Why a study about women? In many conservative Christian circles, the mere mention that we are undertaking a consideration of women in ministry may be met with disapproval. “The Bible is clear,” so they say. Even merely looking into the issue is considered by some to be teetering on the edge of heresy.
But surely this must be an overreaction, isn’t it? We are not discussing biblical inspiration, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the penal substitution, the resurrection—all vital doctrines for which denial would warrant a charge of heresy. We are discussing women in the context of biblical Christianity. And any issue discussed within that context, and holding fast to the vital doctrines (especially, in this case, to the inspiration and authority of the Word of God) should lead to a better understanding of Scripture and, therefore, a better relationship with our Lord.
Part of the nervousness in discussing an issue like this, I believe, is that it has been viewed one way by orthodox Christianity for so long. But there are differences in our world today. Many of the ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene church fathers bantered about ideas such as whether women were made in the image of God and some even whether they had souls. From that mindset it is rather easy to see why the five New Testament passages, seemingly limiting women’s roles in ministry, were accepted so readily on face value. There was a reason (e.g., women were not made in God’s image) leading to the conclusion deduced from the limiting passages that women were not fit to occupy roles of leadership in either the home or the church. As views changed over time, reformation leaders no longer doubted the souls or image of women, but still were convinced that women were inferior with regard to intellect. Therefore, the pattern held—a reason (i.e., gender-wide lack of intellect) led to the conclusion deduced from the limiting passages that women were not fit to occupy roles of leadership in either the home or the church. Again time passed and again views changed. In our current time, most Christians (scholars included) view women as equal to men not only in the possession of souls and the image of God but also in intellect. But this equality in “being” has altered the pattern previously relied on. No longer is there a reason of “being” that leads to the conclusion that the limiting passages regarding women prevent them from occupying roles of leadership in the home and the church. And that is why some conservative Christians want to revisit God’s revelation with regard to this issue.
Surely if the Bible dictates the limitation of the roles of women in church and home, biblical Christians must embrace such a view. But the impetus toward the study is the bewilderment of why God—most significantly a God of reason and purpose in all His undertakings—should make such an unlimited, unending decree without purposeful Godly reason directing His choice. In other words, is the traditional assumption of the limitation of women’s roles in actuality biblical? Could we have missed something? These are questions that should drive any true child of God back to the Bible, searching the Scriptures with vigor to know God certainly. And so we start this study.
Our study is not about radical, secular feminism. Women’s rights is not the motive force. Understanding God, knowing His Word, endeavoring to increase our love relationship with Him are the purposes for which we study. So, then, how do we get started in this discussion? Certainly, we know that the New Testament includes some passages directly related to the issue. First Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 have some pretty plain statements that women are to keep silent in church. First Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 tell us that husbands and/or men are heads of their wives and/or women. But then Galatians 3 argues that there is no more man and woman distinction in Christ. Our predispositions in approaching these verses often influence our first-sight understanding. So let’s take one more step back. What influences our predispositions? Culture? Tradition? Historical perspective? All of those are certainly true. We should look at culture—both ours and that of the biblical context. We must consider tradition, both inside and outside the church. Are the tensions between men and women that come to light in an analysis of history man-made creations or established by God? This, I think, is the core question with which to begin. If God, from creation, established specific roles in which the man and the woman should function, then we should probably see these as essential to maintain.
Three possibilities exist in which, if the scenario proved true, a hierarchical order in male-female relations could be perceived as ordered by God from creation. The first possibility for a hierarchical order would require that the creation accounts show that one gender has more intrinsic worth than the other. The second possibility for a hierarchical order would require the Scriptural text to state specifically or demonstrate God’s intent of the authority of one gender over the other. The third possibility in recognizing a God-ordained hierarchical order is if the order of creation implies order in authority.
Let’s look at the creation accounts. The first is in Genesis 1:26-31. From this passage we learn that God did indeed create humankind in His image—both males and females. The structure of the passage, in fact, indicates equality in image-bearing. Furthermore, the passage goes on to charge both the man and the woman together with dominance over the rest of creation.
The first creation account is chronological—intent on showing God’s power in creation. God is called Elohim in this account. Elohim means God of power. His name changes as we begin the second creation account in chapter 2 verse 4. Here God is called the Lord God (in English) or Jehovah Elohim (in Hebrew). This name means God of power and perfection. The difference in names, I believe, refers to the focus of the chapter 2 creation account. In this account, God is emphasizing the perfection or completion of His work in His image-bearers. Notice the reversal of emphasis. In chapter 1, vegetation and animals were created first. In chapter 2, the focus is on Man (capitalized here to refer to generic man or humankind) with the creation of vegetation and animals mentioned as purposed for Man. The reading of verse 5 almost sounds as if Adam was formed before vegetation. Likewise, verse 19 almost sounds as if Adam had been created before the animals. But the reason for this is focus, not chronology. The first section of the second creation account (vv.4-7) shows God’s particular perfecting power in Adam’s creation. Verses 8-17 detail God’s provision for Man within the rest of creation. Finally, verses 18-25 show God’s perfecting power in establishing the unity of Man in the image reflection.
This third section discussing the unity of man and woman is interesting in its progression. God doesn’t somehow notice that Adam appears lonely and, therefore, decide to give him a partner. God’s pre-creation plan is to complete Man through the male-female creation. Suddenly in the text, God brings the animals before Adam to name. Again, this is no mere curiosity by God concerning what Adam would do. God intentionally teaches Adam that the rest of creation—the creation that he will rule over—is not fit for the soul-entwining union He has planned for Adam with his partner. That being done, God forms the woman from Adam, and immediately Adam recognizes the oneness with her, crying out in soul-charged awe, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman (Hebrew – isha), because she was taken out of Man (ish).
Notice then the next two verses. God inserts in verse 24, not a description about this event—for Adam and Eve had no mother and father—but rather a principle established for all time. God tells us that the husband-wife relationship is the strongest human bond established—even stronger than parent-child. This principle sums up or concludes this section on the unity of the man and woman in creation. This principle is what we take from this section—not a hierarchy of authority, but rather both an emphasis and established principle on the unity in creation, image, and purpose that God has endowed.
Returning now to our three possibilities to demonstrate hierarchical authority, the first one relied on the creation accounts showing that one gender has more intrinsic worth than the other. Our review did not show this. In fact, the creation accounts demonstrate equality in being—both in the bearing of the image and the unity expressed during the woman’s creation.
The second possibility for a hierarchical order would require the Scriptural text to state specifically or demonstrate God’s intent of the authority of one gender over the other. Certainly the Scriptures do not specifically so state an order of authority. Furthermore, the joint charge to rule over the rest of creation argues against any demonstration of the authority of one over the other.
The third possibility for a God-ordained hierarchical order of authority is if the order of creation implies order in authority. Although Paul, in Romans 5, provides some reasoning for Adam to be a representative for all humanity based on being created first and all humanity (including Eve) issuing from him, nowhere do we see this as a rule for Adam to be an authority over Eve or any succeeding generations. The creation of one person before another does not imply authority. For another example, the Bible never refers to Noah as an authority over succeeding generations. But even if created order implied authority (which it does not), there is even less implication that this authority would relate to gender. Why would I, as a man, have authority transferred to me based on the mere fact that Adam was a man? There is no connection of order given to a class (such as gender) based on an individual’s creation prior to another’s. Animals, as a class, were created before humans, but we certainly don’t understand an implied authority based on that order of this class distinction. The implication of authority in gender just isn’t there.
Thus, the creation accounts show equality of being between man and woman in both creation and image and also unity or oneness in being. This does not give final conclusion on role relationships. Our next discussion will include more points (arguments) about the creation account that traditionalists (sometimes called complementarians, hierarchicalists, or patriachalists) offer. We will also begin our discussion of the Fall and the curse.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Romans 13b-15 - Life with Love and Reason 7/24/08
Romans 13:8-14 provides us not only with a conclusion to chapters 12 and 13, but also the armament with which to tackle Romans 14. The section is divided into two paragraphs, each offering one prong of our two-pronged approach. The first prong reiterates the benefit of love.
Love, remember, is the uncoerced desire for the benefit of another that outweighs all other desires, including those for self. This desire for the benefit of others is the New Covenant answer to the legalism of the old covenant. Paul tells us that those commands of the old covenant—those incorporated in the Ten Commandments—are not the focus for New Covenant living. We no longer go about with our list, trying to determine Godly living. Remember Christ’s emphasis in the Gospels—the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others (Matthew 22:37-39). And why so? Because, as Matt 22:40 goes on to say, all the other commandments hinge on these. This is exactly what Paul is telling us here in Romans 13. Our practical outworking of the great salvation Paul discussed through the first 11 chapters of Romans comes together in 13:8—“the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”
But there is a second point or prong that must accompany the law of love. That is the requirement that Paul has been arguing since the beginning of Romans 12. We must renew our minds; or put another way, we must review and evaluate—that is, reason—in light of Christ. Christ is our Savior. He is Lord. Our conduct must be in light of His Lordship. But again, we cannot forget that this is not just a new rulebook Paul is handing out. It is an emphasis of devotion. If my point in life is to see Christ honored, I look for ways in which to do so. I don’t religiously pull out the list and blindly go through the motions of acceptable living. My heart’s passion is the honor of my Christ. This is the point of 13:11-14.
Paul says the night is gone (13:12). This night is the fuzzy, unclear, thinking of the world and of self. Paul says the day is at hand—a clear reference to the mind renewal of 12:1-2. We are to put on the armor of light (reason). And we are to steer clear of the works of darkness. Notice these couplets that we are to avoid in verse 13—orgies and drunkenness, sexual immorality and sensuality, quarreling and jealousy. Why these sins? What about murder, lying, stealing, unthankfulness, and the rest of the usual list we see Paul specify? I think Paul mentions these because these are sins that sweep the emotions. They are sins that create passions prohibiting clear thinking. That fits in with his emphasis to rid ourselves of the dark, unclear, worldly thinking, and to renew our minds with Christ.
So, then, having laid aside the legalistic rulebook and now armed with the first prong of love—the desire for the benefit of others—and the second prong of reasoning clearly in light of Christ and His gospel, His righteousness, His sovereignty, His salvation and adoption given to us, we approach chapter 14.
Two major issues present themselves in Romans 14. The first is the practical matter of the stumbling block. A stumbling block is the present-time participation in and urging of an activity on another Christian who may believe it to be wrong. Paul uses a contrast between someone strong in faith and someone weak in faith. The strong and weak characteristics, I believe, relate to that prong of reasoning in light of Christ. Being strong in faith or belief speaks of someone who has correctly reasoned based on the principles learned through Christ and has become fully persuaded. In contrast, the person weak in belief has not spent the time in renewing his/her mind or has allowed false reasoning to come through, not grasping the full implication of biblical principle.
Now, let’s assume (as Paul does) that the person of strong faith is together with the person of weak faith. They approach an activity together of which the weak one is hesitant while the strong is fully persuaded to engage. Paul’s point in this chapter is for the strong in faith to use both prongs of his/her armament. The strong should act not only based on the right Christ-centered reasoning of which he/she is persuaded, but also based on the prong of love—the desire for the benefit of the other. If the strong, based on his/her full persuasion, urges the weak toward activity which the weak perceives as wrong or at least doubtful, sin results—not only in the weak but in the strong as well. The weak sins by violating his/her faith. The strong sins by encouraging the weak to violate his/her faith.
Along with the care not to cause this stumbling block, Paul warns the strong not to despise the weak. The weak one is also warned not to judge the strong. But notice that we are talking of matters that are biblically deduced, not matters of biblical command. We are not speaking of lying, murder, specific sexual sins like adultery, lust, and homosexual practice. The New Testament includes clear commands to avoid all those. In the situation of Romans 14, Paul speaks of things which we will come upon in life and to which we must apply our biblical principles. He uses the examples of eating meat (offered to idols) and continuing to set aside a Sabbath day. There is no clear biblical command on these points. And Paul does not mean to clear it up. Rather, he uses the ambiguity to teach a lesson about making sure you spend the time to renew your mind and making sure you act in love. With both of these emphases in your life, you will do well.
The second major issue in this chapter takes a step back to examine a larger question. Normally, we argue against setting ourselves up as guide for right living. Philosophically, we claim that an external reference point is necessary to keep to the correct course. And so, we lift up the Bible as our sole authority for faith and practice. Is Paul in Romans 14 advocating setting the Bible aside and living based on personal conscience? Well, yes and no. We’ll talk about the “no” first. The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. That is why God gave us His Word. So we can never violate anything in the Bible without sinning. But as mentioned before, the Bible does contain certain commands, but not commands about every action under the sun. The Bible contains principles, and God has designed our earthly Christian lives so as to concentrate on searching the Scriptures to know His mind (principles and propositions) so that we may act in that light. (This, by the way, is what is so deathly dangerous about the emergent church movement. The total disregard for propositional principle leads away from God, not toward Him.) The focus on searching the Scriptures and knowing God’s principles is what we defined as the prong of renewing the mind. You cannot simply say that the Bible contains no direct command so we may live as we please. We who are Christians are under obligation by our Lord to search the Scriptures and become fully persuaded based on Christ and the principles we find to move in whatever direction we find coalesces with God’s intent. Therefore, Paul is not advocating tossing the Bible aside, in Romans 14, to follow your own choices of capricious emotion. We must act in love with Christ and in love with others.
By this activity in love, we join together in unity as Romans 15 tells us. Vital doctrines define Christianity. By vital doctrines I mean those upon which eternal life and death depend—such things as the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, the penal substitution, the redemption accomplished through the cross, the resurrection, and others. Those are doctrines which we must defend and from people opposed to them we must separate (spiritual separation for worship and service). But the non-vital doctrines over which Christians differ should not be roadblocks to our unity in the Spirit. As Paul prays in 15:5-6, “May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Love, remember, is the uncoerced desire for the benefit of another that outweighs all other desires, including those for self. This desire for the benefit of others is the New Covenant answer to the legalism of the old covenant. Paul tells us that those commands of the old covenant—those incorporated in the Ten Commandments—are not the focus for New Covenant living. We no longer go about with our list, trying to determine Godly living. Remember Christ’s emphasis in the Gospels—the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others (Matthew 22:37-39). And why so? Because, as Matt 22:40 goes on to say, all the other commandments hinge on these. This is exactly what Paul is telling us here in Romans 13. Our practical outworking of the great salvation Paul discussed through the first 11 chapters of Romans comes together in 13:8—“the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”
But there is a second point or prong that must accompany the law of love. That is the requirement that Paul has been arguing since the beginning of Romans 12. We must renew our minds; or put another way, we must review and evaluate—that is, reason—in light of Christ. Christ is our Savior. He is Lord. Our conduct must be in light of His Lordship. But again, we cannot forget that this is not just a new rulebook Paul is handing out. It is an emphasis of devotion. If my point in life is to see Christ honored, I look for ways in which to do so. I don’t religiously pull out the list and blindly go through the motions of acceptable living. My heart’s passion is the honor of my Christ. This is the point of 13:11-14.
Paul says the night is gone (13:12). This night is the fuzzy, unclear, thinking of the world and of self. Paul says the day is at hand—a clear reference to the mind renewal of 12:1-2. We are to put on the armor of light (reason). And we are to steer clear of the works of darkness. Notice these couplets that we are to avoid in verse 13—orgies and drunkenness, sexual immorality and sensuality, quarreling and jealousy. Why these sins? What about murder, lying, stealing, unthankfulness, and the rest of the usual list we see Paul specify? I think Paul mentions these because these are sins that sweep the emotions. They are sins that create passions prohibiting clear thinking. That fits in with his emphasis to rid ourselves of the dark, unclear, worldly thinking, and to renew our minds with Christ.
So, then, having laid aside the legalistic rulebook and now armed with the first prong of love—the desire for the benefit of others—and the second prong of reasoning clearly in light of Christ and His gospel, His righteousness, His sovereignty, His salvation and adoption given to us, we approach chapter 14.
Two major issues present themselves in Romans 14. The first is the practical matter of the stumbling block. A stumbling block is the present-time participation in and urging of an activity on another Christian who may believe it to be wrong. Paul uses a contrast between someone strong in faith and someone weak in faith. The strong and weak characteristics, I believe, relate to that prong of reasoning in light of Christ. Being strong in faith or belief speaks of someone who has correctly reasoned based on the principles learned through Christ and has become fully persuaded. In contrast, the person weak in belief has not spent the time in renewing his/her mind or has allowed false reasoning to come through, not grasping the full implication of biblical principle.
Now, let’s assume (as Paul does) that the person of strong faith is together with the person of weak faith. They approach an activity together of which the weak one is hesitant while the strong is fully persuaded to engage. Paul’s point in this chapter is for the strong in faith to use both prongs of his/her armament. The strong should act not only based on the right Christ-centered reasoning of which he/she is persuaded, but also based on the prong of love—the desire for the benefit of the other. If the strong, based on his/her full persuasion, urges the weak toward activity which the weak perceives as wrong or at least doubtful, sin results—not only in the weak but in the strong as well. The weak sins by violating his/her faith. The strong sins by encouraging the weak to violate his/her faith.
Along with the care not to cause this stumbling block, Paul warns the strong not to despise the weak. The weak one is also warned not to judge the strong. But notice that we are talking of matters that are biblically deduced, not matters of biblical command. We are not speaking of lying, murder, specific sexual sins like adultery, lust, and homosexual practice. The New Testament includes clear commands to avoid all those. In the situation of Romans 14, Paul speaks of things which we will come upon in life and to which we must apply our biblical principles. He uses the examples of eating meat (offered to idols) and continuing to set aside a Sabbath day. There is no clear biblical command on these points. And Paul does not mean to clear it up. Rather, he uses the ambiguity to teach a lesson about making sure you spend the time to renew your mind and making sure you act in love. With both of these emphases in your life, you will do well.
The second major issue in this chapter takes a step back to examine a larger question. Normally, we argue against setting ourselves up as guide for right living. Philosophically, we claim that an external reference point is necessary to keep to the correct course. And so, we lift up the Bible as our sole authority for faith and practice. Is Paul in Romans 14 advocating setting the Bible aside and living based on personal conscience? Well, yes and no. We’ll talk about the “no” first. The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. That is why God gave us His Word. So we can never violate anything in the Bible without sinning. But as mentioned before, the Bible does contain certain commands, but not commands about every action under the sun. The Bible contains principles, and God has designed our earthly Christian lives so as to concentrate on searching the Scriptures to know His mind (principles and propositions) so that we may act in that light. (This, by the way, is what is so deathly dangerous about the emergent church movement. The total disregard for propositional principle leads away from God, not toward Him.) The focus on searching the Scriptures and knowing God’s principles is what we defined as the prong of renewing the mind. You cannot simply say that the Bible contains no direct command so we may live as we please. We who are Christians are under obligation by our Lord to search the Scriptures and become fully persuaded based on Christ and the principles we find to move in whatever direction we find coalesces with God’s intent. Therefore, Paul is not advocating tossing the Bible aside, in Romans 14, to follow your own choices of capricious emotion. We must act in love with Christ and in love with others.
By this activity in love, we join together in unity as Romans 15 tells us. Vital doctrines define Christianity. By vital doctrines I mean those upon which eternal life and death depend—such things as the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, the penal substitution, the redemption accomplished through the cross, the resurrection, and others. Those are doctrines which we must defend and from people opposed to them we must separate (spiritual separation for worship and service). But the non-vital doctrines over which Christians differ should not be roadblocks to our unity in the Spirit. As Paul prays in 15:5-6, “May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Friday, July 18, 2008
Romans 12-13 - Presenting our Bodies 7/17/08
Romans 12 opens with a call to present our bodies sacrificially to God. But that call is based on what Paul has discussed before. Paul’s argument is that since God has accomplished salvation and applies it through faith (Romans 1-8) and since God’s sovereignty controls all creation to accomplish His prioritized will so that Jews and Gentiles will be joined as one body in Christ through faith (Romans 9-11) and since God is rich in wisdom and knowledge, sovereignly directing all things from, through, and to Christ (Romans 11:33-36), therefore—because of all that—we are to present our bodies as living sacrifices to God. And that means living in accordance to the purity of God.
I think Paul here has in mind his conclusion in chapter 7. Remember there he says in verse 25 that “I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” That’s why here in Romans 12 he emphasizes the body. He is not suddenly changing his mind to conclude Christianity is a works-based religion. Rather, he has already argued that our souls (spirit/mind) have, in faith, been brought to Christ, settling salvation. But because that is true we should present our bodies to God as well while we continue in this state of corrupted flesh among a corrupt world. That is, indeed, the focus of this last section of the epistle. Romans 12-16 teaches practical living based on our position in Christ.
Notice that verse 1 says specifically that presenting our bodies is our “spiritual worship.” The words translated here spiritual worship, I think, are better translated in the KJV as “reasonable service.” The connotation here is that it is a reasonable or rational deduction that the previous discussion should impel us toward giving ourselves not only in mind but in body as well to God’s service. Verse 2 appears to say the same thing in a slightly different manner. Paul urges us not to continue doing (using the body) those things of the world—those things that are at enmity with God. But rather “by the renewal of the mind” (remember 7:25 and the service of the mind), dedicate our conduct to those things good and acceptable to God. This is a perfect transition from the concept, logic, and philosophy of Christianity to the practical, living out of our Christianity.
Verse 3 continues the transition. Chapters 9 through 11 clearly helped us understand the gathering together of Jews and Gentiles within the covenant. Paul now tells us to live like we understand that concept. Under the emperor Claudius, Jews had been expelled from Rome (~AD 49). After Claudius’ death in AD 54, Jews were allowed back in Rome. The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul somewhere between AD 55 and 57, thus after the return of Jews to Rome. This is probably one of the reasons Paul wrote the letter and emphasized the one body of believers. Gentile Christians in Rome were undoubtedly influenced by their society (as Christians of today are influenced by ours). Lingering thoughts of being “better” than the Jews may have lived in their conscious or subconscious minds. Claudius and the Romans had preached that the Jews were untrustworthy, malevolent, and generally not on par with proper society. Now the Jews were filtering back into Rome, and Jewish Christians were filtering back into the Roman churches. The Gentile Christians undoubtedly accepted them, but perhaps not without some disdain.
On the other hand, many Jewish Christians still carried their baggage of privileged heritage. They, as a people, had for generations held the “oracles of God.” They were known as “God’s people.” And this attitude of superiority certainly brushed up against the Gentile Christians’ own superior attitude creating tension. Throughout the epistle so far, Paul has been telling them they are one group in Christ. Now at the beginning of his section on practical living, Paul quickly addresses this particular problem. In verse 3 he tells them individually not to think of themselves as better than anybody else. If you are a Jew, don’t look down on Gentiles. If you are Gentile, don’t disregard the Jew. All make up the body. All bring the gifts that God has given for the betterment of each other in common and united fellowship before God.
Furthermore, Paul goes on in verses 9 through 13 to urge conduct in love. Love is the uncoerced desire for the benefit of another that outweighs all other desires, including those for self. This understanding of love is important not only in our relationship with God but in our relationship with others as well. We are to act toward others for their benefit. Notice this doesn’t mean simply not doing them wrong. It means seeking their benefit.
I think we can see the concept best in the marriage relationship. Marriages work best when following Scripture’s instructions. Ephesians 5 tells us first to submit to one another. Further, it specifies that wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. Notice carefully that these instructions are encouraging the same conduct. In both submission and love, we perform to the benefit of the other. In Ephesians 5, Paul is not setting up some hierarchy for marriage management. He is not enamored with the corporate structure that sets a CEO up to control an organization. Paul is giving relationship instruction, highlighting love. Paul says to love as Christ loved the church. How?—by giving Himself for it. That is uncoerced desire for the benefit of another; that is love. And it is not the exclusive conduct of the wife in a marriage to submit any more than it is the exclusive conduct of the husband in a marriage to love. In a mutual love relationship in which each spouse seeks the benefit of the other, the marriage succeeds. And thus it is in the church as well.
Chapter 13 begins with another appropriate topic for the Christians in Rome. The Roman government was not perfect. But Paul discusses the attitude of the Christian toward government. Ideally, government is established to maintain societal order, upholding good and punishing evil. But governments are made of people, and people are fallible. Paul’s point here is that the Christian, in accepting government order, cannot pick and choose to disobey or follow based on either whim or grievance with a specific function. Live at peace and under the law. Although not always right, governments are controlled by our sovereign God. Work to change government in the ways you can. But disobeying law (except in cases of following God’s law) should not be an option for the Christian.
I think Paul here has in mind his conclusion in chapter 7. Remember there he says in verse 25 that “I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” That’s why here in Romans 12 he emphasizes the body. He is not suddenly changing his mind to conclude Christianity is a works-based religion. Rather, he has already argued that our souls (spirit/mind) have, in faith, been brought to Christ, settling salvation. But because that is true we should present our bodies to God as well while we continue in this state of corrupted flesh among a corrupt world. That is, indeed, the focus of this last section of the epistle. Romans 12-16 teaches practical living based on our position in Christ.
Notice that verse 1 says specifically that presenting our bodies is our “spiritual worship.” The words translated here spiritual worship, I think, are better translated in the KJV as “reasonable service.” The connotation here is that it is a reasonable or rational deduction that the previous discussion should impel us toward giving ourselves not only in mind but in body as well to God’s service. Verse 2 appears to say the same thing in a slightly different manner. Paul urges us not to continue doing (using the body) those things of the world—those things that are at enmity with God. But rather “by the renewal of the mind” (remember 7:25 and the service of the mind), dedicate our conduct to those things good and acceptable to God. This is a perfect transition from the concept, logic, and philosophy of Christianity to the practical, living out of our Christianity.
Verse 3 continues the transition. Chapters 9 through 11 clearly helped us understand the gathering together of Jews and Gentiles within the covenant. Paul now tells us to live like we understand that concept. Under the emperor Claudius, Jews had been expelled from Rome (~AD 49). After Claudius’ death in AD 54, Jews were allowed back in Rome. The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul somewhere between AD 55 and 57, thus after the return of Jews to Rome. This is probably one of the reasons Paul wrote the letter and emphasized the one body of believers. Gentile Christians in Rome were undoubtedly influenced by their society (as Christians of today are influenced by ours). Lingering thoughts of being “better” than the Jews may have lived in their conscious or subconscious minds. Claudius and the Romans had preached that the Jews were untrustworthy, malevolent, and generally not on par with proper society. Now the Jews were filtering back into Rome, and Jewish Christians were filtering back into the Roman churches. The Gentile Christians undoubtedly accepted them, but perhaps not without some disdain.
On the other hand, many Jewish Christians still carried their baggage of privileged heritage. They, as a people, had for generations held the “oracles of God.” They were known as “God’s people.” And this attitude of superiority certainly brushed up against the Gentile Christians’ own superior attitude creating tension. Throughout the epistle so far, Paul has been telling them they are one group in Christ. Now at the beginning of his section on practical living, Paul quickly addresses this particular problem. In verse 3 he tells them individually not to think of themselves as better than anybody else. If you are a Jew, don’t look down on Gentiles. If you are Gentile, don’t disregard the Jew. All make up the body. All bring the gifts that God has given for the betterment of each other in common and united fellowship before God.
Furthermore, Paul goes on in verses 9 through 13 to urge conduct in love. Love is the uncoerced desire for the benefit of another that outweighs all other desires, including those for self. This understanding of love is important not only in our relationship with God but in our relationship with others as well. We are to act toward others for their benefit. Notice this doesn’t mean simply not doing them wrong. It means seeking their benefit.
I think we can see the concept best in the marriage relationship. Marriages work best when following Scripture’s instructions. Ephesians 5 tells us first to submit to one another. Further, it specifies that wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. Notice carefully that these instructions are encouraging the same conduct. In both submission and love, we perform to the benefit of the other. In Ephesians 5, Paul is not setting up some hierarchy for marriage management. He is not enamored with the corporate structure that sets a CEO up to control an organization. Paul is giving relationship instruction, highlighting love. Paul says to love as Christ loved the church. How?—by giving Himself for it. That is uncoerced desire for the benefit of another; that is love. And it is not the exclusive conduct of the wife in a marriage to submit any more than it is the exclusive conduct of the husband in a marriage to love. In a mutual love relationship in which each spouse seeks the benefit of the other, the marriage succeeds. And thus it is in the church as well.
Chapter 13 begins with another appropriate topic for the Christians in Rome. The Roman government was not perfect. But Paul discusses the attitude of the Christian toward government. Ideally, government is established to maintain societal order, upholding good and punishing evil. But governments are made of people, and people are fallible. Paul’s point here is that the Christian, in accepting government order, cannot pick and choose to disobey or follow based on either whim or grievance with a specific function. Live at peace and under the law. Although not always right, governments are controlled by our sovereign God. Work to change government in the ways you can. But disobeying law (except in cases of following God’s law) should not be an option for the Christian.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Romans 9-11 - The People of God 7/10/08
We learn from the last part of Romans 9 that God will keep a remnant of Israel although He cries out in Hosea that they (the nation) are no longer His people. Understanding the reason for the dismissal of the nation and the election of a remnant is not only the focus and climax of the Romans letter in chapters 9 through 11, but it is the very conjoining bridge of the old covenant and the new.
The old covenant, made with Abraham and his offspring (specifically through Isaac and Jacob) was broken by every physical descendant of Abraham who ever lived. God declares it broken in Jeremiah 31:31-32. God declares the nation no longer His in Hosea 1:9. Yet, even with these firm, all-encompassing declarations, we know that when the covenant was first established, God made it clear that He would fulfill its obligations by passing through the cut animals of the covenant by Himself (Gen 15:17; see also post “Covenant Theology – 5/15/08”). How was this accomplished? It was accomplished by the one descendant of Abraham who did not break the covenant but rather fulfilled it in every aspect. That one is Christ. Christ, who is God, fulfilled the covenant as God promised to do.
Christ, then, through the new covenant and His atoning sacrificing of Himself, provides the righteous covenant fulfillment to His elect—those God chose by faith. These elect, joined to Christ through the new covenant, become heirs with Christ of the old covenant blessings of life, land, law, and leadership. This is the focus of Romans 9-11.
Chapter 10 continues to show that the national Jews failed to attain covenant perfection because they attempted to do so through works. But then the chapter changes focus to the Gentiles. Paul wonders for the Jews, how are the Gentiles—people who did not believe in Him as the Jews had—ever going to be able to know Him enough to call on Him? Paul then cites Old Testament references to show that God has worked through the world to make Himself known while the people of Israel continued to be disobedient.
But there is hope for Israel too—not as a nation, but as a remnant of that nation—as individuals who, just like the Gentiles, can turn to Christ. The great olive tree analogy shows us this remarkable uniting of the people of God. The olive tree is the covenant. The Jews had been broken off because of unbelief (failure to keep the covenant obligations). Gentiles—who had not initially been part of the covenant—have been grafted in through Christ, the only covenant-keeper. But the broken off Jews can also be grafted back in through Christ. The emphasis here concludes Paul’s argument to the Jews since the opening of the book. It is not heritage, nationality, works, or any other physical means whereby they can receive the covenant blessings; it is through Christ and Christ alone. Through Him the remnant partakes. Through Him the Gentiles receive covenant blessing.
And God’s calling and election are sure. The fullness of the Gentiles (all those to be saved) will come about (11:25). Likewise, the fullness of Israel (all those to be saved) will come about (11:26). How exactly do these things come about? They are realized as Romans 11:27 says—by the Deliverer (Christ) taking away their sins. Notice carefully, that this very consequence has occurred in actuality ever since Christ arose. There is nothing in this passage speaking of a future miraculous event whereby God’s focus turns exclusively to Israel and every living Jew becomes a Christian. That is not found in the context of this passage at all. What we find is exactly what the climax of Scripture is about—the atoning redemption of Christ applied to the elect of faith. This is our hope. This was Israel’s hope from the beginning and throughout the Old Testament although they were too blind to see. These Jews were seeking some brilliance for their nation (and for themselves) as deserving of unusual and exalted praise. But it is not the nation that God raised up for blessing and honor and glory and power. It is Christ—the King of kings and Lord of lords—who is the focus for all praise. Somehow, some Christians still seem to want Israel exalted. But the Jews and the Gentiles united together in Christ have become the one people of God who bring Him the glory. There is now one covenant, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. And it is all made possible through the one Covenant-Keeper, our Brother, Friend, Redeemer, Lord, and King, Jesus Christ.
The old covenant, made with Abraham and his offspring (specifically through Isaac and Jacob) was broken by every physical descendant of Abraham who ever lived. God declares it broken in Jeremiah 31:31-32. God declares the nation no longer His in Hosea 1:9. Yet, even with these firm, all-encompassing declarations, we know that when the covenant was first established, God made it clear that He would fulfill its obligations by passing through the cut animals of the covenant by Himself (Gen 15:17; see also post “Covenant Theology – 5/15/08”). How was this accomplished? It was accomplished by the one descendant of Abraham who did not break the covenant but rather fulfilled it in every aspect. That one is Christ. Christ, who is God, fulfilled the covenant as God promised to do.
Christ, then, through the new covenant and His atoning sacrificing of Himself, provides the righteous covenant fulfillment to His elect—those God chose by faith. These elect, joined to Christ through the new covenant, become heirs with Christ of the old covenant blessings of life, land, law, and leadership. This is the focus of Romans 9-11.
Chapter 10 continues to show that the national Jews failed to attain covenant perfection because they attempted to do so through works. But then the chapter changes focus to the Gentiles. Paul wonders for the Jews, how are the Gentiles—people who did not believe in Him as the Jews had—ever going to be able to know Him enough to call on Him? Paul then cites Old Testament references to show that God has worked through the world to make Himself known while the people of Israel continued to be disobedient.
But there is hope for Israel too—not as a nation, but as a remnant of that nation—as individuals who, just like the Gentiles, can turn to Christ. The great olive tree analogy shows us this remarkable uniting of the people of God. The olive tree is the covenant. The Jews had been broken off because of unbelief (failure to keep the covenant obligations). Gentiles—who had not initially been part of the covenant—have been grafted in through Christ, the only covenant-keeper. But the broken off Jews can also be grafted back in through Christ. The emphasis here concludes Paul’s argument to the Jews since the opening of the book. It is not heritage, nationality, works, or any other physical means whereby they can receive the covenant blessings; it is through Christ and Christ alone. Through Him the remnant partakes. Through Him the Gentiles receive covenant blessing.
And God’s calling and election are sure. The fullness of the Gentiles (all those to be saved) will come about (11:25). Likewise, the fullness of Israel (all those to be saved) will come about (11:26). How exactly do these things come about? They are realized as Romans 11:27 says—by the Deliverer (Christ) taking away their sins. Notice carefully, that this very consequence has occurred in actuality ever since Christ arose. There is nothing in this passage speaking of a future miraculous event whereby God’s focus turns exclusively to Israel and every living Jew becomes a Christian. That is not found in the context of this passage at all. What we find is exactly what the climax of Scripture is about—the atoning redemption of Christ applied to the elect of faith. This is our hope. This was Israel’s hope from the beginning and throughout the Old Testament although they were too blind to see. These Jews were seeking some brilliance for their nation (and for themselves) as deserving of unusual and exalted praise. But it is not the nation that God raised up for blessing and honor and glory and power. It is Christ—the King of kings and Lord of lords—who is the focus for all praise. Somehow, some Christians still seem to want Israel exalted. But the Jews and the Gentiles united together in Christ have become the one people of God who bring Him the glory. There is now one covenant, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. And it is all made possible through the one Covenant-Keeper, our Brother, Friend, Redeemer, Lord, and King, Jesus Christ.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Romans 9 - God's Sovereign Election - 7/3/08
Election, the choosing by God of those to whom redemption will be applied, occurred before the world began. This election involves the “middle knowledge” of God (knowledge of potentiality, as opposed to necessary knowledge—truths not dependent on God’s will—and free knowledge—truths dependent on God’s will). God created for His glory based on establishing relationship with His creatures. He did not just create Adam and Eve for this relationship. He created all people—knowing all of us in this potential (middle knowledge) of perfect relationship (without the fall). Each person that ever would exist was known by God before creation in each person’s own multifaceted, distinct character, personality, intellect, etc. The fall affected all people in the same way in its total corruption of awareness of spiritual good, but it affected all people differently in its impact on our distinct character, personality, intellect, etc. God’s revelation, therefore, providing spiritual awareness of righteousness in Romans 1 and spiritual awareness beyond that in dealing with each human being, brings about different responses based on those distinctions of each individual. God’s election, then, is not based either on a haphazard random choosing (strict Calvinism) nor merely on God’s foreknowledge concerning whether a person, left to his/her own free will, will choose God (Arminianism), but rather on the combination of (1) the distinctions with which God created a person in that counterfactual world of potentiality, (2) the destructive influences of sin’s curse on those individual distinctions, and (3) the revelatory work of God in the individual. Therefore, God’s foreknowledge of the faith produced by God’s work of creation and God’s grace in revealing spiritual righteousness becomes the basis for His election. This, then, marries the principles of salvation being all of God, yet requiring the responsibility of mankind to have faith. This is faith electionism.
With this understanding of election, we approach Romans 9 to see whether the detailed discussion of this chapter concerning sovereignty and election argues against this understanding or supports it. Romans 9 begins with Paul’s deep concern for his fellow kinsmen—national Israel. He wishes that they could be saved. But he also says that to them belonged the adoption, glory, covenants, and promises (among other things). These statements at first glance seem somewhat contradictory. How can the nation hold the promises of the covenant and yet Paul be concerned that they not be accursed? Our understanding of the covenants and their application provides the answer. National Israel did fail in their covenant relationship (Jeremiah 31:32). But Paul quickly declares in Romans 9:6 that it was not the word of God that failed, that is, the covenant did not dissolve and God does not back out of the promises—even though national Israel did not, is not, and will not receive them. God’s covenant holds because God fulfilled the obligations through Christ and has ordained (according to His sovereign choice) that those of faith in Christ would be adopted as children, inheriting the covenant blessings given to Christ as covenant-fulfiller.
Romans 9, then, is this very discussion about God’s sovereign right to give the covenant blessings earned by Christ to whomever He will. Paul begins his defense of this concept by showing that even from the beginning—from Abraham—it has always been a determined choice by God, not of physical heritage or works, but by God’s own sovereign will that blessing was given. Isaac was chosen instead of Ishmael although both were Abraham’s physical seed. Jacob was chosen instead of Esau although, again, both were in the physical line. And why did God choose Jacob?—not for any meritorious work. He chose Jacob before Jacob was born—before the foundation of the world.
This fits with our doctrine of election. God’s choice was first of all not haphazardly random. God chose based on His oft-emphasized focus on faith. God, in His sovereign foreknowledge, knew that He had created Jacob in such a way (through his distinctions of character, personality, intellect, etc.) that although fallen, God, through His interaction of grace in revelation, could produce in Jacob necessary faith for relationship. So God elected Jacob; God loved Jacob, and God hated Esau, who because of the skewed distinctions in his corrupt state would rebel against God even in the face of God’s revelatory grace.
Notice that Paul’s quote from Malachi about God’s love of Jacob and hatred for Esau was originally given in regard to the nations that came from these two. That also fits with our understanding of election in that those distinctions that God created in Jacob are distinctions passed genetically to his heritage, allowing God’s revelatory grace to effect faith in many of Jacob’s offspring.
Paul’s argument continues as he insists that God is just in His choice by faith and not by works for the mere fact that God can choose to apply His love to whomever He wishes. The faithless, like Esau and Pharoah, may be hardened (i.e., God draws away just as in Romans 1 to “give them over” to depravity in their corrupted nature).
To the hypothesized question, “Why does he still find fault?” Paul answers astutely according to God’s ultimate prioritized will that was responsible for creation in the first place. The rejected one cannot turn to God and say “Why have you made me like this?” (9:20). God made each person with each person’s individual distinctions for a good, right, and beautiful relationship with Him. Sin corrupted that. And sin’s corruptions in these people, in altering from God’s good, right, and beautiful purpose, are what caused the insurmountable rebellion that will reject God’s grace at every advance. These, then, are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (9:22). Those of faith, God’s elect, are prepared for glory.
These elect, Paul goes on to say in verses 24 through 26, made of Jews and Gentiles, are the very ones who fulfill Hosea’s prophecy of those who would be called the children of God. God made clear through Hosea that He would have “No Mercy” on Israel. Of them God insisted “You are not My People.” God was not two-faced about Israel, at one time condemning and then accepting them. This passage Paul is using to show God’s sovereignty in applying the covenant fulfillment of Christ to whomever He sovereignly chooses. And He chose those of faith—as Paul says, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.”
With this understanding of election, we approach Romans 9 to see whether the detailed discussion of this chapter concerning sovereignty and election argues against this understanding or supports it. Romans 9 begins with Paul’s deep concern for his fellow kinsmen—national Israel. He wishes that they could be saved. But he also says that to them belonged the adoption, glory, covenants, and promises (among other things). These statements at first glance seem somewhat contradictory. How can the nation hold the promises of the covenant and yet Paul be concerned that they not be accursed? Our understanding of the covenants and their application provides the answer. National Israel did fail in their covenant relationship (Jeremiah 31:32). But Paul quickly declares in Romans 9:6 that it was not the word of God that failed, that is, the covenant did not dissolve and God does not back out of the promises—even though national Israel did not, is not, and will not receive them. God’s covenant holds because God fulfilled the obligations through Christ and has ordained (according to His sovereign choice) that those of faith in Christ would be adopted as children, inheriting the covenant blessings given to Christ as covenant-fulfiller.
Romans 9, then, is this very discussion about God’s sovereign right to give the covenant blessings earned by Christ to whomever He will. Paul begins his defense of this concept by showing that even from the beginning—from Abraham—it has always been a determined choice by God, not of physical heritage or works, but by God’s own sovereign will that blessing was given. Isaac was chosen instead of Ishmael although both were Abraham’s physical seed. Jacob was chosen instead of Esau although, again, both were in the physical line. And why did God choose Jacob?—not for any meritorious work. He chose Jacob before Jacob was born—before the foundation of the world.
This fits with our doctrine of election. God’s choice was first of all not haphazardly random. God chose based on His oft-emphasized focus on faith. God, in His sovereign foreknowledge, knew that He had created Jacob in such a way (through his distinctions of character, personality, intellect, etc.) that although fallen, God, through His interaction of grace in revelation, could produce in Jacob necessary faith for relationship. So God elected Jacob; God loved Jacob, and God hated Esau, who because of the skewed distinctions in his corrupt state would rebel against God even in the face of God’s revelatory grace.
Notice that Paul’s quote from Malachi about God’s love of Jacob and hatred for Esau was originally given in regard to the nations that came from these two. That also fits with our understanding of election in that those distinctions that God created in Jacob are distinctions passed genetically to his heritage, allowing God’s revelatory grace to effect faith in many of Jacob’s offspring.
Paul’s argument continues as he insists that God is just in His choice by faith and not by works for the mere fact that God can choose to apply His love to whomever He wishes. The faithless, like Esau and Pharoah, may be hardened (i.e., God draws away just as in Romans 1 to “give them over” to depravity in their corrupted nature).
To the hypothesized question, “Why does he still find fault?” Paul answers astutely according to God’s ultimate prioritized will that was responsible for creation in the first place. The rejected one cannot turn to God and say “Why have you made me like this?” (9:20). God made each person with each person’s individual distinctions for a good, right, and beautiful relationship with Him. Sin corrupted that. And sin’s corruptions in these people, in altering from God’s good, right, and beautiful purpose, are what caused the insurmountable rebellion that will reject God’s grace at every advance. These, then, are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (9:22). Those of faith, God’s elect, are prepared for glory.
These elect, Paul goes on to say in verses 24 through 26, made of Jews and Gentiles, are the very ones who fulfill Hosea’s prophecy of those who would be called the children of God. God made clear through Hosea that He would have “No Mercy” on Israel. Of them God insisted “You are not My People.” God was not two-faced about Israel, at one time condemning and then accepting them. This passage Paul is using to show God’s sovereignty in applying the covenant fulfillment of Christ to whomever He sovereignly chooses. And He chose those of faith—as Paul says, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
