobody thought federal recognition of such marriages functioned as a subsidy forced on the taxpayers of other states. DOMA changed that, but only for gay marriages. "Neutrality," as the Obama administration understands it, does not mean federal recognition of state choices in this matter. It means denying federal recognition of state choices.

The continual erosion of the rights of the several states vs the Federal government is, of course, worrisome to me.

Obviously, for folks who expected President Obama's administration to support gay marriage, Carpenter's conclusion may be a surprise:

My point here is not to claim that the DOJ's arguments are anti-gay, homophobic, or even wrong. Much of the brief seems right to me, or at least entirely defensible, as a matter of constitutional law. My point is only to note how much continuity there is in this instance, as in others, between the Bush and Obama administrations. In short, there's little in this brief that could not have been endorsed by the Bush DOJ. A couple of rhetorical flourishes here and there might have been different. Perhaps a turn of phrase. But, minus some references to procreation and slippery slopes, the substance is there.

Obama says he opposes DOMA as a policy matter and wants to repeal it. Nothing in the DOJ brief prevents him from acting on that belief. He is, he says, a "fierce advocate" for gay and lesbian Americans. When does that part start?

Read more!

Original Sin?

[Crossposted to Street Prophets]

This is another of those long comments I made on another blog. The conversation started this way:

Seriously, taking the Bible literally can lead to people tying themselves into knots. Take original sin. God said what He said in Genesis, but by the time of the 10 commandments in Exodus, His wrath was limited unto the 3rd or 4th generation. By Ezekial 18, every man's sin is his own and the sins of the fathers are not visited on the sons. So which version is right?

I gave an answer that included discussion of progressive revelation - and that I did not think these areas were that contradictory. The chat continued with this comment:

Then Augustine's ideas on original sin are no longer in play? And there's no longer the original need for salvation?

Last I looked all Christianity was based on the idea of salvation starting with the original sin; I'm totally confused at this point.

Frankly, I really haven't read what Augustine said about original sin - but folks who talk about it act like it is some kind of infection passed on by our genes at birth - Augustine apparently thought by the lust associated with sex. However, Augustine's views on original gave over, within the Catholic Church and within a century, to Aquinas' view:

He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions.

This makes sense to me - our legacy from the garden is not some positive infection - it is a lack of something we should have. (This falls in with my view that evil is also a lack of good rather than a force in and of itself.) This, in my view, is why God gave Israel Mosaic Law - to serve as a substitute for those lost supernatural gifts/priviledges.

That the views of the Catholic Church are far closer to Aquinas than Augustine can be seen in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. From Wikipedia:

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state … original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice … transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin.

For me, the definition of sin is anything that turns us away from God - anything. We are supposed to love God with ALL of ourselves - anything that gets in the way of that is sin. The original sin was Adam and Eve disobeying God's command not to eat some fruit from a tree - a fruit that gave them the knowledge of good and evil.

One pastor I heard said this about the two trees in Eden:

• the tree of life (חיּים); and
• the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (רע- ra): the root of ra is רעע- raa - which can mean to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces)

He pointed out that the first thing Adam and Eve did once they ate from the tree (after feeling shame because they were naked) was to make a covering for themselves - not for the other person: they became self-focused. He presented this as the first religious act - realizing our shame before God and others and seeking to cover and hide ourselves. For me (he didn't say this explicitly), I can see that most of the evil in the world comes from humanity breaking itself into smaller pieces - separating themselves from each other and God.

So, our sin is that we choose our own desires over God's will for us - who we are to give ALL to; and over the needs of other humans - who we are to love as we love ourselves. We know this as well - universally. Our consciences convict us; and, in our shame, we seek to hide our true selves behind masks and fig leaves - we break ourselves off from the community with God and each other we were created for. When our consciences convict us, we should:

• feel remorse and flee from wrong;
• confess what one has done;
• atone - pay the debt;
• reconcile - restore the bonds that have been broken; and
• become justified - get back in the right.

However, as Paul said in Romans, because we suppress the truth apparent within ourselves and in nature and choose other than God - we actually, as J. Budziszewski said:

• do not flee from wrong, but just from thinking about it;
• compulsively confess every detail of the story but the moral;
• punish ourselves again and again offering every sacrifice but the one demanded;
• simulate the broken bonds of intimacy by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves; and
• seek not to become just but to justify ourselves.

This is the train wreck that is our universal relationship with God and each other. This is the ongoing sin that has arisen from Adam actually, or metaphorically, choosing to go his own way in the Garden - and we all share in this sin. We do all carry the stain of Adam's sin.

Not because Adam did it; but because we - by our nature that we share with Adam - choose universally to do the same; and God "gives us over to our nature" and lets us choose it. We choose it because, as Satan tempted in the Garden, we want "to be as Gods".

This is the reason Christ came. By being the "second Adam" and living through life without sin - without choosing poorly, we have recieved through the Holy Spirit, those supernatural gifts from God that enables us, as Aquinas said:

to keep our inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to our supernatural end

With this supernatural gift/priviledge as a guide, we are no longer bound to Mosaic Law. That is if we listen and then choose to follow.

Read more!

Romans 2:1-5:"Judgment and the Judgmental"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 2:1 Therefore² you are without excuse,³ whoever you are,⁴ when you judge someone else.⁵ For on whatever grounds⁶ you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth⁷ against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think,⁸ whoever you are, when you judge⁹ those who practice such things and yet do them yourself,¹⁰ that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know¹¹ that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness¹² and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!¹³

Notes:

¹ sn Rom 2:1–29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to:

1. Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law.
2. Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can.
3. The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism.
4. Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10.
5. Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law [WUNT], 101–9.
6. The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17–24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, ”Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).

² tn Some interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, Romans [HNTC], 43) connect the inferential Διό (dio, “therefore”) with 1:32a, treating 1:32b as a parenthetical comment by Paul.

³ tn That is, “you have nothing to say in your own defense” (so translated by TCNT).
⁴ tn Grk “O man.”
⁵ tn Grk “Therefore, you are without excuse, O man, everyone [of you] who judges.”
⁶ tn Grk “in/by (that) which.”
⁷ tn Or “based on truth.”
⁸ tn Grk “do you think this,” referring to the clause in v. 3b.
⁹ tn Grk “O man, the one who judges.”

¹⁰ tn Grk “and do them.” The other words are supplied to bring out the contrast implied in this clause.

¹¹ tn Grk “being unaware.”
¹² tn Grk “hardness.” Concerning this imagery, see Jer 4:4; Ezek 3:7; 1 En. 16:3.
¹³ tn Grk “in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: I almost posted the last message along with this one in the same post. I think it is essential for anyone looking at Romans 1:24-32 to make sure they REALLY focus on this passage. For me, Paul draws the audience into a good "head-nodding" session on all "those" bad people - and then snaps them back to reality with the punchline here: you are "those bad people" so get off your high horse. It is good at this point to remember the verse at the end of the last post as well:

Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

As opposed to the critic who questioned the authorship (and intellectual depth) of Romans 1:18-2:5; I think this is one of the most important sections of scripture. Here is a review of Paul's argument here - minus the details:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them . . . So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened . . . Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity . . . They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions . . . And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done . . . Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Carl presents that Paul's points here are:

• that the people who do the things on "vice list" between 26 and 32 are wrong:

  John 8:3 The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” 6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground. 9 Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

  While Jesus, further making the point Paul made, reproved the crowd for judging and condemning the adulteress for her sin - He did not ignore her sin. He let her know it was sin, and that she needed to stop sinning



• those that approve and support those that do such things are worse:

  Luke 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

  Approving of folks who sin is indeed causing them to sin further - it is indeed just the kind of "stumbling block" Jesus talked about here. Notice - again - that Jesus does not say to ignore sin. We are to rebuke our brother when they sin, and then forgive them



• those who judge others that do those things (while they do some/any of them themselves) are worst of all. That brings us back once more to:

  Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Amen!

Appendix: This section is included in a textual issue one reader brought up

Next: 2:6-16 -- "God's Impartial Judgement"

Read more!

Romans 1:18-2:7:Textual Issue?

The crosspost at Street Prophets brought on an interesting discussion. Usually between the commentaries at Bible.Org and the notes to the New English Translation (NET) most of the serious textual issues with passages are brought up and discussed. Usually. I guess not so much this time:

I wouldn't call this "revelation". At least not the unspiritual hodge-podge that is strung along after 1:17 (running all the way to verse 8 of Chap 2 in my opinion). It juts into the document like a page of emotional notes inserted by a novice. It’s a series of low reflections trying to hitch a ride on a great letter simply on the brute strength of a few stray scriptural allusions and some lurid detail. It is a poor litany of unregenerate sentiment and philosophic drivel, the dross of a lesser mind than Paul’s - one who cannot approach the level of Paul’s genius.

In my opinion the 22 verses starting at 1:18 bear a tone and form that are distinctly different from that of the Epistle as a whole - not to mention the jumble of uncharitable and uncouth words that do not occur anywhere else in Paul.

I say, accept it at your risk. What I believe is that Jesus himself will hold every fundamentalist responsible for emphasizing this kind of pre-Christian stuff in place of his (or Paul’s) true mission and message.

I asked for some sources and got a very good one:

I find that several ancient Greek manuscripts comprising the most complete collections of NT witings are missing key portions of the first 3 chapters of Romans.

Chief among which, from those called the "Western" group of texts [here is one discussion]:

"D" codex Claromontanus, missing Rom 1:1-7 and 1:27-30
"F" codex Augiensis (in both Greek and Latin), missing Rom 1:1 to 3:19
"G" codex Boernerianus, missing Rom 1:1-5 and 2:16-25

And from those called the "Alexandrian" group:
"C" codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, missing Rom 2:5 to 3:21
"P" codex Porphyrianus, missing Rom 2:15 to 3:5

I do not seek to imply that the gaps in these texts suggest the presence of bogus writing in the "fuller" versions (Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, for example). But I believe it is rational to conjecture that some of those gaps might have been created as a means of ending the question of strange or variant texts among the earliest pieces of paper on which the Epistle circulated. Where a strange hand or spirit was noticed, eliminate the passage (especially if the same thought appears elsewhere in the Epistle).

The distinct variety of styles present in the Pauline Epistles (between Romans and Ephesians for example) has been a long-debated question. Here I am talking about an abrupt change of style within the first chapter of one Epistle.

But all of the scholars who have proposed interpolations in the text of Romans (profs. H. Weisse and D. Volter in the 19th Century, to name 2) are (rightly, I think) accused of the sins of subjective judgment and arbitrary decision. So I offer my theory only as a personal guideline.

This seems to be an admission that there is no solid uncontested scholarship on this; and that this is subjective for him as well. My question still is:

Anyone know of something I can look at that discusses the textual issue here?

Back to the comment:

I’m saying Romans 1:18 to about 2:3 (I was rash to push it to the 9th verse) sounds to me like rehash and bad faith, it doesn’t sound like revelation, and it doesn’t sound like Paul at his highest inspiration. What I find in it that is at all worthy is said better elsewhere in the Epistle or in other scripture.

However, your statement is not correct

[Me:] this has been attributed to Paul very nearly universally since the earliest of compilations of Paul's letters - and therefore seen by people who knew Paul.

The first "compilations of Paul's letters" were early, but, with respect to the portion of canonical text in question here, I don't think you can go back earlier than 150 AD with those "attributions" to Paul you mention. I didn't find any in the Apostolic Fathers or Justin Martyr, for example.

I really meant authorship in my comment; but I will pick up this challenge anyway. I think it is hard to find anything to support anything prior to 150AD really, so this is quite a challenge. Elsewhere, the critic accepted the following 4 folks as Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus. I will accept that as a given - and add Clement of Alexandria. Certainly, he was not an Apostolic Father - he was a student of Tatian - however he was one of the founders of Christian literature along with Irenaeus; and Origen was his student. Alexandria became the "brains" of Christianity while Antioch was still its heart. He was in the last 30 years of the second century - but long before the codexs the critic has mentioned. So, I have broadened "before 150" to "second century and before".

Now, short of someone saying the links I am about to give are not by the above four Fathers, then I found allusions to Romans 1:18-32 in two of the four, and outright quotes in one of them. The links:

1. Justin Martyr: none I found
2. Clement of Rome: Verse 32 (paraphrase);
3. Tatian: verse 20 (paraphrase)
4. Clement of Alexandria: Verses 21, 23 and 25, 22
5. Irenaeus: Verses 18, 21, 25, 28;

I restricted myself to two works at the site:

• ANF01: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Schaff, Philip; and
• Fathers of the Second Century by Schaff, Philip.

I believe this meets the requirement to find use of Romans 1:18-32 clearly cited by an Apostolic Father: Irenaeus

However, it doesn't really deal with the textual issue, just the documentary evidence. So, what do you all think about that?

Appendix to the Appendix: The critic addressed the texual issue here

Read more!