Chapel at LCS

Given at LCS on 11/30 for 6th-12th grade...

You may put away your Bibles. Please take a hymnal from the pew in front of you and open with me to the following numbers:

533

Sing the wondrous love of Jesus, sing his mercy and his grace, in the mansions bright and blessed He’ll prepare for us a place When we all get to heaven What a day of rejoicing that will be When we all see Jesus we’ll sing and should the victory

311

This world is not my home I’m just a passing through my treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue The angels beckon me from heaven’s open door an I can’t feel at home in this world anymore O Lord you know I have no friend like you if heaven’s not my home then Lord what will I do? The angels beckon me from heaven’s open door and I can’t feel at home in this world anymore v.4 Just up in glory land we’ll live eternally The saints on every hand are shouting victory Their songs of sweetest praise drift back from heaven’s shore and I can’t feel at home in this world anymore

536

Don’t think me poor or deserted or lonely I’m not discouraged I’m heaven bound I’m just a pilgrim in search of a city I want a mansion a robe and a crown I’ve got a mansion just over the hilltop In a bright land where we’ll never grow old And someday yonder we will nevermore wander But walk the streets that are purest gold.

What’s going to happen to you after you die?

Most Christians, including myself for a very long time, have assumed that the great question about death is how to get to heaven when we die—to escape this earth and to go off somewhere else to live eternally. Yet the New Testament says very little to support this idea. Before we get into the New Testament we’re going to get some context from other ancient literature about life after death. The first example is the Iliad, which many of you have been studying recently. If you don’t know about the Iliad, it was one of the most important texts for the ancient Greeks. This is the view of death in the very beginning of Iliad chapter 1.

1) Iliad

 Sing, O goddess, the destroying wrath of Achilleus Peleiades, which brought innumberable woes upon the Achaians, and flung forth to Hades many valiant souls (psuchas) of heroes, and made the men themselves (autous) spoil to all vultures and hounds, and accomplished the will of Zeus.

When we use the word “soul” in English, we use it to refer to the “real” person, to which the body is an outer shell. We call the soul immortal, and the person that is “Mr. Smith” or “Mrs. Wendlant” or “Ethan Paszko” dwells within the flesh and blood that we see. In the ancient world, it was very much the other way around. Homer says that the souls of the heroes went to Hades and when he writes a visit there later in Odyssey book 11 he describes not disembodied “persons,” but merely echoes—they’re often translated as “shades.” They can’t speak in anything but gibberish unless given an offering of human blood—sort of like my percussionists--and their dwelling is in Hades, which is the home of both the righteous and the wicked, not at all like our heaven and hell. It’s a permanent stupor where only the faintest memory of the real person carries on. By contrast, the men themselves (autous) lie on the battlefield being picked apart by vultures and dogs. Do you see what’s happened? The ancient world has it the other way around from us. The physical body is the real person, and the spiritual substance that survives is only a grotesque memory, like bones in a grave. Next is a passage from Plato’s Apologia. The philosopher Socrates has been put on trial before the Athenian senate, and has just received news that his death sentence was confirmed. This is an extraordinarily sad and beautiful passage as he reflects on his own imminent death.

2) Apologia

Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good…as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another…if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead abide, what good can be greater than this?

Socrates’ description sounds quite a bit like what most Christians believe! Does the soul pass on from this world to a spiritual place the dead live together in peace? We don’t have time to examine the rest of Plato’s writings, but if we did we’d find them to be dualistic. That means this world, the visible, physical world is bad, and the spiritual world is good and desirable. In short, the goal of a dualist/Platonist is to escape this world and to become more and more spiritual until passing off into the spiritual world altogether into death. This is the sort of view you’d expect from the hymns we read, isn’t it? “This world is not my home?”  “I’ll see you across the golden shore?” “We’ll meet when we all get to heaven?” Dualism is the view of life after death we have accepted in place of the New Testament view.  The New Testament view is all about one thing: resurrection. We’ll get to that in a moment, but we’re going to look first at one more ancient text, chapter 7 of II Maccabees, a Jewish book about the defeat of the Syrian megalomaniac Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who was the sort of man you might expect to be the child of Darth Vader and Lord Voldemort. Antiochus defiled the Jewish temple, in this rather grisly story about seven brothers and their mother being tortured to death for their faith you’ll hear what the Jews of the 2^nd century thought about life after death.

3) II Maccabees

The king brought the brothers and their mother before him and tortured them, and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly. The king killed the first brother, and then did the same to the second, who with his dying breath said to Antiochus: ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.’ When the third brother was brought forward he held forth his hands and said ‘I got these from Heaven, and because of [God’s]  laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again. Then the dying fourth brother said: ‘One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!’ And all the rest died similarly…
To sum up, we read a passage from Homer which expressed a belief that the soul only carried on as an echo. We read a passage from Plato that said the disembodied soul was the real self and the hope for eternity. And last we read of this Jewish hope of a great resurrection of the righteous at the end of history. It’s expressed in the dry bones of Ezekiel 37 and the dead rising to shine like stars in Daniel 12, and it was, until the 1^st century, unique to Judaism. And then, something happened that Death did not expect. A small group of peasants and fishermen, after their leader was executed under Pontius Pilate, came out and declared that one man had already been resurrected from the dead right in the middle of history, and they began to write and talk about their own resurrection as well. Let’s take a look at what St. Paul says about resurrection in I Corinthians 15. (p. 1139 in your pew bibles)
³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time,
We don’t have the time to do a full analysis of of Jesus’ resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—a difficult task anyway—but remember three points about Easter morning. 1) Jesus really was dead on the cross and in the tomb. 2) Jesus was bodily raised. His hands can be touched. He was recognizable to those who know him. He could eat a piece of boiled fish. 3) Even though he returned in his body, it was changed in strange ways—Jesus apparently traveled great distances instantly, passed through a locked door, and could disguise his physical appearance and “reveal” it to the disciples he encountered—but it was a physical body, which was witnessed by well over 500 people. Let’s return to the text in verse 12.

The Resurrection of the Dead

¹² Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? Paul goes on to argue that if there is no resurrection, therefore Christ was not raised, and then in verse 17: ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in Christ we have hope^[b] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
I don’t doubt that you all believe in the resurrection, but if we buy into what some of those hymns are saying we are passing on the resurrection—we are passing on reclaiming our physical bodies.
²⁰ But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the (first installment) of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹ For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive……²⁶ The last enemy to be destroyed is death
Note that through Adam came the curse of the body dying.  Jesus works out that problem, defeats death, and offers the promise that our bodies will be made alive. Now you and I will all die at some point, because we still must pass through it—but the promise of Jesus is that we’ll come out the other side. That’s what resurrection is.
²⁹ Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? ³⁰ Why are we in danger every hour? ³¹ I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! ³² What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” ³³ Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”^{[d] 34} Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
Ask me about vv. 29-34 sometime in private for an explanation

The Resurrection Body

³⁵ But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” ³⁶ You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. ³⁷ And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. ³⁸ But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ³⁹ For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. ⁴⁰ There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. ⁴¹ There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
Paul compares it to a seed that goes into the ground and dies.
⁴² So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. ⁴³ It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. ⁴⁴ It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. ⁴⁵ Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;^[e] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. ⁴⁶ But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. ⁴⁷ The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. ⁴⁸ As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. ⁴⁹ Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall^[f] also bear the image of the man of heaven.
So what about natural and spiritual? Is Paul saying that the resurrected body is spiritual only? If you are reading from your own bible and have a pencil with you, you might want to take it out and make some notes about these words. Verse 44 reads that “it is sown a natural body,” and the word that the translator has rendered “natural” is psuchikon. In contrast, it is raised a spiritual body, which is a translation of pneumatikon. If you’re reading the RSV or NRSV, I believe that your translator decided on physical, and then spiritual. No matter what translation you’re holding there’s a twofold problem that’s led to some confusion about what St. Paul is really saying. The first problem is just deciding on how to take the word Paul was using in the 1^st century and then to translate them in a way that conveys the closest possible meaning in 21^st century English. The adjective psuchikon in the first part of the verse comes from the Greek noun psuche, which is translated throughout the rest of the New Testament as “soul” or “life.” (As in, what does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his psuche? Or, you fool this very night your psuche is required of you) Psuche is the same word that we heard in the Iliad passage we read, when we heard that the souls of the warriors—the echoes of them—went down to Hades while the men survived. The second word, pneumatikos, is an adjective from “pneuma,” which is spirit throughout the New Testament, as in the Holy Spirit, the hagia pneuma.  The most literal translation you can get of this verse is “it is sown a soulish body, but raised a spiritual body.” This brings us to our second difficulty in translating this passage—there’s no clear way to render in English that Paul is describing the animation, and not the composition of the bodies. For example, when I offer you a balloon, I can describe the composition of the balloon by calling it a rubber balloon or a leather balloon, but I can describe it’s animation by calling it a helium or a hydrogen balloon. What Paul writes in vv. 44 is that even though our bodies are sown with the soul—our own broken personhood and frailty as its animating principle—the animating principle when it is raised will be the Spirit, with a capital S. Please read it again with me in this light. It is sown a body animated by ourself our own soul, but it is raised a body animated by the spirit. And if there is a body that is animated by the soul, there will be a body which is animated by the spirit. The first man Adam became a living life…a living soul…a living being psuche. And the last Adam became a life giving pneuma. But it isn’t the spirit first and then the soulish, rather the soulish, and then the spiritual can come. The first man was animated from the dust of the earth, but the second man from heaven.

Mystery and Victory

⁵¹ Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. ⁵³ For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. ⁵⁴ When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
⁵⁵ “O death, where is your victory?
    O death, where is your sting?”

Death must be swallowed up in victory. It is not a victory to jettison our bodies and exist only as disembodied spiritual vapor. That is the definition of death. Victory over death is to undo what death and corruption tried to do, not only in us but in all of God’s good creation. Victory over death, which we share with the death-conqueror Jesus, is the ultimate undoing of Death and eternal life in the resurrected body and the restored creation.

III.

So what? Here are six thoughts about what this means for you who are sitting here in the pews.

1. First, your ultimate hope is not to escape from this earth when you die and to live in heaven forever. Your ultimate hope is that after you’ve died God will resurrect you from the dead, just as he resurrected Jesus. These hands, these faces, and these fingernails have hope for eternal life. (The idea that you’re the steward of a body with an eternal future ought in itself to convince you to never eat fast-food burgers again)
2. Secondly, we’ve pushed back hard against the idea of heaven as a final destination, but this is not to distress those of you who have lost a loved one or know Christians who have passed away. While the New Testament doesn’t have anything to say about a disembodied heaven as our ultimate home, it does promise very clearly that those who die are “with Christ” in some sense, basking in the comfort of his presence. Life after death for the believer absolutely involves heavenly comfort. What we’re talking about when we discuss the resurrection is life after “life after death.”
3. Thirdly, it is your task going forward from here to think about this stuff again before Easter 2013. You need to be, in a humble and loving way, critical thinkers when you sing worship songs, listen to sermons, and read jokes about three men standing before St. Peter and pearly gates. Study the relevant biblical passages, and—again, in humility and gentleness—examine every lyric you sing and every book you read to see whether it is in harmony with Biblical theology or dualism.
4. Fourthly, if you take seriously the notion that God will resurrect not only your own bodies, but will also fulfill his promise s in Romans 8 and Revelation 20&21 to restore all of creation, the task of caring for God’s good earth is much more important and interesting. I know that many to most of you in this room are Republicans, and American Republicans have not always done a very good job acknowledging the real dangers to God’s creation. Environmental concerns are thought to be the business of the Left. If God wants to redeem and remake and heal his whole creation, we can’t treat it like it’s all going to be chucked into dustbin, as if therefore strip-mining and whaling and polluting don’t matter
5. Fifthly, on a related note, a robust resurrection theology makes some punctures in the Left Behind view of the end times, where we all get raptured away from the Earth, and it doesn’t matter since God blows it up at Armageddon anyway. This is deeply controversial stuff, and I won’t pretend to have all the answers. I will say, however, if staying faithful to I Cor. 15 is damaging to our assumptions about the end times, so much the worse for our assumptions about the end times—let’s begin reworking them in light of the resurrection hope we share in Jesus.
6. Finally and most importantly, it all comes back to Jesus. Read the gospel accounts of his resurrection. That’s the hope we have. That’s what we believe is going to happen to us and to the world. And what happened to Jesus wasn’t just a divine magic trick to pull one over on the Pharisees who thought they’d finally gotten the best of him—the resurrection of the crucified son of God was and is the key to God’s plan to rescue us and creation. If escaping off to heaven isn’t the name of the game, what is it? It’s the stone rolling back and the resurrected Jesus coming out of the tomb.

I’ve covered quite a bit in the last 20 minutes, and I’ve done so with very broad-brush strokes. This is such explosive stuff, and I’ve left out and summarized so much, there must be some questions. We’re going to pray, and then I’d like you to take 30 seconds to buzz with the person on your left and 30 seconds to buzz with the person on your right about one or two things you found interesting, exciting, confusing, or heretical, and then we’ll gather in again and have a few minutes for questions and comments.

Heavenly father, we praise you for the mighty victory you have won over death for us and for all your creation in raising your son Jesus from the dead. We pray that you would give us wisdom and understanding to work this amazing event out in our own lives and in the world around us. Help us to be resurrection people, and sustain us in our hope that you will one day clothe us with immortality and animate us with your holy spirit. We thank you for the incredible hope with which you have blessed us, we thank you in all the joy that comes with that hope, but most of all we acknowledge your great and eternal love made manifest in your Messiah. Bless us and our work this day. We pray these things in the mighty name of Jesus the death-conqueror and our great King, Amen.

LCS Devotions: Kingdom

With credit to Dr. Wright:

A few years ago I noticed how often I came up against the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” in my reading of the New Testament. It bothered me that I understood the term in only a shadowy sort of way, especially since it seemed always to be connected to Jesus. We don’t sing about it very often in our songs, and I noticed that when Christians talk about the “gospel”—a term which was almost always connected to the “good news of the kingdom” in the New Testament—we have a lot to say about atonement theology and almost nothing to say about this “kingdom of Heaven,” at least not in any way connected to mustard seeds and pearls of great price. In each of the synoptic gospels, Jesus talked about the kingdom almost exclusively. In fact, the first words of his public ministry were “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is near.” (I take it for granted, by the way, that kingdom of Heaven is an interchangeable term with kingdom of God, but that Matthew, observing Jewish scruples, didn’t write the name of God.)

So what might this kingdom of God be about? I’ve heard several explanations that I find unconvincing. Most commonly, that the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” is a shorthand way of expressing “getting saved and going to heaven when you die.” That’s not a bad guess based on what most of us think Jesus was concerned with, but when you try to plug that meaning into the actual texts it doesn’t fit. In the big mainline churches you’ll hear a lot about the kingdom of God when people talk about soup kitchens and other types of humanitarian work. I think that the kingdom work is certainly no less than that, but I’m also pretty sure that it’s more than kindness to small children, old ladies, and stray dogs. It isn’t inner peace of mind, and even though there’s certainly an eschatological element to Jesus’ kingdom teaching, it doesn’t seem to be about the destruction of the space-time continuum either. So if it isn’t “getting saved and going to heaven,” and it isn’t “doing acts of kindness and making the world a better place,” what might this kingdom project be?

If we only had the New Testament documents to examine, it would be hard to answer that question, because no one at any point in the New Testament stops and writes out an exact definition of what the kingdom would look like and why everyone is so excited about it. We do, however, have plenty of other sources from the time and culture of the New Testament, and they are also filled with writings about the kingdom. After looking at those sorts of sources, starting with the literature of the Maccabees, we can get a much clearer picture of what the Jewish expectations were concerning the kingdom of God, and the ways in which Jesus was in continuity with those hopes and also in subversion of those hopes.

The major problems for the Jewish people in the last few centuries B.C. were their Temple, their Land, and their Torah. If you picture yourself as a citizen in the American colonies in the years before the Revolutionary war, you might be getting close to the Jewish mindset about being ruled by the Romans and by their puppet government, the Hasmonean dynasty. (the Herods of the New Testament) In this political climate the people began to talk of the Kingdom of God over and against the Kingdom of Rome. This wasn’t a spiritual or abstract idea at all—the Jews firmly believed that YHWH was their one true ruler and hoped for his enthronement (and Caesar’s defeat) in real time and in the real world. Furthermore, the temple had to be the place for their god-king. Even though a temple had been built when they returned from the Babylonian exile, the presence of YHWH had never returned to dwell there as it had during the time of Solomon when Israel was a mighty nation and YHWH did rule them through his servant-kings. Last of all, the land and the people had to be cleansed of their pagan impurities, most likely through a return to faithful observance of Torah, against the Roman and Hellenistic encroachments on true Torah-keeping. In short, as long as YHWH had not returned to the temple, the kingdom of God had not yet come. As long as the pagans ruled over Israel, the kingdom of God had not yet come. As long as the whole nation of Israel did not keep Torah together, the kingdom had not yet come. As long as the kingdom was not brought by God’s Messiah, the kingdom had not yet come. The kingdom of God hopes in 1^st century Israel were concrete and specific. To sum up, the Jewish expectation of the kingdom of God was the saving sovereignty of the covenant god exercised in the vindication of Israel and the overthrow of her enemies.

If we fast-forward 60 years or so from this picture to the letters of the early Christians, we see that something curious has happened. The disciples of Jesus and the first wave of Christians are also talking about the kingdom, but in a different sort of way. Imagine a 5-act play. If the Jews were talking about the kingdom as Act 3—awaiting the climax in Act 4 so that they could get onto the business of putting everything right in Act 5—the early Christians had relocated themselves to Act 5. According to them, the kingdom of God had already arrived, and while there was plenty yet to do and certainly some very important eschatological hopes, there was no doubt for them that Jesus had inaugurated God’s reign in a way that fulfilled Israel’s hopes according to the scriptures. Most curiously, the kingdom story was now told with those Jewish hopes reshaped—Israel was no longer the holy land of the covenant god and his people, but now the whole world. The temple in Jerusalem was no longer the dwelling place of the covenant god, but his spirit lived physically in his followers. Torah was no longer the boundary marker of the covenant people and their code for holiness, but grace and forgiveness instead. No one talked of Caesar’s power as something that YHWH would overthrow—in Jesus, it had been overthrown.

What then do we make of Jesus? Was his language about the kingdom a collection of religious teachings about love and grace, preferring inner observance of the heart over outward legal codes? In the context of the writings before and after him, I think we get a more historical and comprehensible alternative. He began his ministry with the announcement of the kingdom arrival. He told short stories and parables about what the kingdom would look like—a mustard seed, yeast, a sower sowing seed, treasure in a field, a merchant looking for pearls. Many of these stories illustrate how the kingdom would grow through a tiny remnant, others how the kingdom-bringer would suffer and be vindicated. He called disciples to himself and acted in highly symbolic ways to evoke Israel’s history. He emphasized that the nearness of the kingdom ought to bring repentance. He told his followers to seek the kingdom first, and to pray that it would come “on earth as it is in heaven.” He said that the kingdom would suffer violence and violent men would try to take it. He said only those born of water and the spirit would enter it. He talked of the new covenant people as critical to the kingdom task. He cleansed the temple of impurities and redefined observance to Torah. Finally, approaching Jerusalem to die, he mourned over the city since it did not know the time of its visitation—it did not know when or how YHWH was returning to the holy city.

How do we make sense of this in any sort of way for our own day? As the people of Jesus, what do we make of a kingdom that Jesus told us to seek first and to pray for on earth as in heaven if that kingdom story was so far removed from us historically and locally? To be frank, I have more questions than answers, and I ask for and invite everyone’s ideas about how this might look. If we begin to engage with Jesus’ kingdom teaching it does enrich our understanding of the cross and resurrection—surely these events were not merely for private salvation and the expiation of personal guilt (although they weren’t anything less than that either) but in some way the cross brings the kingdom. It is the kingdom of God that defeats evil. It is the kingdom of God that brings YHWH into dwelling with his people. It is the kingdom of God that reclaims the whole creation for his dominion. It is the kingdom of God that rewrites the rules on money, sex, and power. It is the kingdom—the reign of God, and of his Messiah, that speaks into any politics we would try to run on our own, Christian or not. And, I believe, it is the kingdom of God that we must make our central task as teachers of young Christians, whether that be through music, math, or Bible. As fellow citizens of that kingdom, I can’t wait to see what that looks like. Let us pray.

Heavenly father, we pray that you would instruct us what is your kingdom and that by your spirit we would have the understanding to seek it first. We pray that your kingdom would come in this world as it is in heaven, and we thank you in all joy and praise that you have made this possible by the victory of your son Jesus. Help us, father, to be imitators of Jesus in all we do, and we pray that we would be worthy dwellings of your spirit. We pray for our students and the work we have before us today. In your great and holy name, Amen.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 11

Chapter 11

1 I say then, has God rejected his people? May it not be! For I myself am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin

Rejected is aposato, which means “pushed aside.” Read in context of the previous argument of chapter 10. Paul’s point in asking this question, then affirming his own ethnic heritage, is to identify the terms of the “remnant.” So then, can any ethnic Jews be saved?

2 God has not rejected his people which he foreknew. Or do you not know in Elijah what the scripture says, that he pleaded to God on account of Israel?

Paul argues here to the precedent of God’s sparing a holy remnant when Israel as a whole was lost. Foreknew is proegno.

3 Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have destroyed your altars, and I alone am left and they seek my life

Quotation is from 1 Kings 19.

4 But what did the oracle say to him? I have kept to myself seven thousand men, which did not bow a knee to Baal

Oracle is chrematismos.

5 In this way then even in the present time there has become a remnant chosen by grace

Remnant is leimma, chosen eklogen. “In this way” is houtos, which is vitally important to how we understand v. 25. Here, as there, it functions as the conclusion of an argument by demonstrating manner, not time.

6 And if by grace, neither by works, since grace would no longer by grace

The definition of grace precludes the possibility of election by national privilege—works of Torah. Therefore the remnant is not defined in this way, but rather by charitos

7 What then, what Israel sought, this it did not obtain, and the chosen found it, but the rest were hardened

Chosen is again ekloge. As shown in 9:30-31, the unlikely according to birth have found that which ethnic Israel thought it would claim for itself. Note here that what is being “sought” must be covenant membership—dikaiosune; not a personal deliverance from the guilt of sin. Otherwise the remnant language makes no sense.

8 Even as it is written God gave to them a sluggish spirit, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, until this very day

Echoing Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and of course, Jesus.

9 And David says Let their table be to them unto snares and unto a trap and unto a stumbling block and unto a retribution

Table is trapeza, which would of course have the implication of a ceremonially clean table from which Gentiles were excluded, for a Jew. Stumbling block is skandalon (cause for sin) again and antapodoma is retribution. (An unfavorable ruling in the law court that must be exacted.) The reference is from Ps. 69/35

10 Let their eyes be darkened not to see and their backs bent forever

Ethnic Israel, called to be a light, is gone dark. Ethnic Israel, which told its own story in terms of liberation and freedom, is by its own sin bent under the yoke of slavery again. But the point of this is not to show an absolute condemnation, but rather to define the terms of the remnant.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they might fall? May it not be! But by their stumble salvation to the Gentiles is come unto their being made jealous

Here Paul makes his case for “some hope yet.” I think this passage is clarified further in the terms of his practical purpose in writing the letter. (Establishing Rome as a missionary base to Spain, as Antioch was to him for Asia Minor.) The following passage is not, as some commentators, a sudden extension of universal salvation back to the Jews after it was retracted in chs. 9-10, but rather a personal note of hope on a deeply painful subject despite the surprising and paradoxical way in which God has acted through the Messiah. Paul doesn’t change his mind in the next 13 verses…rather, upholding his argument throughout the book, he cautions the Roman church against the same mistake by which the Jews excluded themselves. Stumble is eptaisan. Jealous is parazelosai.

12 And if their stumble is riches of the world and their defeat riches of the gentiles, how much more their inclusion

How much more wonderful should it be that a remnant of Jews would be included in the covenant people! This must be told to the Roman church especially in light of the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius, and the retraction of the edict under the newly ascended Nero, which would have brought the Jewish Christians back into an uneasy fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Rome who apparently needed reminding that the gospel was “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”

13 And I speak now to you, Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I myself am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry

Here Paul makes his direct plea to the Gentile party The second half of the sentence is a particularly convoluted bit of Greek. The rhetorical force of the men…de relationship with v. 15 is lost in English, but there should be a sense of “since v. 13B&14…then clearly v. 15.” In short, Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, somehow has a unique ministry to the exiled Jews as well by rousing their jealousy at Gentile inclusion.

14 in order to make my flesh (people) jealous and save some of them

Flesh is sarka, “Israel-according-to-the flesh.” Save is soso. Implication is that kai has a thereby or “thus” effect.

15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what would their acceptance be but life from the dead?

If by the rejection of the Messiah (and here you see a reference to everything about the aggregation of sin/trespass in the argument in ch. 7 referenced AND the idea of Jesus as the representative of Israel according to the flesh) is the means of reconciling the world into God’s family, how much more would the resurrection of Israel from their death in sin mean? The sense is, the re-inclusion of Israel must be very desirable.

16 And if the first-portion is holy, also the whole batch. And if the root is holy, also the branches.

First-portion is aparche again. The leavening yeast and the branch-nourishing root are O.T. images of Israel that are carried into the words and teachings of Jesus. It’s a side-note, but worth mentioning that this verse ought to carry into the discussion of the question “to what extent was Paul exposed to the written/oral traditions of Jesus?”

17 And if some of the branches are broken off, and you being a wild olive are grafted in upon them and made in fellowship of the rich olive root

If the Gentiles are grafted in replacing that which was of the desirable olive by “the flesh”

18 Do not boast over the branches. And if you boast do not bear yourselves over the branches, but the root over you

…then they ought not to boast themselves on some sort of privilege over and against those branches which have now been denied access to the root. The proper thing to do is not to compare yourselves to one another, but to recognize the “rich root.” There is no national privilege.

19 Then you would say Branches were broken off that I should be grafted in

Paul acknowledges with a good (Kalos) that this dangerous statement is true.

20 Good. By their faithlessness they were broken off, but you stand in faith. Do not think in pride but in fear.

Faithlessness is apistia, also possibly “disobedience.” Do not be minded (phronei) high, but of fear.

21 For if God did not spare the branches according to nature, neither will he spare you

Paul’s analogy begins to cut across some traditional Protestant thinking about “assurance of salvation,” but when we take his words as we find them their meaning is sobering. God has not and will not let anyone but himself determine the terms for who his people are.

22 See then the kindness and severity of God. On those falling the severity, but on you the kindness of God, if you might remain in kindness, otherwise then you would be cut off

Kindness is chrestoteta and severity is apotomian.

23 And even these (of Israel), if they might not remain in faithlessness, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again

Simply kakeinoi in the beginning of the verse, but the contest implies “of Israel.” Though they have been cut off in God’s severity, God is able (dunatos) to graft them in again. N.B. The text does not say that God will graft them in again. The rest of Paul’s argument about the terms of the covenant people still stands.

24 For if you having been cut off from what is according to nature a wild olive are grafted into a cultivated olive, how much more would these according to nature be grafted onto their own olive.

And how much easier would it be for those which were the covenant people according to its flesh become members of the covenant according to grace since their flesh knows that “sap.”

25 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you might not be wiser besides yourselves, since a hardening from part has come to Israel until when the fullness of the Gentiles might enter in

Wiser beside yourselves is really “cleverer than you ought to be.” This clearly belongs to the preceding argument: You Gentile Christians ought not to vaunt yourselves over the Jews. The second half of the verse is NOT a future prediction that Paul was suddenly struck with in contradiction to the entire argument of the letter so far. Rather, it is a description of what has already happened and been accomplished through Jesus. The mystery/marvel is what Paul has been explaining. The Jews were hardened in part until the justifying death of the Messiah, at which point the full number (pleroma) of the Gentiles was able to come in. (as was promised to Abraham.)

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, even as it is written He saving will come from Sion, he will turn ungodliness from Jacob

It is in this way—the coming in of the Gentiles—that All Israel will be saved. What is Paul saying? He is saying that Israel is not defined by the flesh, nor is it defined by the observance of Torah. Rather, in fulfillment to the promises the Covenant God made to Abraham, Israel, which was chosen by grace and justified by faith, shall all be saved in the way that he has described throughout the letter to the Romans. The Gentiles and the remnant are “Israel.” The whole process is God’s way of saving his covenant people; that is the meaning of kai houtos pas Israel sothesetai.

27 And this will be my covenant to them with me, when I take away their sins

The one saving is gone/come (there is no distinction is Gk., but the tense of the verb is undeniable) from Sion, and he has fulfilled the covenant and dealt with sin. This is no apocalyptic prediction, but a description of what Jesus has done.

28 According to the gospel they are enemies to you, but according to election they are beloved on account of their fathers

Paul now draws his conclusions for instructing the Jew-Gentile relations in light of these truths. According to the gospel of grace there is no room for the Jews, but we love them on account of the flesh which they overprize.

29 For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable

They will never lose the gift (charismata) or the call (klesis). Note that klesis is an important technical term in Paul’s “salvation process” as the first step before faith.

30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now you have received mercy in their disobedience

Apeitheia, not apistia. Keep in mind the argument of 9-10 throughout…God used Israel’s disobedience paradoxically to give mercy and deal with sin.

31 In this way they now have disobeyed that, by the mercy given to you, they also now might receive mercy.

Another example of houtos, always as demonstrative of manner, never temporal. The mercy which came through Israel’s disobedience is not out of their reach. They might have it. (Not must)

32 For God has imprisoned all unto disobedience that he might have mercy on all.

There are none that do not need God’s mercy. It is on the terms of his mercy through Jesus that we will receive his dikaiosune.

33 O the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God. How unfathomable are his judgments and unsearchable are his ways

I’ll be treading much more lightly from here out. The rest of the chapter is an epilogue to the section of 9-11, and then 12-16 is largely practical advice in light of the letter’s theological argument.

34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?

Is. 40, Job. 15, Jer. 23

35 Or who has given to him even that it will be repaid to him?

Job 41. Note that Paul always denies man’s ability to demand from God.

36 That from him and through him and to him are all things. To him the glory unto eternity, amen.

In his rapture, Paul wrote a Greek sentence without a subject or a verb! But amen, nonetheless!

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 10

9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles not seeking for righteousness have received it, and that righteousness by faith

9:30-10:21 recapitulates Paul’s argument about the “fall” of ethnic Israel, stated first within the historical words of YHWH through his prophets, now through the events of the Messiah’s actions and the new covenant life through faith being preached to the Gentiles—and that through faith, not works of Torah. Righteousness here is, again, dikaiosunen. Keep in mind that our functional definition is “covenant membership.” The following verses will serve to sharpen and enhance that usage in the preceding chapters. The Gentiles, not looking for covenant membership, have received, and that by faith.

31 But Israel seeking the Torah of righteousness unto Torah did not attain it.

Or, “looking for righteousness/covenant membership/dikaiosunen in Torah did not attain (ephthasen) it.

32 Why this? Since not by faith but as by works. They have stumbled upon the stumbling stone

Dia ti. Probably means: “and why not?” (dialectical) Since [their dikaiosunen] is not by faith but by the works of Torah. These works of Torah seem to be the stumbling stone that was part of the plan all along. (see next verse)

33 Even as it is written Behold I am placing in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock to make them fall, and he believing upon it will not be put to shame

Upon it could also mean upon him. Rock to make them fall is petran skandalou (hence the stone of scandal of old translations.) The closest meaning of skandalos is “that which causes sin.” It was YHWH’s intent, paradoxically, to cause the stumble and the failure. (With the purposes of ch. 7-8 in mind.)

10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God concerning them is unto salvation

Paul again states his deep personal affectation. He does not wish this upon his kinfolk.

2 For I witness for them that they have zeal of God but not according to knowledge

Knowledge is epignosin. Witness is marturo, legal language of testifying.

3 For not knowing God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they have not submitted to God’s righteousness

The second dikaiosunen is not attested in all manuscripts, but the sense remains the same. Israel’s sin is not only personal shortcomings within Torah, but also an attempt to twist Torah into something it was never intended to be—an ethnic marker of covenant membership. In doing so, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness/justification/covenant membership. (Which is, by faith.)

4 For the climax of Torah is the Messiah unto righteousness for all believing

Telos nomou could be translated a number of different ways: The end, the perfection, the completion or the satisfaction—and I like N.T. Wright’s take on it: The Climax of the Covenant. Righteousness is, again, dikaiosunen. Special weight on all.

5 For Moses writes the righteousness from Torah is “The man doing these will live by them”

Paul does not quote from Leviticus here to show the old “bad” way of doing Torah in contrast with the good new Christian one. Rather, as in the similar passage in Galatians, he is demonstrating that the true keeping of Torah is what he describes, whether for Jew or Gentile: hearing and believing.

6 And the righteousness from faith thus says “Do not say in your heart, who will ascend unto heaven? (That is to bring the Messiah down)

These two verses could easily become a quagmire if we assume that Paul, when speaking about ascending to heaven and descending to the abyss, is writing from our familiar concerns of “going to heaven or hell when we die” as the principal concern of religion and the only terms of post-mortem experience. Observe the context: the “do not say in your heart” comes from Deut 9:4—the first stern warning to Israel as it prepared for conquest that it was not from their righteousness that they would inherit the land, and that they are indeed unworthy of it because of their sin and failure. Following Moses’ guarantee of Israel’s failure in ch. 30, he tells them in v. 12-14 not to wish for someone to ascend into heaven or cross the sea that they might be able to keep Torah. (v.11 says “it is not too hard for you, nor far off.”)

7 Or, Who will descend unto the abyss? This is to raise the Messiah from the dead.

Rather, reading from Deuteronomy in the context of post-exile 2^nd temple Judaism, this is Paul’s sense: Do you want to know what doing the covenant really looks like? It isn’t waiting for someone to go do it by force—we already have a Messiah ruling above! And isn’t to call back one of your old prophets—the Messiah was already raised! Your hope isn’t in some faraway kingdom to be won by swords and Sabbaths—its to hear the word of Jesus.

8 But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, this is the word of faith which we preach

Here the powerful quote from Deuteronomy is finished. Word is hrema, not logos. Preach is kerussomen, which can also be herald or proclaim.

9 Because if you might confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and you might believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Iesoun is the object, kurion the complement. There’s much that can be said of this verse on any number of levels, but it certainly takes on a new and robust meaning here when placed in the context of “doing Torah” in the Israel story. Incidentally, this verse is a strong endorsement for what I’ve pushed in separate discussions about the original euangelion meaning “Lordship and Resurrection.” Believe is pisteuses. (Have/keep faith) Note the consecutive effect with v. 8.

10 For in the heart one believes unto justification, and by the mouth one confesses unto salvation.

This is the true keeping of Torah…this is what Paul means in v. 5

11 For the scripture says He believing upon him will not be put to shame

Put to shame is kataischunthesetai. Believing is pisteuon. (Have/keep faith). Explains Paul’s contrast to those stumbling in 9:33. (Original reference is Is. 28:16)

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same one is Lord of all, generous unto all calling upon him

Distinction is diastole. Generous is plouton. (Enriching) Once again, emphasis on all.

13 For all which call upon the name of the Lord will be saved

Joel 2:32, buttressing salvation by confession of Lordship, which segues quite naturally into the Gentile mission.

14 How therefore might they call unto he which they have not believed? And how might they believe him they have not heard? And how might they hear without someone proclaiming/preaching?

It’s been argued that Paul’s theological point here shares an important practical concern—he wanted to use Rome as a base for a Gentile mission in Spain, as he used Antioch to Asia Minor. Proclaiming/preaching is kerossontos again. Note that Paul regards the mission to the Gentiles as an essential part of YHWH’s covenant purpose…not keeping the Gentiles out by ethnic borders.

15 And how might they preach unless they might be sent? Even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those pronouncing the good news

Sent is apostalosin. (Hence, apostles) The well-known reference is from Isaiah 52 and Nahum. Pronouncing the good news is euangelizomenon [ta] agatha. Good news is euangelion.

16 But not all have obeyed the good news. For Isaiah says “Lord, who has believed our message?”

Paul establishes, not only that “not all” have obeyed the gospel, but that this in fact was foreseen and forepurposed.

17 Therefore faith is from hearing, and hearing through the word of the Messiah

Word is hrematos again, not logos. Lost in translation is the interplay between the word for hearing—akoes—and the word for obedience—upakoes. It might well read “But not all have really heard the good news. Note too that the “hearing” carries with it, not only an aural reception, but an obedience to the hearing.

18 But I say, have they not heard? Indeed, Unto all the land their voice has gone out, and unto the boundaries of the inhabited world their words

Again, have they not obeyed? The particle menounge provides the effect of “on the contrary.” Have they heard? Yes, everyone has heard… Voice is “cry,” “shout,” or “clatter.” (phthongos)

19 But I say, did Israel not understand? First Moses says “I will make you jealous upon those not a nation, with a foolish nation I will make you angry”

But Israel did not hear what they heard. They did not understand. What is more, this was done on purpose, that they might be provoked. Indeed, their stumble and provocation is forepurposed. Foolish is asuneto. (Without understanding) The Jews should be jealous of the Gentiles.

20 And Isaiah says in boldness “I am found by those not seeking me, I am become visible to those not asking for me

And Isaiah will come straight out and declare, as Paul began in 9:30, that those not seeking have found, but those seeking are lost.”

21 But for Israel he says “The whole day I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

Again, YHWH is just, for he has been patient with Israel, but they have disobeyed his purposes.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 9

As we enter this most contentious section of the letter I take for granted that Paul is working out the faithfulness of the covenant of God through his Messiah Jesus despite the apparent failure of ethnic Israel. The real question for our purposes is the meaning of 11:25-27, which I will present as the logical outworking of chs. 5-8 in general and chs. 9-11 specifically.

1 I am speaking the truth in the Messiah, I do not lie, by the co-witness of my conscience in the Holy Spirit

Following the conclusion of ch. 8, Paul prefaces his new argument with a solemn oath regarding his own conscience toward his subject matter—the faithfulness of God despite the ‘failure’ of ethnic Israel.

2 Since it is great sorrow to me and constant pain in my heart.

Paul answers in advance any possible interpretation of vengeful anti-Semitism from his Gentile Roman audience.

3 For I pray myself to be anathema from the Messiah for the sake of my brothers, my kinfolk according to the flesh

Kinsfolk are sungenon, sometimes “cousins” or “relations.” Anathema.

4 Which are the Israelites, of whom the sonship and the glory and the covenants, and the law-giving and the worship and the promises

Note that Paul is listing the privileges of Israel which have now, as was demonstrated earlier, been transferred to the Messiah-people. Of particular interest are the law-giving (following my argument about ch. 7) and the worship (latreia), which highlights the often overlooked transference of temple rights to the new Messiah-people.

5 Of whom the patriarchs and from whom the Messiah, according to the flesh, he being upon all blessed of God unto the ages, amen

Patriarchs or “fathers.” (pateres) An interesting alternate translation for this verse is to read Theos eulogetos as the subject instead of predicate—[The Messiah] being the blessed God upon all unto the ages—but the textual evidence is spotty.

6 And this is not that the word of God has failed, for not all those from Israel are of Israel

Ho logos tou theou here does not mean “the Christian Bible.” As in v. 28, logos means more “plan” “purpose” or “action.” (As, especially considering its LXX context, would the Hebrew davar) The sense is: YHWH didn’t mess this up—this was the plan all along. Paul again, as in v. 5, will put forth his theological argument by the characteristic Jewish mode of retelling the Israel story. His purpose here: Exactly because “Israel” does not have to mean “ethnic Jews,” YHWH has been faithful to his promises. (This is very important, obviously, to 11:25-27) I’ll take for granted the following points in the course of this argument 1) Israel’s vocation as the covenant people was always the means of rescuing the whole world. 2) The vocation was distorted by ethnic privilege, but made clear in the Messiah 3) The divine intention (or ho logos tou theou) was always to deal with evil (Sin in ch. 7) in one place (execution and judgment) 4) That place was always to be the Messiah. We must read this section as the defense to the question that Paul answers “no” in v. 14—there is no injustice on God’s part in his actions through Israel.

7 Nor is it that the descendants of Abraham are all his children, but “in Isaac descendants to you will be named”

Throughout descendants are sperma (sometimes seed) and children are tekna. In other words, “not all who can claim Abraham as their forefather are biologically related.” (See ch. 4) Explanation for the second half below.

8 This is, not these which are the children of the flesh, but those children of the promise will be reckoned unto descendants

Instead of succession through the “flesh”—which Paul has likened to the illegitimate Hagar/Ishmael relation—Paul declares that the son of the promise (epangelias) is the legitimate heir.

9 For this is the word of the promise “In this time I will come and a son shall be to Sarah”

epangelias gar o logos. Paul connects the promise to Isaac through the birth of Jacob to Sarah…but the promise had to wait.

10 And not this alone, but also Rebekah had from one husband, from our father Isaac

One husband is koiten “bedfellow.” The implication is “and something like this happened again when Rebekah had her child.” It could become a mare’s nest if not read in the context of v. 12—the similarity comes from the dispute of legitimate succession between two sons.

11 For they not yet having been born nor doing anything good or bad, that the forepurposed election of God might continue,

eklogen prothesis tou theou mene. This was not an after-the fact judgment on God’s part, but his elevation of Isaac was according to his just purpose.

12 Not from works but from the call, It was told to her that “The older will serve the younger”

And that the promise in v. 7 might be fulfilled

13 Even as it is written “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”

The younger son, the son to whom is promise given over the natural birthright or the birth according to the flesh, is preferred.

14 What then will we say? Surely there is not injustice on God’s part? May it not be!

Another me genoito. Paul defends YHWH’s purposes by virtue of who YHWH is as the sovereign God.

15 For he said to Moses “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

Eleeso and oiktireso. Quote is from Ex. 33:19.

16 Therefore it is not then of will nor of exertion but of God’s mercy

What is not of will or exertion? (trechontos) The privilege of sonship (and all the other privileges of 9:4-5) which are claimed via biological succession.

17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh that “Unto this one thing I have raised you up, that I should demonstrate in you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

As YHWH has done before, he will elevate to one place a means of executing his just judgment.

18 Therefore he then has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens he whom he wills.

And as God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so to demonstrate his power, so might he harden Israel to demonstrate his long-promised rescue.

19 You will then say to me: Why them does he yet find fault? For who is able to stand against his will?

The following is one of the hardest passages in Paul to read. He offers no comfort about God’s goodness and kindness…he simply takes away our prerogative to question. Will (boulemati) might make better sense as “choice” throughout.

20 O man, on the contrary, who are you to be answering back to God? Surely that which is molded does not say to the molder “Why have you made me in this way?”

We are, first of all, created beings. The creator is not subject to the created.

21 Or doesn’t the potter have authority over the clay to make form his own lump one vessel of honor and another of dishonor?

Echoes much of the O.T. language about YHWH as the potter and Israel as the clay/vessel. Some translations have atimian as “ordinary use.” (Honor is timen.) One is too harsh, the other too soft, neither quite captures the original verbal effect.

22 And if God willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power carried in much long-suffering the objects of wrath which are supplied unto destruction

Longsuffering is makrothumia. Israel was given plenty of time, but ultimately will function as the means by which God’s judgment is carried out…and that unto apoleian.

23 Even in order that the wealth of his glory might be made known upon the objects of his mercy which he prepared beforehand unto glory

And yet in that same act those which YHWH chose for legitimacy will be given unto glory

24 Which he also called us not alone from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (?)

Not sure whether 24 and 25 are supposed to be 2 clauses (w/a question mark) or one.

25 That even as he says in Hosea “I will call those not my people ‘my people,’ and those not beloved ‘beloved.’

Therefore the call (24) is extended to those “not his people.”

26 And it shall be in the place where it was said to them ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God.”

And sonship is extended.

27 And Isaiah cried concerning Israel: “If the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, a remnant will be saved.”

Is. 10:22-23

28 For completely and decisively the Lord will make his word upon the earth.”

Word is logos.

29 And even as Isaiah forespoke: “If the Lord of hosts had not left descendants to us, as Sodom we would have become, and even as to Gomorrah would we be likened.”

Stopping here for now, because the last 3 verses in ch. 9, I think, belong to the next stage of the argument.

Romans Outline Chs. 1-8

While I'm working on Ch. 9 for next week, here's a critical outline of the project's progress so far. Many details within the commentary I've written so far support this structural analysis. Some fine points are much more structurally important than others, but at this moment in our analysis the minutiae start to matter very little. What I think about chs. 9-11 is, however, entirely dependent on the larger shape of chs. 1-8. Please let me know if there appears to be anything suspicious or unfounded in what you see below. If so, that ought to be sorted out before going on to the controversial material.

Romans 1-4 The Faithfulness of God

1:1-15 Exposition, God’s gospel and Paul’s service

1:16-17 The Gospel is God’s righteousness

1:18-32 Idolatrous Gentiles dehumanized by God’s wrath

2:1-16 “You” (judging) also under impartial unfavorable judgment

2:17-“You” the Jew directly challenged

3:1-8 Israel unfaithful but God faithful

3:9-20 Torah indicts Jew and Gentile alike

3:21-26 But now, God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus

3:27-38 One God of One Faith for Jews & Gentiles

4:1-8 Abraham the covenant father (by faith)

4:9-15 Abraham the father by faith, not by circumcision or Torah

4:16-17 Abraham the father of Jew and Gentile faithful

4:18-22 Abraham trusting in him giving life to the dead

4:23-25 And likewise to “us”

Romans 5-8 God’s people in the Messiah

5:1-5 Exposition, hope in suffering

5:6-11 Love demonstrated in the Messiah’s death

5:12-21 The Messiah greater than Adam

6:1-11 Dying and rising (baptism) with the Messiah—Exodus through the waters

6:12-23 No longer in slavery, but redeemed into freedom

7:1-6 Two marriages; being “widowed” to Torah

7:7-12 Is Torah sin? No, but its arrival (read Sinai) is Sin’s opportunity

7:13-20 Torah does not kill “me” (Israel) but Sin through it; Torah and “I” exonerated

7:21-25 The Torah bifurcates and so do “I”—I need rescue

8:1 Therefore, no condemnation

8:2-11 Because God has done what Torah could not in Messiah’s defeat of Sin; gives resurrection life

8:12-17 Therefore we are not people of flesh (circumcision) but heirs in the Spirit

8:18-30 The promised renewal of all things; recap of 5:1-5, hope in suffering

8:31-39 Nothing to separate us from God’s love

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those in the Messiah Jesus

Paul’s conclusion here precedes his minor premise (v. 2-11) given the first premise (Israel’s problem was Sin operating with Death through Torah) in chapter 7. Condemnation is katakrima, renewing the law-court metaphor from earlier. The incorporative sense of “Messiah” is enormously important here. Paul’s argument from 7-8 doesn’t make any sense if you view the escape from Sin and Death as something to be bargained individually.

2 For the law of the spirit of life in the Messiah Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and of death

Here the bifurcated Torah is denoted. The good and just Torah of life, in the Messiah, is what has freed those en Christo from the condemnation sentence that would be pronounced by Sin and Death.

3 For with the Torah unable in the weakness of the flesh, God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sins (as a sin offering), condemned sin in the flesh

Unable is adunaton. Peri hamartias is a construct lifted directly out of the LXX to mean “sin offering,” and probably should not be translated directly as “for the sake of sins.” As that sin offering, the Messiah neutralized the katakrima—the condemnation.

4 That the just requirement of Torah might be fulfilled in us not walking according to the flesh but according to the spirit

Walking in the sense of living or being. (peripatousin) The contrast throughout this section is sarkos (flesh) and pneumatos (spirit).

5 For those being according to the flesh think of those things of the flesh, but those according to the spirit those things of the spirit

Or “set their minds to” the things of the flesh. Phronousin doesn’t mind thinking as in pondering, but denotes the character of the thinking apparatus. This is not a dualist trap. Paul is not saying that his special gnosis will elevate the mind away from the body and into the spirit. He is saying that the mind enslaved by the flesh is characterized by the rule of Sin/Death, but that mind freed and now animated by the spirit will be transformed into something different.

6 For the mind of the flesh, Death, but the mind of the spirit, life and shalom

Just as the law was bifurcated and became, though holy and good itself, the bringer of death to the flesh, so also the flesh’s phronema is subject to Death.

7 Therefore the minds of the flesh are enemy unto God, for they are not submitted to God’s Torah, neither are they able.

As long as one is in bondage to the flesh, they are at enmity with God and his good Torah. Furthermore, they are unable (oude gar dunatai) to be helped.

8 And those being in the flesh are not able to please God

With the sense of “be pleasing to God.” (aresai)

9 But you are not yourselves in the flesh but in the spirit, since the spirit of God dwells in you. But if any does not have the spirit of the Messiah, he is not His

All 2^nd person plural. The Messiah’s people live in the spirit because God’s spirit inhabits them. Paul uses temple language here. As YHWH’s spirit dwelt in his people’s temple of old, now the spirit dwells in the bodies/body of his Messiah’s people. The indwelling of the spirit is the characteristic of the people “for whom there is now no condemnation” and the proof of their acquittal.

10 But if the Messiah is in you, then the body is on the one hand dead because of sin and on the other hand the spirit is alive on account of righteousness

A clunky translation, but there’s no simple way to highlight the men…de contrast. Because of is dia, not a dative of reference. Righteousness is dikaoisunen. Body is soma, not sarx. Not sure whether to read sin as “Sin” or “sin” here, but the point would be essentially the same.

11 But if the spirit of him raising Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he raising the Messiah from the dead will make alive also your mortal bodies through his spirit indwelling in you

Perhaps my favorite verse in Romans. If the spirit of YHWH temples/tabernacles in you, the one who began new creation in his Messiah Jesus will make-alive (zoopoiesei) your mortal somata through his indwelling—enoikountos.

12 Therefore then, brothers, we are debtors not in the flesh according to the flesh to live

The language switches in v.12-17 to the language of inheritance, which might be more evocative for an ancient agrarian community anyway, not even considering the promises of “inheritance” driving the O.T. Paul may be continuing his deliberate evocation of the O.T. story as we, leaving the Red Sea and Sinai, approach the inheritance.

13 For if you might live according to the flesh, you ought to die. But if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

As your phronemata (mind, mindset) is now led by the spirit, so are your actions. (praxeis)

14 For such by the spirit of God are led, these are the sons of God

Not only offered abstract direction, but led in action. (agontai)

15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again unto fear but ye received a spirit of sonship, in which we cry Abba father

Based on the scholarly work I’ve read I understand the case for Abba as “Daddy” or some similar intimate term to be overstated, but Pauls’ point stands whether “Daddy” or “Father.” The Father receives not in oppression, but in sonship. (Huiothesias might also be the technical term for adoptive sonship.)

16 the same spirit bears witness in our spirit that we are children of God

Not our flesh (as by circumcision) but our spirit attests our status of sonship

17 And if children, also heirs. The heirs of God, and co-heirs with the Messiah, since we suffer with him that we might also be glorified with him.

Hence the promise in v.11 of resurrection. Proper understanding of this verse hinges on the belief that the Messiah, in his ascension to the Father’s right hand, has already been glorified.

18 For I reason that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy of comparison to the glory to be revealed in us

Reason is logizomai. Axia with a genitive of comparison. The glory to be revealed is not personal aggrandizing or braggadocio, but New Creation itself.

19 For Creation’s deep longing awaits the revelation of the sons of God

Not only do God’s people await the New Creation to be revealed (apokalupsin) but the whole of old Creation yearns.

20 For the Creation is subjected to futility, not of its own will but on account of the one subjecting it, upon hope

Just as God gave over the minds of the impious (ch. 1) to futility, so also did he risk giving over his whole good creation to Sin, that by his Messiah’s decisive action against Sin, he should rescue it all. (!)

21 That the Creation itself also might be freed from decay’s bondage unto glorious freedom of the children of God

None of this “far-golden-shore” escapism. Creation will be rescued with us into our shared glorious freedom.

22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together and suffering together until now

Both verbs are present tense—the whole creation is groaning and suffering until now.

23 and not alone, but we already having the first-portion of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, awaiting, the redemption of our body.

As Paul goes on to explain, this present suffering, as modeled in the Messiah, is necessary for we who will be redeemed. New Creation comes out of suffering.

24 For in this hope we are saved. But hope seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?

The already/not yet dichotomy of the inaugurated kingdom is expressed in 23&24—we already have the first portion of the spirit, but we are a people living in hope.

25 But if what we do not see we hope, through endurance we await

Endurance is upomones.

26 And likewise also the spirit fore-co-aids in our weakness. For if we might pray as is necessary we do not know how, but the spirit intercedes the same with unspeakable groans

There is no simple way to translate sunantilambanetai. Best to read it in the context of vv. 21-25 and especially in weakness. The verb is usually translated “intercedes,” as is uperentugchanei in the later part of the verse. The sense is similar, but not exact.

27 And He searching our hearts knows what is the mind of the spirit, since according to God he intercedes for the sake of the saints

Understanding the “He” of this verse as God, who accepts the spirit’s intercession for us, is the key to understanding this otherwise potentially slippery verse.

28 And we know that to those beloved God works together all things unto good, to those according to his purpose being called

“Called” (kletois) is the first category of the list in v. 29&30, which is Paul’s theological description of the Christian process

29 Since those he foreknew, he foresaw sharing-the-likeness of the image of his son, unto his being firstborn among many brothers

Likeness-sharing is summorphous. Here begins the summation of Paul’s work so far, the description of how God through his Messiah has fulfilled his glorious purposes of salvation and restoration for Israel (through the Messiah) and for his Creation. What follows in ch. 9 will be the specific problem that Paul wishes to address in light of this.

30 And those he foresaw, these he also called; and those he called, these he justified; and those he justified, these he also will glorify.

Foreseeing (or predestination), Call, Justification (edikaiosen) and Glorification. These might not be absolutely airtight theological compartments, but they are distinct, and Paul’s whole corpus is vivified when read in these categories.

31 What therefore shall we say to these? If God is for us, who is against us?

What then of the problems of suffering and weakness raised?

32 Which his own son did not spare but for our sake gave him over, how with him will all things not be granted to us?

Gave him over is again paredoken. The “all things” should be read not only in terms of favorable judgment for eternal life, but that (incredible enough) and all of the covenant purposes from the O.T.

33 Who will accuse against God’s called? It is God who justifies

Vv. 34&35 in affirmation of 8:1.

34 Who is he which condemns? The Messiah [Jesus] which died, and more was raised, and which is at God’s right hand, and who intercedes for us

Identification of the Messiah with the Spirit, but with yet another word (entugchanei) for intercession.

35 What will separate us from the love of the Messiah? Tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

Expected answer, “no,” of course.

36 Just as it is written that For thy sake we die the whole day, we are reckoned as sheep of the slaughter

Here is the paradox of the gospel, that this confidence and justification comes in and with the imitation of suffering, following the suffering King.

37 But in all these we are overconquerors through him loving us

Yet in that suffering we are more than conquerors—hupernikomen.

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers nor things present nor things to come nor powers

39 Nor height nor depth nor any other created thing is able to separate us from the love of God in the Messiah Jesus our Lord.

Only, Amen.