 |
|
     |
|
|
|
Writer of Fancy: The Playful Piety of Jane Austen
1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary
The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter
A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons
Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature
Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen
The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism
A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel
From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution
Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy
Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper
A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature
Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays
Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life
The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church
Some reflections based on an ETS talk by Edward Meadors on Romans 9-11. Meadors suggested that “Esau” in Romans 9 refers to Esau as the patriarch of Edom, well-known for its opposition to Israel throughout the centuries. That is Malachi’s focus in the passage Paul cites. And this is set in a context where Paul is charging ethnic Israel with turning to idols and thus suffering the hardness of heart that attends idolatry (ie, worship stone, you become stony). He also noted analogies between Paul’s situation and that of Moses at Sinai after Israel has replaced their true mediator, Moses, with the golden calf.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 5:00 pm
INTRODUCTION
Last week, I made a case for the legitimacy of imprecatory prayers and Psalms. But that leaves a lot of questions unanswered – When are prayers of imprecation legitimate? Against whom is it legitimate to pray imprecations? And, most importantly, how do imprecations square with the NT’s command, “Bless and do not curse”?
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 7:25 am
Paul’s discussion of the future of Israel assumes Jesus’ predictions about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This is what he’s talking about when he talks about “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” and when he quotes from Hosea and Isaiah in 9:25-29. In 9:27, the “remnant” does not refer to the Jews who have responded in faith to the gospel, but to the Jews who have survived God’s judgment. Unless the Lord showed mercy, the Jews would have been as utterly destroyed as Sodom and Gomorrah (9:29). But they are not destroyed; God preserves a remnant of Israel through the judgment, who will be delivered from the catastrophe that awaits Jerusalem. These, perhaps, are the “all Israel” that shall be saved, just as the restoration community after the exile was “all Israel” preserved through exile and delivered from captivity.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 at 5:45 am
It’s not a new insight with me, but it came home with particular force recently: Paul says in Romans 3:28 that “we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of Torah.” To suppoose the point, he asks two rhetorical questions, the first expecting a negative and the second a positive answer: “Or is God [the God] of Jews only? Is He not [the God] of the Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also.” These questions assume that if justification was by works of Torah, then it would imply that God is only God of Jews. In other words, “works of Torah” can be performed only by Jews. And this means that justification by faith involves the claim that Jews and Gentiles equally can be justified before God and be Abraham’s seed.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, July 31, 2006 at 5:17 am
Everyone else, I’m sure, has already noticed this, but I’m slow: If, as many commentators argue, Paul’s practical concern in Romans is to encourage Gentile believers to accept their Jewish brothers (as reflected in Romans 14), then the discussion of the keeping of days and of eating should be seen in that context. The days in view would then be specifically Jewish festival days, which, in the time Paul is writing are indifferent. The passage says nothing directly about whether the church should have its own calendar.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 2:32 pm
The canonical ordering of the NT does not carry the authority of the text itself, but it is not irrelevant. (Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, among others, has shown that the canonical order of the gospels links them together into a unified literary unit.)
With this in mind, it is not irrelevant that Romans follows Acts. The narrative of Acts, especially its concluding chapters, sets up the theme of Romans. When we get to the end of Acts, the question on our minds is not “how can I find a gracious God?” but “what is God doing with Israel?” (I am not, however, suggesting that these are unrelated questions.)
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 8:12 am
Are imprecatory prayers inconsistent with the biblical demand to love our enemies? On the surface it seems so, but since the Bible contains both imprecations and commands to love our enemy and since Scripture is internally consistent, they cannot be contradictory. Far from being contradictory, in fact, they are mutually supporting.
This is the point Paul makes in Romans 12. In one breath, he tells the Romans to refrain from revenge and leave room for the wrath of God the Avenger, and in the next breath he tells them to give food and drink to their enemies (Romans 12:19-20, where Paul quotes the mean-spirited Old Testament, Proverbs 25:21f). And then in the next breath he tells them to overcome evil with good. The command to do
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, September 19, 2005 at 9:42 pm
ROMANS 9:14-18
Paul rejects the idea that there is injustice with God, as he did in equally vigorous terms in chapter 3, where God?s righteousness is closely linked with His faithfulness (v. 3) and His truth (v. 7). And he supports this conclusion with a quotation from Exodus 33. A. Katherine Grieb has offered an insightful discussion of this quotation. She points out that this is a quotation from Moses?Eintercession with God on Sinai following the golden calf incident. Moses is pleading with God for the people (as Paul himself has been, offering himself for his brothers according to the flesh), urging Yahweh especially to go with Israel to the promised land. Finally, the Lord promises to go along with Israel, but Moses is still not satisfied. The Lord has already said that if He goes among them, He will destroy them. Moses wants some assurance that the presence of God in Israel will be a blessing and not destruction for Israel, and so he asks to see the Lord?s glory. The glory passes while Moses is covered, and then Moses sees the back of God?s glory. Before Yahweh promises to go before him, the
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, May 29, 2005 at 8:05 am
Wright points out that the storyline Paul is reviewing in Romans 9 is not a general storyline for any old nation or race, nor the history of individuals, but specifically the story of Israel. Whatever God does with other nations, Paul is showing that God?s plan with Israel always involved a division within the family of Israel.
Wright, however, is protesting too much, attempting to avoid as he does elsewhere in his exposition the predestinarian implications of Romans 9. It is true that Paul is dealing with a specific history here, but as Wright himself has said elsewhere, that history is the history of the new humanity that Yahweh was beginning with Abraham. Just as Jesus?Estory is the story of humanity as well as the story of Israel (He is Last Adam and not merely new Israel), so the history of Israel is a microcosm of God?s dealings with humanity as a whole. Specifically, just as it was always God?s purpose to make a division within the nation of Israel, so it was always God?s purpose to make a division within humanity. So, even though (if?) Paul concentrates on Israel alone here, we can draw more general inferences from about God?s dealings with humanity.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, May 29, 2005 at 7:26 am
Some of this repeats notes from last week, but then moves beyond.
WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL?
The ringing affirmations of chapter 8, that those who are in Christ cannot be lost to Christ leads directly into Paul?s discussion of Israel in chapter 9. He is not beginning a new topic. He has said that nothing can separate us from Christ, that God will never forsake His elect. But similar promises were also given to Israel. In fact, as Schreiner points out, all the promises that Paul speaks of in Romans 8 were initially given to Israel ?Ethe Spirit, resurrection, sonship, a future inheritance, election by God (cf. 9:4-5). And Yahweh had said that Israel should be confident in His unchanging love for her: ?Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them, for Yahweh your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you?E(Deuteronomy 31:6). But, as Paul says in anguish at the beginning of Romans 9, this same Israel, ?to whom belongs . . . the promises?E(9:4) is not sharing in the fulfillment of these promises through the Messiah.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, May 21, 2005 at 6:19 pm
INTRODUCTION
Romans 8:31-39 is better sung than commented upon. It is a thrilling, ecstatic hymn of confident assurance that God?s purposes will be accomplished. Yet, I will attempt to comment on them. If we are to sing Paul?s hymn, let?s make sure we sing with understanding.
Given the character of these verses, it?s easy and understandable that they, like Romans 8:28-30, are often cited apart from their context. But these verses of course form the climax of Paul?s discussion of the gift of the Spirit and the hope of new creation that he has been talking about throughout the chapter. Paul?s excited confidence is a confidence that God will accomplish His purpose of bringing the sons of God to glory, and His purpose of renewing His creation through those sons. Though Christians in Paul?s day (as in ours) suffer affliction, those afflictions are the birth pangs of new creation.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, May 14, 2005 at 12:56 pm
INTRODUCTION
Paul is talking about the liberation of creation from bondage to decay and corruption into freedom. This raises the question of the time frame for the fulfillment of this prophecy. It is normally taken as a reference to the end of the world. The ?redemption of the body?E(v. 23) is taken as a reference to the general resurrection, and Paul is teaching that there will be a transfiguration of the whole creation when that occurs. Yet, it seems plausible to take this as a reference instead to the transformation of the creation that takes place as the new covenant replaces the old. Could Paul?s prophecy here be taken in a preterist sense? Could the period of ?anxious longing?E(v. 19) be the apostolic age and the birth of a new age be the creation after the end of the apostolic age?
I?m not entirely convinced either way on the question of timing, though I?m inclined to follow a preterist interpretation. Let me offer some arguments in favor of a preterist understanding of this passage. First, Paul is clearly describing the fulfillment of prophecies from the Old Covenant about the renewal of the whole creation through the recreative word of Yahweh (e.g., Is 65:17ff; 66:22). But those prophecies appear to describe a pre-eschatological phase of human history in which there are still enemies, where death still exists, and so on. The prophecies do not speak of the final restoration of all things, but of a provisional and increasing restoration that takes place in the New Covenant.
A similar point could be made concerning prophecies from the NT. The notion of ?birth pangs,?Ewhich is implied by the references to ?groaning?E(Romans 8:22-23) and made explicit with the reference to ?pains of childbirth?Ein v. 22, is found elsewhere in Jesus?EOlivet discourse, referring to events that would take place before the generation passed (Matt 24:8; Mk 13:8). More generally, it?s clear in the NT that the first generation of believers suffered tribulations that were unique in the history of the church (Matt 24:21; Rev 2:22; 7:14). In a unique way, the blood of the first martyrs mingled with the blood of Jesus in renewing the world. Blood of martyrs is always the seed of the church; but that was particularly true in the foundational period of the apostles.
Second, Paul has raised the issue of ?adoption?Ea few verses earlier in Romans 8 (vv. 15-17), and I suggested last week that Paul was still working within the biblical categories from the Old Testament. To say that Christians who have the Spirit are the ?sons of God?Eis to say that Christians who have the Spirit are the true Israel. These are the same ?sons of God?Ewho are mentioned again in verses 19, 21, 23. That is, there is a time coming when the true sons of God will be revealed; the sons of God will be ?revealed?Eand there will be a public ?adoption?Eof the church as the true Israel. It would seem odd that this would be delayed until the final judgment and the general resurrection of the dead. Further, this emphasis on Christians as the true sons prepares for Paul?s anguish concerning his fellow Israelites according to the flesh in 9:1-5. Paul is lamenting that those Jews who have refused Jesus are not going to share in the ?adoption of sons?Ethat is on the horizon.
Third, as NT Wright points out, the ?glorification?Ethat Paul talks about here has to do with the restoration of humanity to a prelapsarian position of rule and authority (which, of course, goes beyond the position that Adam attained). Wright goes on to point out the close connection between the glorification of the sons of God, their installation as the authorities over creation, and the redemption of creation itself from its bondage to decay. As Wright says, ?the thought [in verse 21] seems to be not that creation and Christians will simply all be free and glorious in the same way, but that the freedom for which creation longs, and which it will be liberated into, is the freedom that comes about through the glorification of the children of God. Paul never says that creation itself will have ?glory.?E It will have freedom because God?s children have glory; indeed, their glory will consist quite specifically in this, that they will be God?s agents in bring the wise, healing, restorative divine justice to the whole created order?E(Romans, p. 597). Earlier, and more colorfully, he had stated the point this way: ?if one dare put it like this, as God sent Jesus to rescue the human race, so God will send Jesus?Eyounger siblings, in the power of the Spirit, to rescue the whole created order, to bring that justice and peace for which the whole creation yearns?E(Romans, p. 596). I agree with that. Now, if that?s the case, it?s hard to see how this could be a prophecy about the final resurrection. What, after all, will still need healing and restoration when Jesus returns? Will the general resurrection be followed by an ages-long ecological reclamation project? That?s not how the passage is normally taken; instead, it?s assumed that when the sons of God are adopted, creation will be transformed once for all and completely. But then what is there left for Jesus?E?younger siblings?Eto do? It seems much better to say that the adoption of the true Israel, the true Adamic race, occurs with the definitive end of the old covenant at AD 70, and that the creation then begins to be liberated from its bondage to corruption, until it is finally and fully liberated at the final resurrection and judgment.
Fourth, historically, it seems evident that the liberation of creation from bondage to corruption has been advancing through the ages. It is not simply the case that the curse WILL be removed at the last day. It has been removed definitively in Jesus, and is progressively being moved back as the Spirit indwells believers to fulfill the requirement and goals of the Law, which are righteousness and peace.
Finally, this doesn?t mean that Paul?s encouragements no longer have any relevance to Christians now. If Romans 8 should be taken in a preterist fashion, it?s still the case that we are in a pre-eschatological condition, that we die, that the creation is not wholly liberated from its futility, that we hope for an even greater adoption, glorification, and resurrection in the future. The transition from the Old to the New is a type of the final transition form this world into the heavens and earth of the consummation. It is still the case that we are groaning, and that in a sense we are still groaning for a new birth. But more precisely perhaps we are groaning over the clumsiness of a ?toddler?Enew creation rather than groaning with the pains of childbirth.
ROMANS 8:18-25
If the preterist interpretation suggested above is correct, the sufferings of the ?present time?Erefer to the ?great tribulation?Ethat Jesus said would accompany the shift from the old to the new. Paul encourages the Romans to endure because the sufferings they endure pale in comparison to the glory that will be revealed ?into?Ethem. Paul?s language suggests that glory will not merely be shown to the sons of God, but that it will be bestowed on us.
The reason (?for,?Ev 19) that the glory is greater is because the glorification of the sons of God goes beyond the restoration of humanity to its created glory. When the sons of God are revealed, the creation?s longings will be fulfilled. Creation was subjected to futility by the curse of Genesis 3. The creation never was in rebellion against God, and so it has been longing since that time for liberation from the futility and corruption that Adam brought to it. When the new Adamic race is revealed, the true Israel, then the creation?s waiting will be over because the creation will be handed over to the lordship of those who are filled with the Spirit who first formed the creation as ?good.?E As the Spirit-filled church spreads over the creation, the Spirit is again hovering over the formless void to manifest the goodness of the creation. ?Futility?Esuggests a possible connection with the book of Ecclesiastes, and there the futility or ?vaporousness?Eof creation is larges due to the reality of decay and ultimately death. Ultimately, then, the creation will not be delivered from futility until death is finally defeated; but through the life-giving Spirit of the Risen Christ, futility is being overturned.
Paul describes the futility and corruption of the creation as a form of ?bondage?E(v. 21) that leads the whole creation to ?groan.?E As Wright points out, this language suggests a connection with the exodus story. The whole creation is longing for an exodus, groaning under the burdens imposed on it by Sin and Death, waiting for a new Moses to lead it out of corruption. Israel?s liberation was a matter of a change of lordship. So also is the liberation of the creation, as the creation is given into the care of Jesus and His people.
In this situation of futility, creation, the church, and the Spirit all groan in pains of childbirth. Creation is waiting for the sons of God to serve as midwives of a new creation; believers are awaiting the ?redemption of the body?E and the Spirit also groans to give birth to a new world. A couple of details here are worth noting. First, the word ?body?Ein verse 23 is singular. If Paul were talking about the final resurrection, as Wright says, we would expect a plural. The fact that it is singular perhaps suggests that what?s being redeemed is the body of the church. The body was ?redeemed?Ein the great exodus at the end of the old covenant, which was simultaneously the public revelation that the church was the true Israel, the sons of God. ?Conformed to the image of His Son?E(v. 29), we are made rulers with Christ.
Second, it is important to notice the role of prayer in this whole process. The Spirit assists us when we do not know how to pray with ?groanings too deep for words?E(v. 26). This shows that our prayers (as in verse 15) are prayers from within the Triune fellowship; indwelt by the Spirit, we call on the Father with the same words that Jesus used in prayer. Here, the Spirit ?intercedes?Efor us, and apparently transforms our inarticulate anguish into petitions to the Father through the Son. Prayer thus is not a matter of human speech attempting to cross the infinite distance between creature and Creator; we can pray because we have been introduced into the Triune community. Further, in context the groanings of the Spirit, which produces also groanings within us (v. 23) are part of the pain of childbirth. Prayer is bound up with, and a means for, the birthing of a new creation. Prayer is not a retreat from the history of redemption into private ecstasies of communion. Prayer is a chief instrument by which the Father renews the world through His sons who are in the Son and who have received the Spirit.
Verses 28-30 provide a ground for assurance that what Paul has been describing will certainly take place. We can be confident that our groanings, and the groanings of the Spirit with us, will be heard, and that the creation will be delivered from its bondage to futility, because God is causing all things ?Ethe sufferings of the present age in particular ?Eto work together for good for those who are called. The righteous God will accomplish His righteous purpose of bringing righteousness to fruition on earth. Verses 29-30 make it clear that this whole program is not a whim on God?s part. The goal is to bestow glory on the sons of God, to raise them to the throne never reached because of Adam?s sin, and this glorification fulfills the purpose of God from the foundation of the world. He has a fixed predestined purpose to form a body of believers who are conformed to the image of His Son, who are sons of God, and who therefore participate with Jesus in the deliverance of creation.
Verse 30 sketches out a kind of ?order of salvation,?Estretching from God?s foreknowledge (His eternal electing love), through the predestination of the sons of God, through call, justification and glorification. In the preterist framework that I?ve been developing, the sequence of call, justification, and glorification takes on an interesting nuance. In Genesis, both Noah and Abraham are ?justified?Eor ?reckoned righteous.?E Both are called, picked out from evil generations to be the objects of God?s favor, and as the righteous ones they are called to be partners with God in restoring creation. Their justification leads to glorification: Noah is ?righteous in the eyes of Yahweh,?Eand glorified through the judgment of the flood when Yahweh bestows royal authority on him. Abraham is reckoned righteous, and as a covenant partner with Yahweh, becomes the father of Isaac, the heir of a land, and is promised that kings will come from him. Having been justified He is glorified. This is the sequence of Romans 8 as well: The ?no condemnation?Efor those in Christ issues in the promise that the sons of God in Christ will be ?glorified.?E On this understanding, in short, ?glorification?Eis not merely an eschatological prospect for believers. When the new covenant comes, the sons of God are exalted.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, May 5, 2005 at 1:38 pm
The phrase “righteousness of God” in Romans 1:17 has been the subject of considerable dispute in recent years, with many abandoning a standard Protestant interpretation of the passage (i.e., that the righteousness of God refers to the righteousness that God gives) in favor of a more redemptive-historical understanding (righteousness as God’s faithfulness to Israel, or as His commitment to restoring good order in His creation).
One important, perhaps decisive, consideration has to do with Paul’s use of the word “gospel.” It is clear at the beginning of Romans 1 that “gospel” refers to the announcement or recital of the events of Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection. It seems reasonable that he is using gospel in the same redemptive-historical sense in verse 17: the work of Jesus in history is the “good news,” and this is good news of God’s righteousness because through these events God demonstrates His righteousness. The redemptive-historical understanding of “righteousness of God” thus seems to be implied by the fact that Paul says this righteousness is revealed in “the gospel.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, November 1, 2004 at 5:39 pm
John Murray recognizes that Paul announces a ?deliverdict?Ein Romans 8:1-4. He is considering the force of ?therefore?Ein 8:1, asking what earlier portion of Romans this points to: ?If the apostle is thinking merely of freedom from the guilt of sin and from the condemnation which guilt entails, then we should have to find the basis of the inference in that part of the epistle which deals particularly with that subject (3:21-5:21). But if there is included in freedom from condemnation not only deliverance from the guilt of sin but also from its power, then the ?therefore?Ecould be related quite properly to what immediately precedes (6:1-7:25) as well as to the more remote context. It is this latter alternative which the evidence would appear to demand. The word ?condemnation?Ehere can scarcely be interpreted apart from the immediately succeeding context in which it appears and so we must look for the specific complexion given to the word by this context to which it is so closely related. In this context, as well be shown later, the apostle is not dealing with justification and the expiatory aspect of Christ?s work but with sanctification and with what God has done in Christ to deliver us from the power of sin. Hence what is thrust into the foreground in the terms ?no condemnation?Eis not only freedom from the guilty but also freedom from the enslaving power of sin?E(Romans at 8:1). The only modification I would make is to endorse Moo?s suggestion that introducing the distinction of justification and sanctification at this point may unnecessarily complicate things; Moo suggests that 8:2 is about the ?realm transfer?Efrom Adam to Christ, from flesh to Spirit, rather than about ?sanctification.?E
Murray expands on this point in his commends on 8:3. He points out that the cross not only delivers from the guilt of sin but from its power, and also notes that this deliverance is spoken of as a judgment carried out against sin or Satan. Citing John 12:31, he comments, ?Here the victory over the world and Satan is represented as a judgment executed, and judicial language is used to express it. The victor over the powers of darkness is, according to Paul, a work wrought by the cross of Christ (Col. 2:15). The word ?condemn?Eis used in the New Testament in the sense of consigning to destruction as well as of pronouncing the sentence of condemnation (cf. I Cor. 11:32; II Pet 2:6). That is to say, condemnation may be viewed as not only the sentence but the putting of the sentence into execution. This would be an eminently appropriate use of the term when the action of God is contemplated because his pronouncement of judgment is efficient to the end of putting into execution the judgment pronounced. Since then judicial language is applied to the destruction of the power of the world and of the prince of darkness and since the term ?condemnation?Eis used here respecting the work of Christ, there is a warrant for the conclusion that the condemning of sin in the flesh refers to the judicial judgment which was executed upon the power of sin in the cross of Christ. God executed this judgment and overthrew the power of sin; he not only declared sin to be what it was but pronounced and executed judgment upon it. Furthermore, it is this constitutive meaning of condemnation that provides the proper contrast to what the law could not do. In the barely declarative sense the law could condemn sin; this is one of its chief functions. But the law cannot execute judgment upon sin so as to destroy its power. . . . To execute judgment upon sin to the destruction of its power the law is impotent.?E
He notes that, conversely, justification language is used in some places to describe not only the verdict of ?not guilty?Eor ?righteous,?Ebut also to describe deliverance from sin. Pointing to Romans 6:7, he argues that ?the forensic term ?justify?Eis used with reference to the judgment executed upon the power of sin in the death of Christ. The result is that all who have died with Christ are the beneficiaries of this judgment executed and are therefore quit of sin?s dominion. This is the force of the expression ?justified from sin.?E IN like manner the forensic term ?condemn?Ecan be used in this instance to express the judicial judgment executed upon the power of sin in the flesh of Christ?E(Romans at 8:3).
In fact, Murray does not have to reach back to 6:7 to find an instance of justification language used in this sense. NT Wright argues in his commentary on Romans 8:3-4 (p. 577), the word DIKAIOMA does not refer to ?moral commands to be obeyed?Ebut ?decree or verdict.?E He supports this claim with two arguments: When the word is used to describe moral requirements, it is used in the plural (Rom 2:26; Lk 1:6; Heb 9:1, 10; Rev 15:4; 19:8); and, second, ?in the passage to which the present one points back, where DIKAIOMA is contrasted with KATAKRIMA [?condemnation?], the DIKAIOMA is unquestionably God?s righteous decree or verdict, not the required behavior of God?s people. . . . It is highly likely, therefore, that TO DIKAIOMA TOU NOMOU here refers to the verdict that the law announces rather than the behavior which it requires.?E This is not a verdict of condemnation, but a verdict of ?justification unto life?Ethat the law promises but cannot deliver; what is fulfilled is the law?s promise of ?do this and you will live.?E Wright is onto something quite profound here, but confuses his point by drawing too sharp a distinction between the judicial force of DIKAIOMA and the ?moral requirements?Eof the law. Surely, Paul means that the promise of the law is fulfilled in us precisely because the Spirit enables us to do what the Law demanded, to please God, something we cannot do in the flesh. If we take the DIKAIOMA as a ?deliverdict,?Ethen things clear up a bit: The Law cannot give the life it promises because the law cannot deliver from the power of sin; what the Law cannot do, God does through the Living Torah, Jesus, and the Spirit, so that the (eschatological) verdict of ?righteous?Ethat the law promises to those who keep it (cf 2:13) may be passed on us; but Paul here speaks of the whole reality of deliverance-from-sin-and-reception-of-the-Spirit in terms of ?justification.?E
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, October 25, 2004 at 9:21 pm
The main point of Romans 8:3, of course, is that the Law was undermined and made ineffective because of flesh, “flesh” here being shorthand for the condition of men and women under the reign of Sin and Death that characterized the OC. Made ineffective by flesh, by Sin, the Law cannot give the life it promises. But God did what the Law could not do, and He does it through the condemnation of sin on the cross and the consequent gift of the Spirit.
In order to deal with flesh, and the reign of Sin, God sent His Son in the ?likeness?Eof sinful flesh, so that the judgment against Sin could be carried out in the Son. The ?likeness?Ehas occasioned some problems because it appears to qualify the real humanity of Jesus. But that?s not the point. ?Likeness?Ecan mean ?identity?E(Schreiner), so that the point is that Jesus participated fully in the cursed world of the OC, and that He came under the law. Perhaps too ?likeness?Eis a way of reminding us that though Jesus came in sinful flesh, came with ?dilapidated humanity?Eas one of my seminary professors put it, He was not a sinner. But it was necessary for Jesus to come in sinful flesh in order to accomplish what needed to be accomplished. Had the Son come in some other way, He could not be the one who received the condemnation for sin. He has to identify with us in our slavery to Sin and Death if the condemnation of Sin is going to be carried out in Him.
God ?condemned sin in the flesh,?EPaul says, by condemning Jesus. God carried out the sentence against Sin and Death by making Jesus a sin offering that received the sentence of Sin and Death. This verse also connects back to the argument of ch 7. Throughout ch 7, Paul argues that the Law is good, and that the ?I?Emight agree with the Law in the inner man. The force of the argument is to indict Sin as the culprit, as the one who keeps the ?I?Efrom doing what he desires to do. The purpose of giving the law, in fact, is to show that Sin can even coopt something that is holy, righteous, and good. The history of Israel and the law is designed to show Sin to be utterly sinful. And this sets up for what Paul says in 8:3: Sin stands condemned because of what it did to the Law, through the law, by effecting death through what is good. Chapter 7, then, can be seen as part of Paul?s prosecutorial case against Sin; and in 8:3, Paul says that the Judge who does right has carried out a righteous sentence against Sin. Sin deserves to be condemned, and has now been exposed as utterly sinful and condemned.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, October 18, 2004 at 8:24 am
At the end of Rom 7, Paul is looking forward to a deliverance from the power of sin and death that holds him. His wretchedness is not relieved by the law, but only made worse. But he hopes for a deliverance, one that he characterizes as a future deliverance: ?Who will set me free from the body of this death??E(v. 24).
The statement in 8:1, however, is about a ?now,?Eand v 2 makes it clear that what happens ?now?Eis the ?setting free?Ethat Paul said he was hoping for in the future. The word for ?set free?Ein 7:24 is not the same as in 8:2, but the notion is the same: Both speak of liberation from death, of rescue and deliverance. 8:2 seems clearly to be referring back to the hope of 7:24, but announcing that the future hope of deliverance is now in effect. For those who are in Christ Jesus, deliverance is realized; there is now a rescue, now a new exodus. (This interpretation is based on Thomas Schreiner’s exegesis of the passage, from his Romans commentary.)
What is extremely curious and interesting here is that the future deliverance that is now realized for those who are in Christ Jesus by baptism is the ground on which Paul announces that there is no condemnation. Note the sequence in 8:1-2: There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus because the law of the Spirit of life has liberated you from the law of sin and death. There is a present deliverance, the breaking in of a future deliverance in the now; and because of this deliverance, this future deliverance made present, there is no condemnation for those in Christ. In short, the ?no condemnation?Eis declared in view of future deliverance now made present.
There is yet a closer link between the deliverance and the declaration of ?no condemnation.?E The word for ?condemnation?Eis KATAKRIMA, a word used in legal contexts to refer to a verdict of guilty. In courtroom settings, to ?condemn?Emeans to ?pass a guilty verdict.?E And the word has that connotation here. It is a forensic term.
But what Paul is talking about is not only a forensic declaration, a verdict of not guilty. The sequence of Paul?s discussion makes that impossible. To verse 1 we can pose the question, Why is there no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus? And verse 2 answers, Because the Spirit has delivered from sin and death. The deliverance from the power of sin through the Spirit is the ground for the verdict of no condemnation. The ?no condemnation?Eis not just a declaration about the status of those who are in Christ; it is also a declaration of their deliverance from Sin and Death.
Paul goes on to emphasize that those who have been liberated from Sin and Death through the Spirit do what the Law requires, and are not only righteous in status, but also actually perform righteousness. The declaration of ?no condemnation?Ethus embraces not only the status of the person, but is a declaration that describes or effects the liberation from Sin and the power to walk in newness of life. Perhaps the GAR (”for”) should be taken as “in that” (it is sometimes used in an explanatory sense, according to BAG). The sequence of thought would then be: There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, in that the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of Sin and Death. The “no condemnation” is explained as a liberation from Sin and Death.
Whether or not the GAR has this force here, the passage has important implications for how we are understanding justification in Paul?s thought. Condemnation, KATAKRIMA, is the opposite of justification, and a declaration of ?no condemnation?Eis essentially a declaration of ?justified.?E But the declaration of ?justification?Ehere is grounded in a future deliverance from Sin and Death that has been made a present reality in Christ Jesus. We might say that the justification implied in v 1 is a declaration not only of status but of deliverance (as in Rom 6:7), that it is a declaration that effects a deliverance and doesn?t merely affect the status of the person who is justified.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, October 18, 2004 at 8:21 am
What are we to make of Paul’s discussion of sin in Romans 7? If we take it as a description of fallen humanity as such, it is difficult to see how it can square with other portions of Scripture or with the Reformed doctrine of sin. Paul presents sin as an external power that dominates and oppresses a victimized “I,” who really does want to do good. The problem, further, does not seem so much a matter of the heart as a matter of practice. The “heart” of the person in Rom 7 seems perfectly fine; but he can’t do what he desires to do. Locating sin primarily in practice, in doing, rather than in the heart, runs counter to much thinking about sin. The whole thrust of the argument, in fact, is designed to exonerate the “I” ?Enote the conditional sentences in vv 16, 20. The man of Romans 7 is possessed; someone else has taken control of his body (though not [!] of his mind), and directs his members to do evil. Poor “I” is a marionette, victim of a demonic puppeteer.
Which is why so many have taken this as a description of the struggle of a saved person with remnants of indwelling sin. The latter view, however, is difficult to square with Paul’s own discussion of the deliverance that the believer has experienced through union with Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit (Rom 6 and 8).
The best approach, I think, is to recognize that the division that Paul is examining is not believer/unbeliever but old covenant/new covenant. The I is an old covenant Jew (and, at another level, Israel as a whole), who truly delights in Torah, who loves the law, who approves the things that are essential, who is instructed out of the law (Rom 2), but whose performance consistently runs contrary to his desires (Rom 2 again). Under the old covenant, man ?Econverted man ?Eis essential schizophrenic, divided between desire for the good and practice of evil. This is the death that Sin brings in its wake, the death that involves splitting a man into two bits. When the Spirit brings life, it is because the Spirit brings integrity, sanity, because the Spirit indwells so that desire and performance are not running at cross purposes. (This is pastorally unsatisfying; what do we do with all the Christians who say that Rom 7 is a mirror?)
This also helps to explain the weakness Paul sees with Torah, or if not explain, at least it unpacks it a bit. There are two ways to spin this (more, no doubt). First, Torah kills by dividing the man. An Israelite is under the dominion of sin, and under the dominion of Pharaoh; Yahweh delivers him and Israel, and the Israelite responds with genuine love and devotion to Yahweh; when Yahweh gives His commands, this Israelite joins in the cry “Whatever Yahweh commands, we will do”; but his performance doesn’t match his confession, and he’s even tempted to join the revelries round the golden calf. Law comes in, and he sees its wisdom and truth, but that merely leaves him schizophrenic, because he can’t do what he desires. Torah came in, and he died.
Alternatively, one might say that even before the law is added, man under the dominion of sin is schizophrenic. He is made in the image of God, yet does not love God. When Torah comes to this divided man, Torah itself is torn in two, into a Torah of the mind and a Torah of sin, a Torah of the inner man and a Torah of the members.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, October 9, 2004 at 6:59 pm
There’s a fairly neat chiasm in the first part of Rom 7:
a. law rules while one lives
b. woman bound while husband lives; if husband dies, freed (KATARGEO)
c. while husband lives: adulteress
d. if husband dies: joined to another without adultery
e. you died through Christ, through body of Christ
d’. joined to another to bear fruit
c’. in flesh: passions operated to bring forth fruit to death
b’. liberated from law, KATARGEO
a’. serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, August 29, 2004 at 7:24 am
We tend to think of desire as the antithesis of submission to authority. Saying “I ate that chocolate pie because I wanted to” is the opposite of saying “I ate my broccoli because Moma told me to.” Paul, however, recognizes the imperative force of desire. Urging the Romans to resist the reign of Sin, who attempts to reassert mastery over those who have died to sin, Paul says that we must “not let sin reign in your mortal bodies to obey its desires” (Rom 6:12). He broadens the point in verse 16, insisting that no one is absolutely free; rather, ever form of freedom is simultaneously a form of slavery to something else. To follow desire ?Ewhether desire for God or desire for sin ?Eis to submit to an authoritative word.
Surely, Paul’s conception is far truer to our experience than the reigning ideology that sets desire against authority. We know that our desires demand and demand and then, when satisfied, demand some more. The ancients knew this, which is why Aphrodite is not merely a force but a goddess.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, August 14, 2004 at 6:20 pm
Rom 6:1 is often described as an “antinomian” objection, but it is really a legalist’s objection. Paul does not perceive an antinomian opponent; he expects that HE will be perceived as an antinomian.
One can imagine it coming from the Pharisees: You overturn Torah, and the world is thrown into chaos. But one can also imagine it coming from the Romans: You say that NOMOS increases transgression, but we’ve proven that NOMOS brings security, peace, and SOTERIA ?Ethe new golden age. If you overturn Roman NOMOS/LEX and Roman DIKE/JUSTITIA, there is nothing to keep the world together.
These Roman objections are not outside Paul’s purpose in Romans. He is writing a letter proclaiming the justice of God, the revelation of God’s righteousness, through the death and resurrection of Jesus. That challenges some Jewish thinking about righteousness, but it is equally a challenge to Roman wisdom about social order.
Paul’s response is not calculated to reassure legalists. He wants to glue the world together with water, an invisible, crucified and purportedly risen Lord, and an invisible Spirit.
In short: Justice, not just justification, is by faith.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, July 10, 2004 at 2:43 pm
Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.
