Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Romans

  • Lent 1A – Theme

    Well, I’m back again on one of my irregular forays into lectionary blogging. I hope visitors in the meantime have found value in the links to other people’s lectionary blogging found in my sidebar.

    It’s not hard to find a theme in this week’s lectionary texts, nor to imagine why those are the texts for today. I think the Romans passage ties the theme together nicely, and if I were to teach this myself, I’d probably start from that point.

    Paul tells us that one sin made everyone into sinners, and thus one obedient man, or one act of obedience (carried throughout his life) could make us right with God again. Our texts simply point to the pieces of the puzzle. In Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7, we have the original temptation and fall. Here the first couple are placed in the Garden of Eden, but directed away from the tree. Yet they eat in any case.

    In Matthew 4:1-11, we have the opposite effect. Note that in Matthew 4:1, it is the Spirit that leads Jesus into the desert to be tempted. Even more so than Adam and Eve were directed away, Jesus was directed into the test so that he could pass and show that he would reject divinity, improperly offered.  Adam and Eve were human and wanted to be gods. Jesus was God and accepted humanity (Phil. 2:5-11).

    The final element of this puzzle is Psalm 32 which, in my view, connects us to the other two. It describes guilt, repentance and forgiveness. It is repentance, a turning to God and away from evil, that allows us to be incorporated into the family that Christ represented in his act(s) of obedience. Lent is not just about the fall and redemption. It is about us becoming part of that new family of faith, incorporated into God’s family, established by the obedience of Jesus Christ.

  • Text Today – Slave of Righteousness

    So now that you have been freed from sin, you have become enslaved to righteousness. — Romans 6:18 (my translation)

    Now you are free from your slavery to sin, and you have become slaves to righteous living. — Romans 6:18 (NLT)

    And yet there are those who think Paul taught easy believism!

  • Living Romans 12

    Alan Knox has reposted a series on how the church can live Romans 12:9-21 along with some current thoughts. He points out that Romans 1-11 are theological, but starting with Romans 12, Paul begins to speak about how the church can live out the theology of the first chapters.

    This all reminded me of one of my complaints about my biblical training, both undergraduate and graduate. While an undergraduate, I took Exegesis of Romans in Greek, a one quarter course designed to make sure that those of us with two years of Greek didn’t just stop there. It was wildly unsuccessful at that task, as the assignments that forced one to actually read Romans in Greek were minimal. But my greater complaint was that we didn’t follow a schedule and thus only got through Romans 8 in class.

    This did allow the very Arminian professor, also an advocate of the moral influence view of the atonement, to avoid some difficult passages in Romans 9-11, but it also meant that we stayed in the theological portions of the book.

    I was further disappointed when I took an exegesis class in Galatians in seminary. I was disappointed that it was done from the English text, but because of the graduate school/seminary agreement (I was in the grad school), I had to take on an extra assignment, and the professor agreed that I could simply do all of my work from the Greek text. (The value of two years of Greek after which one doesn’t actually study the New Testament from the Greek text largely escapes me.) But again I was disappointed, as we only completed through Galatians 4.

    Now I know that both professors would say that they were just trying to cover the text that they did cover in depth. I know this because I asked, and they did say that. But the risk here is that one gets an extremely skewed view of Paul–Paul the theologian, when he was really much more pastoral. His theology was the foundation for his practical teaching.

    I’m no expert on Paul. My primary study was in the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient near eastern literature. But I am a firm advocate in all cases of studying whole pieces of literature and putting the appropriate weight on all portions. I can’t imagine Paul being happy when we read about salvation by faith and then miss Galatians 5:13 which tells us the results.

    How does your church and your life measure up to the practical, active portions of Paul’s epistles? What difference might it make in the way other people view Christians if we did so?

  • Romans 4:13-25 – Abraham and God (Lent 2B)

    There are two questions I think will prove very much worth some meditation time.  This is a rich passage, so obviously there are more, but let me emphasize just two.

    First, Paul uses Abraham a great deal.  In an excursus on page 2015, amongst the notes on chapter 4, the New Interpreter’s Study Bible notes that “Abraham is cited more frequently in Paul’s letters than any other historical figure except Jesus.”  What is it about Abraham that makes him such an excellent example?  Paul uses him, James uses him in a seemingly contradictory manner, though one that I think is quite reconcilable.

    Abraham is “caught” by God outside of God’s community.  Though he is a descendant of the patriarchal line, he is known for worshiping other Gods (Joshua 24:2).  He has done no works to earn God’s favor.  God simply selects him and takes action.  Paul uses this to illustrate how God’s salvation is grace based, and I would reemphasize that it was always based on grace.  While there are distinctions in the way God interacted with those who had been saved by grace, there was never a time when one could earn a place in relationship to God.

    Don’t take the word “relationship” lightly.  We sometimes here this as a sort of “casual dating” relationship.  Not at all!  A relationship with God is a covenant relationship, a complete reordering of who one is.  This is a relationship that defines one’s identity.  There are works done “in” relationship, and works done to gain a relationship.  The latter will not work.  To me it seems pretty clear and obvious.  If God is the creator, he can not only create a million of me if he wants, he can create millions of planets with millions more of me.  So there is no way to make myself necessary to God.  It won’t work.

    God chooses to love me!  That is the amazing story of grace.  Thus Paul is right that Abraham is “made right” by faith, apart from works (Galatians 2:16), yet James can be quite correct, looking at this from a few moments forward when he says we are made right by works (James 2:24).  Part of the complete reorientation is the simple fact that works done in the relationship with Christ are completely different from works done outside.

    The second question is this:  How is it that Abraham gets treated as an unblemished character of faith?  As I mentioned previously, Paul ignores the negatives, and our lectionary passage cuts out Abraham’s laughter.

    I like to call this the faith view.  Compare all the heroes of the faith as described in Hebrews 11 with their stories in the Old Testament.  You’ll find that there are rose colored glasses involved here.  There are two views of heroes.  One encourages us by seeing them as real people with failings.  The Bible provides clear and honest stories in this sense.  The other encourages us by seeing them as extraordinary.  In a spiritual sense, I believe, both are true.

     

  • Patience for the Nuts and Bolts

    Last night I attended a Bible study in which my pastor was teaching on Romans 1:22-32.  If that verse selection doesn’t fully make sense to you, consider that he was simply following up from the point at which he stopped the prior week.

    My pastor is Dr. Wesley Wachob, an accomplished exegete.  One of the joys of attending First UMC in Pensacola is that while I may occasionally disagree on some technical point, I never have to cringe while listening to the sermons.  Elsewhere I frequently have order myself to ignore exegetical problems or those related to Biblical languages while listening to otherwise uplifting sermons.

    So, being who he is, Dr. Wachob starting out by teaching precisely what Paul was saying.  It’s not relevant to my point here, but I happen to agree with that position.  I’m also not trying to proclaim Dr. Wachob’s position on all issues related to homosexuality, which is only a minor point of the passage, though it is the primary one for which it is cited.  (I eagerly await the sermon on how gossip and slander represents the true measure of human depravity as in verse 29-30.)  The issue I’m looking at is the starting point.  (For my Methodist readers, Dr. Wachob in no way violated the Methodist discipline in anything he said to the group.)

    In particular, Paul is not writing an essay either on what constitutes an appropriate list of sins, nor is he arguing for what things are sinful and why.  He is taking an assumption of what is sinful and tying it all to idolatry, i.e. anything that places anything other than God in God’s place.  Thus homosexuality is assumed to be wrong, based on the Torah, and this is something that Paul can count on as an agreement with his audience.

    Thus the point here is that while we can be pretty certain based on this passage that Paul thought homosexuality was wrong, it is as an underlying assumption, rather than as something explicitly explained.  When I say that, if you know my own view of inspiration as message embedded in surrounding cultural views, then you don’t know how I feel about homosexuality generally, gay marriage, or any related issue concerning how we respond to gays in our society today.

    The text does not immediately translate itself into modern context.

    If you doubt this, consider Numbers 31:15-20.  Does the command that Moses gives, couched in support for the moral preservation, not to mention the physical, of the Israelite people, represent a good standard for warfare?  I would, of course, argue that it does not.  How it can be a command of God in scripture is worthy of a bit more discussion, but that isn’t going to happen today.

    Last night in our class there was a gentleman who was clearly quite knowledgeable.  Throughout the discussion he kept asking our teacher to make the application.  His requests were resisted.  Now I understand his impatience, but at the same time I applaud the resistance.  The nuts and bolts of exegesis need to be done first.

    This doesn’t mean that we don’t later view the scripture in their canonical context or in the broader context of theology.  It doesn’t mean that we never get down to current, practical applications.  It just means that we have to do the hard work first.

    Dr. Wachob’s interpretation of this passage–and mine–will not satisfy many on any side of this debate.  The general desire is to somehow have Romans tell us directly what to do today.  And yes, there are interpretations that make this not address homosexuality as such in its original context.  But that is a very unlikely reading of what Paul is trying to say.  Paul is talking not about some isolated group of people, but rather is talking about all gentiles here (he’ll get to the Jews later) and making a case that all have failed.  That is is theological point.

    It may require some patience.  But it is worth it.

  • More Study Bible Comparisons – Introduction to Romans

    I haven’t written on this for a bit, and I wanted to note some differences between three of the major study Bibles I use in terms of introductions to books.  I’m studying Romans right now, so I thought I’d compare there.

    In comparing words, I get myself a quick approximation of the average line length in words, and then multiply by the number of lines in a particular section.  That is not very precise, but it is good enough for comparison.  As with those pesky political polls, consider close numbers to be more or less equal.

    I’m going to briefly compare three study Bibles that I personally reference in my studies.  My primary use for these is to get a quick overview of certain representative points of view, and I include a number of others as well.  This particular use may influence how I see each one.

    Oxford Study Bible

    The first is the Oxford Study Bible.  Based on the REB and including the Apocrypha, this Bible has proven to be extremely useful to me over the years and my copy is well-worn.  Overall, however, its comments tend to be brief and to deal more with technical and critical issues than with theology.  Its Romans introduction is around 190 words, and gives us a fairly standard protestant view of the theme of Romans.  It does not date it very precisely, giving a range of 48-58 CE, and indicating it was probably written after Galatians.  The notes on the first chapter give new meaning to the word “concise” but do cover the most important issues.  They take up around 240 words.

    NLT Study Bible

    The NLT Study Bible has become a regular companion for me to help me keep track of the scholarly evangelical position in outline form.  It proves its usefulness with over 2100 words of instroductory material on Romans.  I’m not entirely surprised by this huge difference, as Romans is a pretty critical book in the evangelical community.  The introduction is divided into:

    • Setting
    • Summary (with the standard inset outline and timeline)
    • Date, Place, and Occasion of Writing (around AD 57)
    • Paul’s Purpose in Writing
    • Interpretation

    This is then followed up by over 1200 words in the notes on the first chapter.  The notes are, unsurprisingly, very evangelical, as would be expected.  I believe they would be very useful to a pastor preparing a sermon, or a Sunday School teacher preparing a lesson.  The pastor in particular would be added by the list of additional reading.

    New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    The New Interpreter’s Study Bible falls between these two.  Its introduction runs a bit over 1,000 words plus a more detailed outline than that provided by the NLT Study Bible.  It also dates the book to 57 CE, and provides a fairly standard protestant discussion of the themes of the book.  It also has just over 1,000 words in the notes to chapter 1 plus an excursus, The Righteousness of God, running a bit over 100 more.

    In general I find all three of these Bibles useful.  The Oxford Study Bible and New Interpreter’s Study Bible include the Apocrypha, which I like, but which also makes them a bit more tight on the space.  There is also some difference as to what is included in introductory material, and what is including in general articles.  One of the great features of the Oxford Study Bible, for example, is around 190 pages of general articles written by some quite well-known scholars.

    There are obviously many things that go into choosing a study Bible.  I hope that these few notes will help those especially who are buying on the internet and can’t spend hours looking through an actual copy.

  • Traveling through to Romans 8:1

    So there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. — Romans 8:1

    Oh how we long to get to this verse in studying the Bible. If we’re reading through, we may be tempted to rush it. It’s like working forward through a tragic book to the point at which we know there will be a happy ending.

    Besides the theology, however, there’s also just the complexity of the text. Romans 7 is harder to read and to follow, and it’s certainly more controversial in its intent.

    But the book of Romans is a journey. It starts by letting us know that humanity is all fallen, that there are no “good guys” who don’t need any salvation, but that we are all human together in need of God’s grace. It continues by telling us that God’s grace has truly been offered, but then it seems to take a side trip into the labyrinth of Romans 7. Surely that chapter is a place of torment for Christian readers, and it describes a place of torment for the Christian life.

    But then comes chapter 8. If I’m choosing my texts on which to preach, I’d prefer to preach a nice upbeat sermon, letting people know how everything comes out.

    But the fact is that there will be many people in any congregation who are living something that looks much like Romans 7. The solutions to problems may look very clear, but be nearly impossible to implement. It will often look very much like the person who is told that the solution to his or her problems is to train for a new job. But supposing the person is a single parent and has to arrange childcare and transportation, has to have money for tuition, and has to be able to live in the meantime. The solution is clear, but life remains in turmoil.

    For such a person, preaching about the victory is important, but so is preaching about the struggle and how to live through it. I’m an Arminian, sometimes I say I’m more Arminian than Arminius. The stereotype is that Arminians hold Romans 7 to be a pre-conversion experience, while Romans 8 is after conversion. I disagree. I think everyone will have struggles, to various degrees, and everyone can benefit from realizing that struggle is a part of the Christian life.

    My primary point in bringing this up today is not to expound on Romans 7 or 8, but rather to point out that it’s easy to skip the hard parts and jump right to the easy parts in studying, teaching, or preaching scripture. But the hard parts are there for a reason. The person who is struggling may not be encouraged by hearing a sermon about the wonders of victory; he or she may, instead, be discouraged, thinking that everyone else is living this gloriously victorious life.

    We like to claim that the Bible is all equally inspired, but we often don’t preach and teach that way.  Victory comes after struggle.  Knowledge after study.

    It works in life and in Bible study.

  • Not Through the Law: Romans 4:13

    One of the major elements of the new perspectives on Paul is the changing view of justification. In a broad sense, one could say that justification involves not a moment of personal salvation, but rather a moment of incorporation into a broad community, known as the people of God, kingdom of God, or the body of Christ. One of the things that Jesus did was to make it possible for you to become part of that community, and it is that community that will eventually be glorified.

    The individual aspect of salvation is not eliminated, but is certainly pushed more into the background. There is less room here for the individual who has “prayed the prayer” and then never done another thing that appears related to being Christian. James might call on that person to show his or her faith by works.

    Lately, I have been trying to read passages in Paul with this option in mind just to see how it fits. I am not fully convinced of the change, but I am becoming more so. Today I was again reading Romans 4:13 (it’s part of this coming Sunday’s lectionary passages), and it hit me again:

    For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (NRSV)

    Now if “law” generally refers to the Torah–and I think that’s not a bad suggestion for Romans and Galatians at least–then there’s something obvious going on here. The Torah came after Abraham. God inaugurated this whole thing without any such written body of law. Grace was the only option. Grace had to act before there was even any knowledge that things could be other than what they already were. Revelation comes to Abraham as a grace, and grace comes to him by revelation.

    This reminds me of an issue I have with some Christian apologetics that attempts to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Christ, by means of tying a series of prophecies together that he fulfilled. Enough prophecies apparently should bring certainty. But how many prophecies did Abraham need? Did Moses have to fulfill a string of prophecies to prove he was anointed by God? No, each person comes through an act of God at the time. The prophecies are much more a case of tying Jesus back into the tradition stream–the community if you will–than it is a case of proving that he fits some specification.

    God can come and act without getting ducks in a row. “For while we were still weak, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly” Romans 5:6 (NRSV).

  • Reading 11/12/07

    Update: Edited to correct the date in the header from 10/12/07 to 11/12/07. I truly have not invented a time machine!

    Here’s some things that caught my attention:

    • Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism
      20 years ago I read his book The Openness of God when it was first released. I was intrigued by its ideas of open theism then, and I continue to be intrigued now. I appreciated the summary of key issues provided in this post by David Larson. (From the Spectrum Magazine blog/Association of Adventist Forums).
    • Hard and Soft Legalism
      OK, I’m a legalist, but so was Jesus. If the point of this series is to show that N. T. Wright isn’t 100% in the reformed camp, then I suppose it’s succeeding. As a matter of Biblical studies, not so much.
    • “What is at stake is the very nature of Anglicanism” (from Gentle Wisdom) and Romans and Rhetoric Again. (Hat tip: Lingamish on the second post.)
      The key arguments are about the Bible statements regarding homosexuality. This is a particularly contentious topic, of course, and I would urge charity on all who participate in it. None of the participants have taken their stands lightly, in my view, and all deserve serious consideration.

    Such are the varied topics of which I read with interest!

  • Thoughts on Lists of Spiritual Gifts

    In one of the sermons I heard this morning (I attended services at two different churches), the scripture reading was from Ephesians 4:1-12. When Ephesians 4:11 was read, I remembered a discussion I had some time back about whether pastors and teachers here was intended to refer to one group of people. The individual with whom I discussed this found it fairly important. He thought that it would be better that authoritative church teaching be done by the pastor. Others could work under him, but the that would be the authority source.

    The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers — Ephesians 4:11 (NRSV)

    I can see how this might work together with a complementarian view of gender roles, reserving authoritative teaching to the ordained, who would all be male. I have never heard that specific argument made by any actual complentarians, so I don’t know that it is used. There are quite a number of commetators, however, who maintain that either these two groups are the same, or that they are much more closely related than are the other groups in the list.

    In looking at it, I would note that Daniel Wallace discusses the matter on page 284 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, and maintains that the Greek does not require that these two groups be identical. Nonetheless he also makes the point that they are more closely connected to each other than to the rest of the list. In general I think he makes a good point.

    But does Ephesians 4:11 mean that pastor and teacher are the same office in either case? Whether or not we place a great deal of weight on this, it’s an interesting question.

    I think the answer lies in the lists of gifts that Paul gives. He speaks of spiritual gifts in three different places, here in Ephesians 4:11, in 1 Corinthians 12 twice, and in Romans 12:6-8. The list is not identical in any two of these places. They are not identical even between 1 Corinthians 12:8-11 and then in verses 28-30. The two lists give a different perspective. I would suggest that there is an important point in these differences.

    And this leads me to the reason I wanted to write a blog entry on this. It goes back to something I say repeatedly about Bible study, and most recently about interpreting parables. The key to understanding is finding the right question, and in this case we have to look at the questions Paul is answering in these passages. If you look at the context, not a single one of these passages was written to answer the question “What are the gifts of the Spirit?” Rather, the questions all relate to unity. In 1 Corinthians the primary issue is spiritual pride, and the gifts are used as an example of how all of us, coming from varied backgrounds and with various gifts, are brought together by one Spirit to become the church. In Romans 12 the topic is becoming conformed to Christ rather than to the church, with the issue of unity again key. Similarly in Ephesians 4:1-16, though we tend to stop at verse 12.

    What would Paul’s answer be if he was asked just what were the gifts of God’s Spirit? I suspect he would decline to try for an exhaustive list. Rather, we need to look for the simple test. Is this gift useful (and hopefully used) to spread the gospel message and to build the kingdom? If the answer is “yes” it’s a good candidate to be called a spiritual gift. Otherwise, not so much!