Archive | Theology RSS feed for this section

Metaphysical Transcendence & Meaning

By on in Theology

As many have observed throughout centuries past, the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t explicitly identified as a term or concept to present to us how we are to identify or interpret God. In his book, God in Three Persons – A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Millard Erickson presents to readers the biblical basis for the existence of the Trinity.¹ In defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, Erickson lists several vulnerabilities concerning some views of Richardson’s work on the subject.² The work involves process theology which is a philosophical theology concerning the world having two natures. To describe process theology as the “primordial” transcendence of God and the “consequent,’ or imminent nature by which God is part of the cosmic process.³ While Erickson lists many valuable points of refutation or objections against a process theology interpretation of the Trinity, and he also makes sound biblical arguments about the existence of the Trinity implicit from the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. Within this monograph, and from his work Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions, exact details and references are made about the case for the Trinity as a formative doctrine by which humanity is to recognize God.⁴ The doctrine of the Trinity assembled from Scripture as the revealed Word of God presents to people across all time the nature of Trinitarian existence.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the same essence who have separate identities and are knowable as God. God, by name YHWH, is a single Being comprised of three together in perfect relationship and essence as one. Readers of Scripture see the interaction between members of the Trinity as God is revealed to people within Creation. He interacts with generations of individuals and nations through various covenants, interventions, and creative efforts to redeem humanity from corruption by the errant free will of persons. Erickson meticulously addressed the biblical problems caused by Richardson’s interpretation of the Trinity. There were eight separate enumerated issues around Richardson’s arguments covered by Erickson. From a range of erroneous thoughts around the authority of Scripture to human-centered logical arguments that arrive at modalism, there were numerous counterpoints of biblical evidence and interpretation. Erickson gives explicit reason for how Richardson works from false premise to conclude flawed outcomes of reason.

The doctrine of the Trinity matters pragmatically as it is a model of the relationship between God and His created beings. Invited into fellowship between Creator and created beings, the redemptive process itself is a part of the creative work to derive creatures with a free will made eligible and acceptable to God. The love of others, marriage covenants, and vows to involve the perfect form of relationship has implications about how people are to live out loyalty and obligations centered upon love and commitment. The doctrine of the Trinity provides a theological grounding for human interaction as imagers of God who will at some point be in fellowship with Him as He intended and promised from His revealed Word.

Contested thoughts around the pragmatic interests of people without concern for the Creator is an exercise in futility. The self-serving philosophical rationale that ingratiates itself with interest to improve the human condition doesn’t go far enough because everyone dies. Worse, everyone dies from a position of corruption and suffering by obvious and continued rebellion against natural order in defiance of its Creator (sin), if not just from creation itself. People unredeemed without purpose from God who live and die with philosophical and metaphysical convictions are still empty, albeit temporarily satisfied by answers to practical problems. That is to say, soothe yourself with pseudo-intellectual reasons to ignore God and His revelatory essence to abide in self with contradictory interests.

Objections to Trinitarian Christianity and its uniqueness have concentrated around feminism and liberation theology, where they together form an alternative to “extremities of patriarchal trinitarianism” (Erickson, 147). A range of feminist cases that argue for feminist theology stems from objections around the male gender identity of the trinitarian doctrines explicitly communicated in Scripture. Concepts of domination, power, and authority as masculine traits to express God as a trinitarian form of Being contradict the interests and preferences of females who conceive God as almighty Creator. Their efforts are then to appeal to a tradition of female social prominence and recast it into feminine consciousness. As gender-Trinity is set aside to reshape worship and objects of worship, idolatrous forms of veneration emerge.

Historical female interests in poetry, myth, legend, ritual, and nature worship were elements of common interest in magic to practice goddess worship (Erickson, 144). By what is sometimes known as witchcraft extending back 35,000 years, objections to patriarchal trinitarianism of the last 5,000 years arrived later on the scene to oppose female power according to developing feminine thought. Universal Trinitarian Christianity, with its heritage and bedrock patriarchal foundation, formed its doctrinal system to arrive at well-formed beliefs altogether Scripturally and objectively anchored. In contrast, feminine interest in goddess religion throughout the centuries (pagan, Greco-Roman, and contemporary) was more subjective without concrete tethering to Truth. In the mind of the historical feminist, male patriarchy was and is ascendant to function as a repressive force to which liberation becomes necessary in common cause with liberation theologians who believe a different gospel contrary to the revealed Word of God in Scripture. To deny Scripture as patriarchal (or toxically masculine) and dismiss its authority is to abandon or forsake complementarian order. It is an intentional effort to exchange female will to power for feminist claims toward the worship of feminine deity in the name of liberation. The erasure of a masculine trinitarian concept contrary to the historical work of God interpreted through Scripture is a less than obvious aspiration of historical female theologians.

The formation and acceptance of generic religion as an objection to the uniqueness of Christianity is yet another effort to bring the Creator and creation into subjection to social interests. It is the removal and dilution of the Trinity as unique to Christianity as it must give way to a homogenous interreligious discussion because exclusive claims are viewed as unacceptable. As it is with feminists who view the masculine trinitarian view of Christianity as objectionable, there are those within Islam, Hinduism, and other religions unable to accept the Trinitarian doctrine and theological traditions. Consequently, to those who object and instead press toward a generic religion or a homogenous spirituality, it is Christianity that must conform to social expectations more palatable to belief in an effort to satisfy its interests. The assimilation of new values to transform human understanding of the Christian faith is a necessary sociological pursuit in the mind of those who object to the doctrine of the Trinity as it is participative of creation having exclusive obligations to YHWH, the only God.

^{__________________________}

Citations

¹Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 100.
²Cyril C. Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1958).
³Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 95–96.
⁴Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 15–16.

The Locality of Inspiration

By on in Theology

Two years ago, when I joined the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), I was required to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. While I’m not a literalist or fundamentalist, I still willingly and whole-heartedly embrace the doctrine of inerrancy as essential to faith and practice (as upheld by CSBI). Not expedient for strained acceptance, but essential. I publicly confess that the truth of God’s word is inspired, inerrant, infallible, sufficient, reliable, authoritative, and clear from the intent of the biblical authors. I utterly delight in God’s word. As necessary for truth and reason, epistemic and existential knowledge of God through divine encounter is shaped by being conformed to Christ.

Yesterday I finished carefully and completely reading through Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy (about 325-pages). Sometimes I take notes and highlight areas of the book to fully ingest the meaning of the subject matter, which I did this time. Aside from my written work reviewing the material, I have numerous notes for continuing interest. To get the various perspectives from prominent members of three evangelical and two secular academic institutions, I’ve taken a macro and micro look at the different topics and perspectives it contains. The five participants came from scholars who wrote their essays as respected and influential people from Cambridge (Vanhoozer), Harvard (Enns), Oxford (Franke), Queensland University (Bird), and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Mohler). Each participant has a Ph.D., and all of them vary widely about the doctrine of inerrancy. While all five participants are self-identified evangelical, their distinctions are between conservative and liberal worldviews.

Franke and Enns would call evangelicalism to a postconservative society-centered way of faith and practice concerning interpretive and sapiential meaning. Conversely, Vanhoozer and Mohler have a God-centered view of faith and practice with a more objectively truth-based historical-grammatical approach to sapiential interpretation. While Bird appears somewhere in between the two pairs. Vanhoozer and Mohler embrace an authorial intent hermeneutic, while Bird does as well to a limited extent contingent upon validated merits of biblical meaning. While it isn’t apparent if Enns and Franke apply a reader-response form of interpretation, they both seem to advocate an altogether different categorization of interpretation for social utility. Enns and Franke are not hostile to truth. They are deconstructive of Truth in exchange for small t – truth.

The reading readily shows who subscribes to truth in relativistic terms and who wants to define it or redefine it to suit social interests for a plurality of cultural and missional outcomes. To the liberal worldview, Enns and Franke appear to subordinate evangelicalism as an instrument of society to satisfy and affirm a divergence of human interests. The others are more sensitive to the value and necessity of theological doctrines that arise from revelatory truth. Including the doctrine of inerrancy, but even further retroactive to other doctrines of the faith to reshape Christian thought, commitments, and trajectories. By inference, Enns (Harvard) and Franke (Oxford) have hyper-radical ideologies concerning Christianity and therefore do not fully accept the core tenets of the faith. Their departure from evangelicalism appears inevitable. Otherwise, what they profess is in contradiction to their beliefs and worldview.

All participants had much to say about the doctrine of inerrancy and the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). Those who were not U.S. citizens rejected the CSBI for various reasons, while it seems apparent there’s a not-invented-here (NIH) perspective at work. Some residents outside the U.S. can have a sense of resentment that the CSBI originated from American evangelicalism. If the statement were to become otherwise revised from a global (worldly) perspective, it would become shaped toward infalliblistic interpretation at best, while the doctrine of inerrancy would become surrendered entirely. While “progressive” or postliberal “Christians” decry colonialism or imperialistic export of Western or American foundations of theological doctrines, there is an oppositional posture toward Christ’s commission concerning the gospel and discipleship. Paul the Apostle, an Israelite Hebrew, originated cross-national mission work that spanned languages, cultures, time zones, historical religious commitments, and indigenous (Gentile) people groups to spread the gospel, plant churches, and develop the spiritual well-being of believers in Christ. He took absolute Truth to a harvest field of people for the Kingdom without liberal or “progressive” impediments. Instead, he faced cultural and philosophical opposition, much like we see among academics and scholars today. Particularly against the doctrine of inerrancy.

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy

By on in Theology

The following are chapter notes from the book, “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.” The book is a compilation of essays from R. Albert Mohler Jr., Peter Enns, Michael F. Bird, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and John R. Franke. The general editors are J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett. The textbook is in the Counterpoints of Bible & Theology Series. It was published in 2013 by Zondervan.

Chapter One: When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy

The editors of the book “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy” have put together a conversation in written form between academics who discuss the doctrine of inerrancy. The discussion is structured in a counterpoint format where four contributors frame the narrative by an opening statement to challenge thought and debate. Participants of the discussion include four prominent individuals within an academic context who bring together multiple perspectives about what inerrancy is. And if it is a valid way to understand and accept Scripture, its merits or flaws. Participants include Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), Michael F. Bird (Anglican Priest, Theologian, and NT Scholar), Peter Enns (Author, Biblical Studies Professor), John R. Franke (Theologian, Professor of Religious Studies), and Kevin Vanhoozer (Theologian, Systematic Theology Professor).

As anyone would understand the term inerrancy, a common definition is generally accepted as follows: “The idea that Scripture is completely free from error. It is generally agreed by all theologians who use the term that inerrancy at least refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of Scripture as God’s Word, which informs humankind of the need for and the way to salvation. Some theologians, however, affirm that the Bible is also completely accurate in whatever it teaches about other subjects, such as science and history.”¹In comparison, the Second Vatican Council defines it as: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings² for the sake of salvation.” ³ To further recognize Protestant or Evangelical attestation of inerrancy, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) is widely understood as informative to clarify what is meant and accepted as Scripture inerrant of facts and truth.

Mohler offered the prescriptive “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy” to open the first of a five-part series of declarations. He makes a case for inerrancy as Scripture is a testimony to itself while serving the faith and needs of the Church. To anchor the testimony of God’s Word as trustworthy, Mohler makes a further compelling and persuasive point that Scripture corresponds to God’s personal nature as his own self-revelation (44).

According to Mohler, our comprehension and understanding of God’s Word to support formulaic doctrines are not freestanding. A theology stems from God’s Word as it produces a realism to “affirm the irreducible ontological reality of the God of the Bible.” As “God wrote a book” (45), Mohler affirms that human authors were guided into truth and protected from all error by the Holy Spirit. The absence of error, as a result, explains the propositional value of inerrancy. As such, the terms infallible and inerrant reject the claims the Word of God is theologically incorrect or without truthfulness in its intent to bring salvific, theological, and historiological messaging to its readers.

Therefore, it is affirmed by the CSBI that the Word of God constitutes plenary inspiration for faith and practice. It is helpful as it is authoritative for belief and instruction.

Chapter Two: Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does

As ideological fencing was placed by Pharisees who set up regulations around the Mosaic law, they did so to provide insulative barriers at some distance to prevent people from breaking the Old Testament covenant after their return from Babylonian exile. By comparison, it intuitively seems like evangelicals set up theological fencing around the doctrine of inerrancy to prevent people from corrupting the closed Biblical canon and the interpretive meaning of Scripture for valid soteriological purposes. As Enns referred to John Frame’s view about inerrancy as a theologically propositional idea, he wrote that he would rather do away with the term but could not do so because of certain corruptions to follow from theologians (scholars).⁴

Before Enns began to deconstruct each of the three test cases of Biblical inerrancy initiated by Mohler in chapter one, he spent considerable effort on the disharmony of evangelicals over inerrancy (i.e., socially liberal objections to Scriptural authority) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). He grieves over the disconnect between academics and inerrantist evangelicals over the doctrine of inerrancy, and he makes clear that it sells the Bible short. Enns also declares that inerrancy sells God short as it is merely a theory of inferior purpose. In his view, it’s a doctrine that needs to be scrapped as it preempts discussion about scholarly conclusions about Scripture’s accuracy, facts, and truths (or at least evangelical interpretation of it). Through Enns’ perspective, it is clear that some academic scholars are certain inerrantists are intellectually dishonest (84) and a disservice to culture as ineffectual spiritual witnesses.⁵

To add further detail to Enns’ objections to the CSBI, he walks through each of its four assertions point-by-point. All four assertions pertain to the authority of Scripture, its witness of Christ and the Holy Spirit, its commitments to faith, life, and mission, and discontinuity between lifestyle and faith claims of inerrantists. Stemming from each, as there is his distinction made between authority and inerrancy, this is deconstruction. As God’s testimony of himself is true, His Word is undoubtedly accurate without error by extension. Conversely, Enns supposes that as inerrantists view the inseparable linkage between authority and inerrancy, that is a perspective should require a defense. The type of authority recognized by inerrantists is questioned in a further effort to dilute the purpose and intent of the CSBI as merely an affirmation document. The CSBI carries no creedal weight, but it is simply a point of reference or a marker to ascertain what someone concludes or supposes about the nature of Scripture, its truth claims, self-witness, and testimony. Enns and like-minded evangelicals prefer to eliminate the doctrine to render it subject to open-ended critical interaction.

While Enns wants to see “a valid definition of the word truth” (87), he wants Scripture held up to critical review without immunity to our interpretive cultural assumptions. It appears he wants the plain truth and meaning of Scripture and its message rendered impotent to guide and protect believers. Consider the interchange between Jesus and the religious leaders of John 8:12-58 as it concerns how He defines Truth of Himself and that of the Father. By His verbal expression of meaning, it is absolute and without error.

Finally, in so many words, Enns says he genuinely wants to introduce a way to make Scripture compatible with scholars’ research concerning ANE facts, archeological discoveries, and literary analysis of ancient civilizations. So Enns wrote what he thought about an “incarnation model” as an alternative in opposition to the doctrine of inerrancy. An “incarnation model” was set up as a counterpoint to an “inerrancy model” to frame the discussion with a new category of false or foreign meaning. As if generations of the doctrine of inerrancy had no bearing, it was set up as an objective comparison or alternative to inerrancy overall to include the CSBI statement. Contributors Bird, Franke, and Vanhoozer’s views about what Enns wrote weren’t comprehensive or well developed, but they revealed a tension between the doctrine of inerrancy and the incarnation model as if there was something to explore further according to Enns’ perspective.

To consider what the incarnation model implies, Bird’s restatement of John Webster’s view is an eye-opening refutation: “this incarnational model is, as John Webster calls it, ‘Christologically disastrous.’ It’s disastrous because it threatens the uniqueness of the Christ event, since it assumes that hypostatic union is a general characteristic of divine self-disclosure in, through, or by a creaturely agent. Furthermore, it results in a divinizing of the Bible by claiming that divine ontological equality exists between God’s being and his communicative action.”⁶Moreover, Irenaeus of Lyons (130-230 A.D.), a disciple of Polycarp, separated incarnation between the Word and Christ within his work Against Heresies. He wrote of the incarnation of Jesus but not of the Word itself to exclude incarnational participation. To quote Irenaeus, “For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.”⁷

Chapter Three: Inerrancy Is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA

The book’s third part, Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, entitled “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” concerns Michael F. Bird’s views on American understanding of inerrancy concerning the CSBI. Without much interaction with inerrancy in general as a contribution to the work of the book about Biblical Inerrancy, there is an absence of the distinction. The work of chapter 3 in the text is primarily a discourse on affirmations, objections, and concerns about the CSBI. As Bird narrows his thoughts around the particulars of the CSBI, he goes well beyond the purpose and intent of the Chicago Statement’s purpose of upholding the doctrine of inerrancy. Bird takes exception to various points of CSBI inerrancy verbiage around the Biblical creation account in Genesis. He would presumably agree that the truth and principles of inerrancy refer to the trustworthiness and authoritative nature of God’s word as authoritative.

From Bird’s various perspectives, he would not entirely affirm what the Bible infers about other subjects such as science and history. In fact, Bird’s views about inerrancy are better stated as a better categorization of veracity. From the inner witness of the Church by the Holy Spirit, Scripture’s “divine truthfulness” (158) is a way to set aside the claims or proclamations of negative statements in defense of “inerrancy.” Whether on its own merits or as an apologetic expression of the CSBI by American evangelicalism concerning the doctrine inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture.

What the Bible says about itself pertains to its use and inspiration (2 Tim 3:16). Among the various genres of Scripture, the Old and New Testaments are attestations of divine truth whether in narrative, poetic, prophetic, apocalyptic, epistolary form. Scripture best interprets Scripture and reservations about exceptions concerning inerrancy as it does so, whether supported by the CSBI or not, isn’t productive on the grounds of harmonization, literary discrepancies, nation of origination, or supposed contradictions without historiographical refutation. Particularly when so much antipathy exists around the meaning and purpose of God’s Word as it is intended by define revelation for God’s glory and for salvific outcomes. The doctrine of inerrancy doesn’t claim for itself authority over matters concerning self-contradictory postmodern assertions (i.e., opposition to absolute truth and authority). The CSBI and the doctrine of inerrancy are assembled to support a high view of Scripture toward confidence for its intended purpose.

Some objections to inerrancy appear to stem from the term itself. As the Word of God is without error and reliable as God is Truth, Bird calls attention to its comparative infallibility and inspiration. Bird doesn’t indicate that the Word of God is with error or without truth, nor does he suggest that it is uninspired. His reservations are around what interpreters understand about the idea of inerrancy and how that pertains to conclusions involving life and practice. Particularly across cultures of different nationalities that do not hold to the doctrine of inerrancy, especially as it is defined and understood in the West or America more narrowly.

The difference between inerrancy and infallibility is essential and necessary to recognize and understand. To put it clearly, inerrancy, at a minimum, refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of God’s word for salvific purposes. By comparison, infallibility refers to Scripture’s inability to fail in its ultimate purpose of revealing God and the way to salvation. It is counterproductive to conflate the two terms or to use them interchangeably. The doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy are not for a social utility or to shape social justice initiatives for society or the State. While Catholicism shares the same definition of inerrancy as Protestantism, it differs in defining infallibility. Infallibility within Catholicism includes the church (i.e., the magisterium and its dogma) under the pope’s authority.

Bird’s assessment and criticism about tirades against God’s Word is exactly the correct posture against those who stand in opposition to its truth, authority, reliability, and inspiration of Scripture. However, it isn’t so much secular culture or atheists who so much pose a harmful threat to the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility as does Christian academics or scholars, well-meaning or not. It is for internal reasons of mishandling God’s Word that it is served by assertive statements of inerrancy to prevent its surrender to a multitude of professing Christians who have a large range of worldviews (including liberalism, or socialism) and would rather see God’s Word rendered insufficient and irrelevant to a postmodern society. Professing Christians, especially progressive Christians, are just as readily inclined to make God’s Word into its own image as secular society.

Unrelated Note: In support of feminist egalitarianism, Bird makes an inflammatory assertion that complementarians enable abuse: Article

Chapter Four: Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse

As affirmed by Vanhoozer, the doctrine of inerrancy has an important presupposition. That most important presupposition is: God speaks. Or, more specifically, God the Creator communicates through human language and literature as a means of communicative action to people. Vanhoozer also points out that the works of the Trinity are undivided (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt) as triune discourse indicative of communicative action involving subjects, objects, and purpose. He makes the case that language is functional and cognitive in nature to support the intent of divine revelation. Therefore, it is recognized that Scripture is a corpus of written communicative work consisting of historical assertions, commands, and explanations. According to Carl Henry (20th-century theologian), Scripture is propositional, but it is also trustworthy as true as it is a correspondence of Christ’s witness to what and who God is.

Inerrancy is a claim that the Bible is true and trustworthy through critical testing and cross-examination. Just as Augustine speaks of the incarnation as humans give tangibility of thoughts as words, Christ is the exact imprint of God’s being (Heb 1:3). Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) and what Christ speaks is Truth because He originates as God from the Father who is Truth and communicates truth. Whether verbally while with us in Creation or in Scripture by the testimonies of eye-witness accounts of his verbal speech acts. Within the old or new covenants, by God’s presence or His Spirit among people, He cannot lie in Scripture as His personal veracity is made clear through the inspiration of the Canon.

As made evident through divine revelation, truth is a correspondence of covenantal and redemptive meaning. The modes of its conveyance have a bearing on the methods of truth messaging by which it is delivered and understood. Allegory, metaphors, poetic expressions, and narrative discourses together establish the means of language utilized to accomplish its desired intent. Therefore, as Vanhoozer proved, it isn’t helpful when critics of inerrancy confuse matters by suggesting that inerrantists believe every word of the Bible as literal truth. Vanhoozer distinguishes between “sentence meaning” and “speaker, or writer meaning” when readers seek to understand what the author is doing or saying within Scriptural messaging. Analogies defy critical assertions about literalist interpretations of meaning.

Literalism, irrespective of context, can produce contradictions in meaning. Or it can confuse the intent of messaging through various linguistic methods, especially as prophecies and parables were verbally uttered and recorded in Scripture to convey imagery or parallel thoughts and ideas to achieve Spiritual understanding among listeners or readers. The communication method and its content are intentional, just as the assembly, formation, and preservation of God’s Word are true, sure, and lasting for those of faith to believe.

Inerrancy doesn’t claim to affirm or validate scientific or philosophical observations and constructs precisely. Observations of physical behaviors and explanations of metaphysical reality originating from beings in natural order don’t have reach to ascertain spiritual truth and meaning as propositioned and asserted from God’s Word. Supposed contradictions in Scripture that serve as proof-text “gotchas” do not subvert the inerrant truth and meaning of intended spiritual messaging, and theological truth held out as spiritually factual from different authorial perspectives. Even with elaborate and effective explanations to reconcile apparent differences, there isn’t much acceptance to recover veracity among many who object to the doctrine of inerrancy.

Whether believers or unbelievers interpret Scripture according to cognitive reason and comprehension for rational thought and conclusion, gathered facts can become assembled incorrectly to arrive at false notions of belief or disbelief. To quote Vanhoozer, “God’s words are wholly reliable; their human interpretation, not so much” (224). To further explain, biblical inerrancy requires biblical literacy. It is a yoke of burden that people of postmodern culture view Scriptural literality by its terms and expectations of meaning. People within modern society expect a reality of the time of the Old and New Covenants to conform to how things are expected today. The claims of inerrancy do not imply there is only one way to map the reality of the world correctly, either then or now. Proper hermeneutical stands separate from inerrancy as necessary to understand and accept Truth from Scripture.

Chapter Five: Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible As Witness to Missional Plurality

John R. Franke’s contribution to the evangelical conversation around inerrancy is driven by his aspirations around what he calls a plurality of truth toward God’s missional objectives. By missional theology in keeping with the mission of God, Franke means humanitarian relief and advancement as chief of concerns. When Franke speaks of missional imperatives that involve the gospel and discipleship, it is always within a social and cultural context to improve the human condition. To Franke, the meaning of Scripture as inerrant is not so much about its salvific relevance as humanity is lost in sin and stands condemned without redemption. The authority of Scripture as a witness to the mission of God comes from the truth claims of Christ and the veracity of His words as He is the incarnate expression of God.

Franke’s sympathy toward postmodern theology explains his objections to static biblicism. The Spirit continues to speak through Scripture as he puts it but doesn’t offer thoughts about the meaning and purpose of Holy Spirit inspired Scripture for the actual gospel purpose of salvation and restoration of people to God. Franke’s contribution rests very much on the here and now for people in terms of missional objectives, not the already but not yet. The concern isn’t so much that people are perishing and headed toward hell, as it is their earthly well-being. The concern should rather be primary-secondary prioritization from a missional perspective. The truth of the Old and New Covenant’s meaning entirely revolves around how humanity would return to God. The confidence believers have about what Christ does to reconcile people to God comes from truth spoken and written without error and infallibly. With authority, believers can meet people’s spiritual and physical needs by missional endeavor rooted in sound theology and a commitment to the truth claims of Christ and God’s Word at work.

As Franke writes, “I believe that inerrancy challenges this notion and serves to deconstruct the idea of a single normative system of theology” (277), he is revealing his thoughts about what postmodern progressives do to reject conformity to the text of Scripture “for the sake of systematic unity.” The assertion illegitimate interpretive assumptions make clear postmodern thought, as there is no acceptance of universal truth. According to Franke, truth must be plural to accomplish contextual missional objectives relative to individual interpretation from Scripture. As conventionally defined by Protestants and Catholics, the doctrine of inerrancy is recast by Franke as an open and flexible tradition for pluralistic perspectives, practices, and experiences. It is unacceptable to Franke that the whole Bible is interpretive as an inerrant description of the gospel and Christ’s commands to love God and neighbor. Essentially, it is his call to redefine inerrancy such that the Bible is what we make of it and not what the authors intended.

Franke’s final thoughts about the cultural relevance of the gospel bring further alarm as he calls on his readers to surrender universal and timeless theology. He attempts to message a desire to redefine inerrancy to accomplish a culturally relativistic notion of God’s Word. That is, to rewrite Scripture to shape truth suitable for cultural conditions toward various human interests aside from salvific reconciliation. Where truth as concrete or abstract meaning carries less utility to accomplish objectives and instructions explicitly set forth by the Creator. Objectives and instructions delivered through human language expressed in truth as God is truth that must be accepted and theologically contextualized without compromise. It is crucial to ensure there is no loss or corruption of meaning. It is necessary to further God’s kingdom and bring people together in redemption toward their salvation and physical well-being without surrendering absolute truth and our acceptance of Scriptural authority.

Citations

^{__________________________}
¹Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 66.
² cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20: PL 34, 270–271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126–127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.
³ Catholic Church, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011).
⁴John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 598.
⁵Cited by Enns: “For a focused critique of the CSBI (and its later sister document the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics 1982), see Iain Provan, ” ‘How Can I Understand, Unless Someone Explains It to Me?’ (Acts 8:30–31): Evangelicals and Biblical Hermeneutics,” BBR 17.1 (2007): 1–36. See also Carlos Bovell, Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 44–65; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics,” JETS 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 89–114. For an appeal for a more prominent role the Chicago statements should play in evangelicalism today, see Jason Sexton, “How Far beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate,” Themelios 34 (2009): 26–49.”
⁶Peter Enns, “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 125.
⁷Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 427.

The Articles of Inerrancy

By on in Theology

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy – 1978

Preface

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition*. It has been prepared in the course of a three- day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.

A Short Statement

God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God’ s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of

grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

The Glory of Rome

By on in Theology

This post is to bring into view the work of the apostle Paul as he brought the gospel to Jews and Gentiles in the first-century world of Asia Minor and Eastern Europe. More specially, Paul was appointed by Christ Jesus as an apostle to the Gentiles (1 Tim 2:7), and he fulfilled his mission with passion and strenuous attention.

Purpose and Background

With every bit of his mind, body, soul, and strength, Paul brought the message of reconciliation to God through Christ among people who were culturally alien to the messianic prophecies and the old covenants that extended back for generations. This post surveys the subject matter of Paul’s letters to the Romans. In his writing, he engages a people steeped in Greco-Roman culture with all of its pagan influences and Gentile customs of early gnostic and epicurean thought. The purpose of Paul’s letter itself cannot be narrowed to a single topic (i.e., systematic reasoning of God’s salvific power to the Gentiles). Paul wrote numerous additional matters of concern to the formative Gentile Church. Issues about the Church, humanity’s sin problem, God’s method of redemption, personal and shared holiness, sovereignty, ethnic cohabitation, and ministry work together inform the readers of Romans what principles to understand and abide in a life of hope and godliness.

Earlier in life, Apostle Paul was a Jew known as Saul of Tarsus (Acts 21:39), a province in Cilicia, southeast Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). He was a tentmaker by trade who became a Pharisee and relocated to Jerusalem to live by the old covenant faith of Judaism. He was an educated man and a Jewish rabbi ardent in observing the Torah and tradition. The Torah of Moses was a focal point of his life, and he was devoted to the traditions of Israel. Paul was a rigorous student of the Torah as a Hebrew legal scholar under Gamaliel, a Jewish leader of his time (Acts 22:3). Paul’s achievements and status within his circles of Judaism earned him respect and admiration. His intellectual accomplishments and influence produced an authority recognized and accepted by Jewish religious leaders as necessary for his development and continuing work in Jerusalem and synagogues throughout Judea and various Mediterranean locales.

Paul was a Roman citizen by birth. A Jewish Roman citizen with status and privileges befitting a family of means. While his accomplishments were impressive and carried a significant weight of influence, he was of the tribe of Benjamin sealed as a Jew by circumcision (Phil 3:5). Moreover, as an official Roman citizen, he was recognized by the Roman and Israeli governments as a prominent social figure having cultural stature and notoriety. Paul was resourceful, driven, intelligent, strong-willed, persistent, and zealous. His convictions concerning the Torah and Jewish traditions were so fierce that he captured and prosecuted Christians of the emergent church in Jerusalem and Judea. While Paul did not accept Jesus’s status as the Jewish Messiah, he would come to know Him as the Christ of humanity to include Jews and Gentiles. Specifically, while Paul was on a journey from Jerusalem to Damascus toward Syria, Jesus appeared before him to confront his persecution (Acts 9:1-22). After His resurrection and ascension, Jesus revealed His identity to Paul as the risen Christ foretold. Paul’s direct encounter with Jesus confronted his understanding of Scripture, as he was very attuned to the experience of Jesus’ appearance as Messiah yet not to Pharisaic expectations. From within the Torah and across the various covenants down through the centuries, through divine encounter, Paul was granted mercy and a mission concerning what he must suffer and accomplish (Acts 9:15-16). Paul was converted from Judaism to Christianity in a flash of divine revelation while on the Damascus road.

Structure

As Paul was chosen to bear the name of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel, his actions were guided and propelled by the Spirit to suffer hardships, form churches, shepherd God’s people, and write letters (2 Pet 3:16) to testify to the truth of the gospel, answer questions, and provide teaching. Accordingly, as Paul undertook his travels, he likely wrote to the Church of Rome by an amanuensis while in Corinth.¹ The apostolic era of the early Church were recipients of direct verbal and written communication to shape their form of assembly and practice of faith according to principles and instruction concerning their development. Namely, the substance and body of Paul’s letter to the Romans were written in 56 A.D., while on his third missionary journey. His letter centers around doctrinal and practical concerns² for the unification of the Church and furtherance of the gospel.

Doctrinal Concerns

Before delving further into the various sections of Paul’s letter, it is helpful to understand the circumstances around the hope of the gospel for both Jews and Gentiles. These were expressed as doctrines of depravity, sin, judgment, and the solution through a redemptive path. Involving justification, sanctification, and glorification of believers in Christ, God provides a way of reconciliation for eternal life and salvation. Those who accept and receive Christ Jesus by faith to include both Jews and Gentiles unified in the gospel. By one gospel as a reliable means of return to God through Christ Jesus, the Church of Rome was informed of what it meant to live by hope and grace to place individual and corporate confidence in Christ for reconciliation and escape from judgment due to the consequences of sin. Through the first eleven chapters of Romans, Paul precisely describes what this entails in thorough detail.

Practical Concerns

As Paul writes in contiguous form from the first eleven chapters, he informs the Roman Church about the day-to-day implications of fruitful godly living. Notably, in light of the redemptive work of Christ as a practical matter to any ethnicity. Together in the hope of the gospel, Jews and Gentiles transitioned to new lives as they set aside traditions, preferences, fears, and concerns about the requirements of the law, culture, and matters of conscience. In the face of religious and cultural baggage, interpersonal tensions and obstacles had to be overcome through peace and renewal of perspectives and attitudes applicable to each individual. Routine matters of fellowship, sharing meals, and work habits had to be resolved in light of the unity in the gospel and well-being of the Church.

Synthesis

Bringing together both doctrinal and practical concerns is rooted in the teaching of Paul as stipulations of the new covenant were formed as standards to live by. It just was not enough to become informed of principles concerning justification, righteous living, and their obligations to God and one another. The Church of Rome needed to know what was different and new and what was expected of them as they lived lives pleasing to God, befitting their faith and fruitful lives in the Spirit. It was necessary to practice what they learned and were taught as one people.

Introduction (Romans 1:1-17)

Paul’s credibility was necessary to establish before beginning his instructions to the Church. In doing so, he specifies his authoritative position as an apostle of God and servant of Christ set apart and appointed to inform others of the gospel and obedience of faith among all nations. In the opening comments to the Romans, he was explicit in greeting by way of encouragement and a longing to visit them from Corinth. As he intended to visit Rome, he was under obligation to Jesus Christ that he must preach the gospel to Gentiles elsewhere as well. Paul was committed to satisfying the expectations placed upon him. It was necessary to include the Greeks and Barbarians, and he informed the Church of Rome of such obligations while prevented from an earlier visit. Paul’s greeting followed an epistolary format of salutation that explicitly informs the reader of the gospel, Christ the Son, Scriptures, Paul’s gospel, the obedience of faith, and the name and glory of God.³

The Problem of Depravity & Judgment (Rom 1:18–3:20)

As Paul wrote that “the righteous shall live by faith” (Rom 1:17), he contrasts that state of being with God’s wrath upon the unrighteous. Paul articulated the infamous Romans 1 passage about everyone lost in sin with observations concerning the culture at the time. Both Jews and Gentiles of first-century Rome were indicative of unrighteous people and ungodliness in suppression of the truth. Contrary to the evidence of God’s existence through creation and His divine attributes, people exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped creatures instead of God the Creator. The consequences of self-delusion, error, and degrading passions led people into depravity to remove them from a desire for the Creator and truth. Instead, people become filled with evil and thoroughly opposed to natural order and righteousness.

As given over to unrighteousness, covetousness, and malice, the sin itself involves envy, murder, strife, deceit, gossip, slander, hatred, insolence, arrogance, conceit, disobedience, dishonor, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and cruelty. As indicative of Greco-Roman culture, people who deny Truth and God their Creator were and are desperately lost while subject to God’s righteous judgment. Without recourse, the problem was a staggering loss of peace, order, and a common harmony with one another and God to fill a purpose of contentment and life to glorify God and love Him and each other as designed and intended.

The judgment of God involves a “giving over” people to their sinful and erroneous interests (cf. Rom 1:24, Acts 7:42).⁴ The suffering and misery of people that ensues as an outcome of depravity and evil conduct is a manifestation of hardships and distress in physical life that was certain and against the created order of humanity. The passive and foreboding wrath of God actively against humanity engaged in the error and depravity constitute the sinfully lost disposition. Enmity with God involved depraved people who were subject to judgment as anyone without Christ is lost in sin.

Paul further elaborates on the truth that sinful people cannot mitigate the judgment of God by their efforts. Following and abiding by the law in an attempt to satisfy God’s requirement for righteousness was a futile undertaking (Rom 3:19) because if anyone offends in one point of the law, then there is the guilt of the whole law (Jas 2:10). Paul makes it clear to the Church that God’s righteousness solves the problem of sin as no one is righteous and fit to stand before God in judgment. While there is condemnation upon those separated from Him due to sin, there is no way for an individual to make up for offenses. The deep corruption of all humanity laid bare before God was a debt paid through Christ regardless of individual merit, ethnic status, or nationality (Rom 3:1-4). It was God’s righteousness as the intervening solution to humanity’s sin problem that required judgment and wrath. No person can be justified before God by works of the law as the corrupt nature of everyone involves an inevitable rejection of God by knowledge of sin. An absence of the fear of God reveals to those who violate His law all unmet obligations to cement their condemnation before Him without Christ.

Righteousness from God’s Justification (Rom 3:21–5:21)

While everyone is conscious of sin, whether later suppressed or not, everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). The law makes the need for faith evident, and it is a witness to our fallen condition apart from Christ. Therefore, the law in Paul’s mind performed a positive function in this way as it pointed to Christ.⁵ More explicitly, the imputation of faith to believers for righteousness through God’s forbearance. Faith is imputed for righteousness, counted for righteousness, and reckoned for righteousness by God’s righteousness (Rom 4:3, 5, 9, 22, 24).⁶ Paul brings attention to the authority of Scripture to make clear Abraham’s Justification before God by faith. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” is declared in Scripture to highlight the principle of faith to become made righteous.

Abrahams’s righteousness was counted to him without considering what he accomplished through performance or circumcision in an effort to earn God’s favor. As circumcision was a seal for all those who believed, he was made the father of faith for all without being circumcised. The seal of circumcision itself was a covenant indicator of distinction for righteousness by faith to count for others. While there was the presence of sin and guilt upon Abraham and those of the seal of circumcision, faith in God was the means of their justification for right standing with God and salvific righteousness. Justification by faith as righteousness is a claim for all believers validated by Paul from the authority of Scripture. Paul makes vividly clear that believers who are the spiritual offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:29) are people in Christ as heirs according to the guaranteed promise of God (Rom 4:16). Those who share in Abraham’s faith and believe God participates in justification by faith about God’s promise, “so shall your offspring be” (Gen 15:5).

Paul further elaborates to the Roman Church that faith’s intended effect of justification is peace with God. Achieved by the Lord Jesus Christ, access to God is obtained as He died for the ungodly. The death of Christ to redeem people of faith made righteous was to bring to God heirs of inheritance according to His promise. As the blood of Christ (Rom 5:9) justifies the redeemed, His people are saved from the wrath of God. As the cost of this work of redemption is far beyond human wisdom and comprehension, God gave up His Son for reconciliation.

Furthermore, Paul stressed that once believers are reconciled, they are saved through the life of Christ (Rom 5:10). This free gift of reconciliation to escape condemnation is the gospel hope for all only in Christ. To live in Christ by grace made possible through His sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection, where believers are made righteous by faith.

Holiness and Sanctification (Rom 6:1–8:39)

Paul’s letter to the Romans transitions from justification to sanctification as he instructs believers about holy and righteous living. Where people of faith were formally slaves to righteousness, he urges them to present their bodies as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification (Rom 6:19). While people were set free from the slavery of sin through the gospel, the righteousness lived leads to sanctification, ending in eternal life.⁷ Grace as an active ingredient appears as a functional impetus at work in the life of a believer. To affect a drive toward individual sanctification as people transition from slaves to sin to slaves of righteousness. Grace, in this sense, is not a passive activity that allows for God’s favor or merit to override the presence of sin. It is an active ingredient in the catalyst of sanctification.

Free from condemnation, believers in Christ are no longer under the law but under grace. As promised, any person given eternal life is righteous by faith and free from the law. More specifically, freedom from the law correlates to freedom from condemnation as believers under grace are united in Christ to bear fruit and live by the Spirit. Those in Christ are cut off from the law and bound to grace as a husband’s death releases a woman from one covenant to render her bound to another in marriage.⁸

While those in Christ are free from sin, the struggle against sin continues because while a person belongs to God, that person still lives in the body where sin dwells. The law is righteous and holy, but sin itself within produces death. As the law is spiritual, that law of sin in the flesh holds us captive. The struggle with sin is the person’s bodily flesh waging war with the inner being or spirit of those in Christ. Aurelius Augustin further expressed this condition as the carnality of the mortal body “sold under sin” (Rom 7:14) until the spiritual body is clothed in immortality.⁹ Until physical death, therefore, as it is of those in Christ, Paul served the law of God with his mind to bear fruit, yet in his flesh, he served the law of sin.

As those in Christ by the spirit inhabit the flesh subject to death, believers walk by the Spirit. That is, to set the mind on the Spirit where there is life and peace. Living and walking by the flesh is enmity with God, and it cannot submit to God’s law. Conversely, righteousness that abides in the believer is made alive to the Spirit as the body is dead because of sin. As by the Spirit, the deeds of the flesh are put to death, then by the Spirit, those in Christ will live. This hope was made possible by the love of Christ to bring us into union and fellowship with him.

The Sovereignty of God (Rom 9:1–11:36)

Paul distinguishes the children of the flesh and children of the promise. There are children of Israel according to the flesh, and there are the children of Abraham according to the promise (Gal 4:23). He elaborates on the difference between the flesh and the promise to bring into view the wisdom and sovereignty of God through “vessels of wrath” (Rom 9:22) and “vessels of mercy” (Rom 9:23). The declared “sons of the living God” (Rom 9:26) is in contextual reference to the adoption as sons (Rom 8:23) as heirs of the promise. As those in Christ justified by faith walk in the Spirit, they are reckoned righteous and heirs to eternal life. The sovereign difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise is between those in Christ and those who are not.

The believers within the first-century Roman Church were informed of these doctrinal concerns to contrast between the belief and unbelief of Jews and Gentiles. To the Gentiles, righteousness is pursued by grace through faith that produces fruit. With the Jews, righteousness is pursued by works of the old covenant law. Within the new covenant context, by the sovereignty of God, the children of promise and children of the flesh are regarded intentionally separate through the “rock of offense” of Christ, who God placed upon His old covenant people.

Israel’s unbelief does not preclude their ultimate justification and reconciliation to God. It is through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles (Rom 11:11). God does as He wills between the elect and the justified (Rom 9:11-24) in His redemptive plan to bring people to Him through Christ. It is along a span of time that people become reconciled either as Jews or Gentiles through faith in Christ as made present for purposes of justification and righteousness. Salvation unachievable by the law, Israel was hardened by a rejection of the gospel as God’s sovereign means of their corresponding redemption across covenantal periods. Israel will eventually be restored and reconciled, but until that time, the sovereign work of God prevails.

Renewed Life & Mind (Rom 12:1-2)

Paul again transitions to an appeal to the Church. Predicated upon his discourse concerning the sin problem of Jews and Gentiles, he makes clear the mercies of God through the gospel. For all in Christ who believe, His people are called to faith for justification and righteousness, whether Jew or Gentile, to become reconciled to God. While there is life in the body of flesh, sanctification is the spiritual course of life in the Spirit. The work of God between unbelief and belief among Jews and Gentiles is a sovereign work alongside the redemptive accomplishments of Christ. The inclusion of Israel will be saved and restored (Rom 11:1-32), but until then, Gentiles are ushered into belief and justification for God’s good pleasure and for those who would believe.

It stands to reason that those in Christ should present their bodies of flesh as a sacrifice to God. Spiritual service as a form of worship is a rational endeavor in the life of the Spirit. Romans 12:1-2 is a prelude and theme to the remainder of what Paul’s letter concerns.¹⁰ The life of a believer should be devoted to the service of others as a means of living by the Spirit. Made evident in the believer’s life by the Spirit are the fruits of the Spirit. As Paul wrote to the believers in Galatia (Gal 5:1-26), the fruits of the Spirit yield positive and meaningful character and work toward individual conduct and the life of a body of believers.

In contrast to the works of the flesh that come into opposition to the life of the Spirit, Paul charges believers to renew their minds. Where it becomes necessary to recognize and follow the will of God, this involves a transformation of priorities and values in keeping with a change of heart and mind holy, acceptable, and pleasing. The freedom that belongs to those in Christ renders to them the capacity to serve God and people by the Spirit from a renewed life.

Life of Peace, Unity, & Love (Rom 12:3-13:14)

As Paul’s discourse transitions from doctrinal concerns to practical concerns, he sets course to write specifics about what believers are to do by faith through grace. With a renewal of mind and life by the Spirit that gives way to service and worship, behavioral principles for Godly living become a daily practice. Numerous examples of such performative outcomes result from gifts “assigned” by God (Rom 12:3). Functions within the church that metaphorically compare to the body of a person represent the necessity and purpose of its various members. Suppose a concern or dispute should surface about one church member being more important than others. In that case, Paul communicates the unity of the body as its diverse members achieve a given purpose. As Paul addressed in 1 Cor 12, a diversity of gifts must be honored. Otherwise, members could become tempted to compare each other with false pride.¹¹

Further practical instructions were written to the Romans and for believers today. The marks of a Christian include living at peace with one another. Furthermore, Paul instructs those in Christ to live in peace with society and authorities. There is no ambiguity about what positive attitudes and inner motivations must become externally evident toward others. Living in submission, harmony, cooperation, and gratitude are necessary Christian dispositions. It is contradictory to the life of peace, unity, and love to live contentiously with people. Christians are called to live by faith and walk by the Spirit both inwardly and outwardly.

As love is a fruit of the Spirit, Paul makes it evident that the love of one another fulfills the law (Rom 13:8). Accordingly, those in Christ are urged to cast off “works of darkness” that bring harm to others through the gratification of the flesh. Such behavior is incompatible, whether by immoral conduct, undue abrasive attitudes, or verbal animosity and abuse.

Conscience, Discernment & Deference (Rom 14:1-15:13)

Paul further narrows his instructions to the church in Rome concerning the presence and diversity of new believers and Jews among them. Explicit guidance is given to believers in Christ about unity within the church, and Paul was precise concerning the conscience of people who object to acceptable yet divergent faith practices. The opinions of some people who were weak in faith were not to be disputed or accused of stringent rules around meals or the abstention from valued traditions. Paul’s concern amounted to the spiritual preservation of believers and Jews who were in the presence of Christians that appeared to violate people’s conscience and not just their preferences or tastes. More seasoned and mature believers were warned about causing others to sin by violation of conscience. And Paul’s tone is severe in the matter as he verbally brought to mind the inevitable judgment of God by which everyone must stand (Rom 14:10). It is abundantly clear that each person must give an account of themselves to God.

To sin against Christ was to cause a brother or sister in the Lord to violate their conscience (1 Cor 8:13). It was Paul’s exhortation that Christian’s strong in the faith must not destroy the work of God in the lives of fellow believers. Inconsiderate exercise of freedom in eating anything at-will could distress the ‘weak’ and lead them to act against their consciences, thus causing shipwreck of their faith.¹² The ‘strong’ who would destroy the work of God in the lives of the ‘weak’ merely for the sake of food were not living according to the principle of love Paul earlier wrote about (Rom 13:10). To pass judgment on fellow believers or grieve them by what others do in their freedom of conscience by faith is unacceptable and counterproductive.

Method & Ministry (Rom 15:14-33)

Paul wrote to the church in Rome to express his satisfaction with them. He acknowledged their advanced development in the gospel. Their goodness and knowledge had matured where they could instruct one another without undue burden or strife. It is apparent that Paul delighted in their growth as believers in Christ as he shared his confidence in them by what he accomplished and valued. Inclusive to their place in the Kingdom of God, Paul had fulfilled his ministry. From Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum (modern Yugoslavia) to the North of the Adriatic Sea, Paul reached yet further people beyond the rim of the Mediterranean. Paul’s recorded missionary journeys extended farther and farther in duration to ensure the fulfillment of Christ’s commission. Namely, to bring the Gentiles the gospel and obedience by word and deed (Rom 15:18). Location after location, Paul planted churches and formed them with believers in Christ to involve fellow ministry workers. Paul’s work of the gospel of Christ was an epic undertaking to which God obtains the fullest measure of glory.

Paul’s affection for the church in Rome was a pleasing experience. Their spiritual blessings translated to material blessings of welcomed support for furtherance of the gospel and Paul’s ministry work in Jerusalem and later toward Spain if he were to reach that far. As Paul began to conclude his written discourse, his appeal for prayer was on his mind as safety from the Church was concerned.¹³ He knew that he would encounter conflict once he arrived in Jerusalem, and he desired deliverance from people opposed to his work further West toward Spain. As his work in the region ended, Paul sought to further the gospel. He hoped to gain the favor of the saints in Jerusalem for continued support and encouragement.

Final Commendations & Farewell (Rom 16:1-27)

The closure of the letter to the church at Rome is a roster of greeting to acknowledge numerous people active in the faith. Its length is unique and comprehensive as the people that Paul personally greeted were a listing of notable figures involved in the work of ministry and the church’s growth. While the identities of each person were explicit by name, various contributions and associations among the saints were made clear. The roster also somewhat served as a listing of risks undertaken by first-century prisoners and missionaries of the Church alongside Paul. Behind each of the names made apparent in the letter is a notable person responsible for the advancement of the Kingdom.

Paul’s final appeal was written in the form of instructions. He warned the church in Rome to guard against people who would stir up divisions and obstacles that contradict the doctrines they were taught. Paul’s doctrinal concerns through the first eleven chapters of his letter were not up for contravening opinions or perspectives. The teachings of Paul to the Romans and the churches throughout Asia-Minor were a work of collaboration from among additional apostles and their disciples to assure a lasting and coherent belief. The strengthening of the saints according to the gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ was in bloom for the world to witness. Paul’s heartfelt interest was toward the obedience of faith to the Gentiles. It was and is for the glory of God through Christ Jesus for all eternity.

Conclusion

The apostle Paul’s ministry and his passionate written letter to the church in Rome is an incredibly beautiful expression of spiritual significance. The direct inspiration and active involvement of the Holy Spirit is the only viable explanation for its meaning and purpose. As the letter to the Romans is intended for mature believers in Christ, it is a tenderhearted work of profound importance. While it is intellectually rich, a reader of the letter cannot escape the plain content of the text. The surface of the letter as constituted by words assembled without further depth is in itself unspeakably heartwarming. As the letter speaks to the inner being about truth and the work of God through Christ Jesus, it is impossible to miss the joy and peace that comes with its message. The gospel of Christ is a treasure, and the love of God through the Lord Jesus is of incomparable worth.

The comprehensive nature of the letter as a guide for doctrinally sound theology and Christian living is undeniable. While the text of the letter is specific to the church in Rome, it has immeasurable value to those in Christ. Those who wish to probe the depths of justification, sanctification, righteousness, faith, grace, unity, and many other topics of crucial necessity, will never fully exhaust the wonder of God’s love, wisdom, and sovereignty.

Citations

¹ F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1977), 16.
² M. Scott Bashoor, Visual Outline Charts of the New Testament (B&H Academic, 2016), 44.
³ Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2157.
⁴ William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 762.
⁵ Scott Hafemann, “Review of Paul, the Law, and the Covenant by A. Andrew Das,” Trinity Journal 25, no. 2 (2004): 265.
⁶ John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 2 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893), 319.
⁷ Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 631.
⁸ C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 333.
⁹ Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise against Two Letters of the Pelagians,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 383.
¹⁰ Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, vol. 6, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 649.
¹¹ Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 763.
¹² Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2012), 524.
¹³ John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. B. Morris, W. H. Simcox, and George B. Stevens, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 549.

Bibliography

Bashoor, M. Scott. Visual Outline Charts of the New Testament. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016.
Bruce, F.F. Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1977.
Chrysostom, John. “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, vol. 11, by trans. J. B. Morris, W. H. Simcox, and George B. Stevens ed. Philip Schaff, 549. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889.
Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark International, 2004.
Crossway Bibles. The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008.
Hafemann, Scott. “Review of Paul, the Law, and the Covenant by A. Andrew Das.” Trinity Journal 25, no.2, 2004: 265.
Hippo, Augustine of. “A Treatise against Two Letters of the Pelagians.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings Vol. 5, by trans. Robert Ernest Wallis ed. Philip Schaff, 383. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887.
Miley, John. Systematic Theology. New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans, vol. 6, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, 607-694. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
William Arndt, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Letters from Prison

By on in Theology

While Paul was in Rome, there is some evidence he was released and afterward wrote his epistles to Timothy (1 Timothy) and Titus. After about 63 A.D., Paul was reportedly released from his first Roman imprisonment. Upon his release, he travels East before pressing on to new territories. His objective was to visit churches on the Eastern side of the Aegean. If he were released, he would have made it farther West to Spain, and this would have been the time to have reached the farthest extent of the known world with the gospel (Matt 28:19-20, Mark 16:15). Possibly setting out to Spain in 64 A.D., he left Timothy at Ephesus and Titus at Crete. Upon rearrest around 67 A.D., he is subject to execution from Roman imprisonment, and he summons Timothy. After Paul’s first release from prison, there is significant effort to explain what he did. There is some theory that he wasn’t released from Roman imprisonment at all (i.e., “stricter confinement” from libera custodia; Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Bruce, 444).

Among a fragmented range of speculation about Paul’s historical travels (2 Tim 2:23), there is a puzzling sense of reason to reconstruct Paul’s whereabouts and his meta-narratives for delivery to the churches after the first imprisonment that doesn’t concern the substance of his message among the pastoral epistles. Historical records from Clement or Eusebius do not provide clear and concise detail to stitch together where Paul was before a rearrest, or the relevance of that was (other than to indicate 2 Timothy was written during the second imprisonment: Eusebius Hist. Eccl. ii. 22.2). There is a lot of equivocation, such as “maybe” or “could be” or “might have” to settle upon evidence of what he did. Meaning, it is merely theory that Paul wrote from release or exile (1 Clem 5:6), between a first and second Roman imprisonment (Bruce, 444-445). Paul’s writing of the pastoral epistles (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus, and Philemon) doesn’t explicitly indicate an exoneration or acquittal from Roman justice as he was incarcerated in Rome the first time.

As Paul wrote to the churches through Timothy and Titus, he gave specific instructions to their formation, order, and discipline. Toward that purpose, Paul quoted Epimenides (6th-century BC philosopher and religious prophet) in Titus 1:12. Much earlier on in the Bruce text (Bruce, 242), it is clear that Paul elaborates upon the context of “The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!” or more explicitly from Titus 1:12b, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” Before the Athenians, Paul places upon them the problem of self-reference in logic, which renders to the reader or listener a self-referential incoherence as it concerns the messaging and credibility of pagan philosophy or the Cretan prophet Epimenides. The Cretan prophet Epimenides declared all prophets as liars when such a statement was self-defeating. As such, that statement was written to the letter to Titus as a way to highlight the line of thinking about Cretans who called attention to their own prophet (who also declared Cretans as liars) as credible. Instead, they were empty talkers, deceivers, and the rebellious that Titus was to guard against while in Crete.

Paul quotes the pagan Greek writers to bring attention to the perils of entrusting the early church to those who were treacherous in thought and conduct. Warnings against those who would instruct believers of the early church lived dishonorable lifestyles inconsistent with Pauline instruction—especially concerning the gospel and the truth of what that means in terms of new covenant hope and instruction. To make room for errant thoughts and philosophies of false teachers was rejected as specific writings of Greco-Roman culture otherwise held in regard as having authority.

To both Timothy and Titus, Paul produced listings of qualifications for elders. The listing given to Titus was shorter than to Timothy. Of believers, Paul has great concern that they should produce the fruits of the Spirit in their own lives. Namely, as a foundation of elders, at a minimum, there should be qualities to include love, patience, gentleness, meekness, and self-control. The character qualities of Christ must be evident among converts who were to grow in maturity. The fruits of the Spirit were a baseline among believers converted as a bedrock of what members of churches were to live by.

The state of development among churches on Crete with Titus or at Ephesus with Timothy differed as a function of where believers were in their faith walk. Moreover, social conditions that placed pressures upon the churches in each region were unique and required attention as to their needs. Concerning situational circumstances, the regional Church becomes developed through formative instruction, producing an escalating value of service, worship, and gospel outreach. To achieve stability for foundational growth, the churches in Crete were at a different state of situational readiness, where Titus could assure and enforce its development according to the written instructions he obtained from Paul.

As Paul spent years in Ephesus with multiple visits and support from churches in the area, elders’ roles, responsibilities, and duties were likely more advanced toward their ministry charter, discipleship, individual care, and service of Christ and His people.

While Paul was imprisoned and wrote to the churches in Asia-minor, he had support from fellow workers of the gospel. Particularly during house arrest while in Rome, he had the help of Onesimus who was a derelict slave from across the Aegean. Onesimus’ obligation to Philemon, his master, was a serious matter that required attention. There were legal implications that threatened Paul as he kept a runaway slave in his company while in Rome. While Paul wrote his letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus, the runaway slave (Philemon 1:10-21), he was at some risk because he violated Roman law.

During Paul’s house arrest in Rome, his actions with Onesimus were self-acknowledged (v.11) while he was under Roman guard. And yet Onesimus was not only a runaway slave. He was harbored —a slave under the legal ownership to someone who had a claim to him as human property. As Onesimus was legally obligated to render service and work to his owner’s interests, he was of particular use to Paul instead during his imprisonment (v.11, cf Col 4:9). Paul attained beneficial human capital through Onesimus as he was a slave displaced from Philemon as a rightful owner. Paul gained Philemon’s time value of money vis-a-vis Onesimus for some time, and Philemon could have reported the matter to authorities.

From a Western cultural perspective, one could argue that Paul was in possession of stolen property. Onesimus, under his choice and free agency, made a series of decisions to leave his obligations and instead attend to Paul to some extent in support of his ministry and well-being. While in an apparent contradiction of interest, Paul’s letter to Colossae identifies Onesimus as a fellow ministry worker. Philemon was of the faith as well and treasured by Paul. Still, the apparent ethical concerns of displaced labor without Philemon’s consent had Paul concerned about Onesimus’ offenses, and the ministry, in general, could have been perceived as tainted or corrupt. It was an unwanted situation that carried perpetuated legal standing from a brother in Christ, and it had to be resolved.

The Echoes of Suffering

By on in Theology

Today I finished reading the entirety of Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free by F.F. Bruce. The title of the text in the U.K. is Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit. The text is 510 pages in length, and it is a comprehensive exposition of all Paul’s letters and related writings of him within the apostolic era. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) is a well-known Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He wrote over forty commentaries and various other books, including The Acts of the Apostles, The Gospel of John, The Message of the New Testament, and A Mind for What Matters. Scholars, academics, students, and the pastorate throughout the world of believers in Christ recognize the author’s work as credible and of immense weight.

As Bruce walks through Paul’s books, he presents an in-depth look at the apostle himself as a way to get at the apostle’s character, heart, and mind to probe the tenacity and strength of his convictions. With grace and a divine imperative to accomplish just exactly what God appointed him to do. Luke, the author of the gospel Luke and the book of Acts, wrote of the trajectory of Paul’s remaining adult years after his conversion on the Damascus road. As Jesus Himself spoke of Paul’s commission: “for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:15-16).

Paul was appointed the apostle to the Gentiles. And while he did suffer hardships, distress, and persecution, he took delight in that suffering for Christ. Paul boasted of all he survived as described by all his sufferings recorded in Scripture. Unlike anything that ever was or ever will be, the glory of Paul’s suffering was as an offering of love and eternal service of worship. Even for all of his labors and the churches he formed throughout Asia and Europe, by grace and the power of the Holy Spirit, he set the momentum and perpetual development of early Christianity that would span populations throughout the centuries.

As Paul moved about Ephesus and Troas, then to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Corinth, Galatia, and along the Aegean coast, he was accompanied by various disciples and fellow workers. He worked by a church formation process that repeatedly involved synagogues wherever he went. The Gentile God-fearers, uncircumcised, and ethnic congregants among Jewish fellowships who attended synagogues were attracted to the gospel as made clear during Paul’s ministry. New converts of Christ met in homes and gathering places that did not conform to the requirements and traditions of Judaism or Greek temples. Consequently, in due time, Paul was ultimately imprisoned in Rome because of the deepening impact of his ministry throughout Greco-Roman culture because of social, political, and religious animosity. Isolated from nearly all associates, he was eventually executed after two years of house arrest during the reign of Nero, Emperor of Rome. Yet, throughout Mediterranean territories from the first century onward, the body of believers as a Church increased by size and geographical distribution.

Within F.F. Bruce’s book Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit, there was a substantial range and depth covered around the historical background of Paul’s religious, political, ethnic, and cultural environments to set the stage of first-century developments, primarily characterized by social tensions, religious upheaval, and political strife since the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Numerous opposing cultural differences between Jewish, Roman, Greek, and Gentile peoples defined the social undercurrent of the Greco-Roman era. Paul’s kingdom work was through a diversity of enormous significance. Paul situated himself among people mixed with deeply rooted Hellenistic lifestyles and Judaic traditions reaching across languages, religious expression, traditions, social classes, and territorial pressures. By necessity, Bruce set up a detailed profile, with a historiologically substantiated context of Paul’s surroundings and occasion. To present to his readers what was to occur of enormous spiritual significance, Paul often hurriedly traveled, underwent beatings, survived shipwreck, experienced cold and hunger to reach Gentiles with the gospel. The fruit of his labors would last for thousands of years and reach millions.

As the reader progresses through the Bruce text, there is an intuitively chronological feel to the author’s exposition. First through the book of Romans, then the letters to the Corinthians, and all canonical letters thereafter written to the early churches. Namely, within Asia-minor and along the Aegean, including Anatolia, Crete, Cyprus, Macedonia, Acaiah, and Italy. However unlikely, there is speculation by some that he made it to Spain with the gospel as he wanted. The sequence of territorial progress along the chronological timeline of Paul’s work matches the narrative of the Bruce text. More specifically, apostolic instruction, training, discipline, and corrective efforts were iterative construction methods around the formation of lasting fellowships. Paul’s cyclical and pastoral letters were written and delivered to fellowships along a timeline across various corresponding churches that underwent growth pangs. The formative Church in numerous locations was guided by visitation and teaching according to each community’s maturity, unique needs, and cultural climate.

Paul’s written work as Scripture to the early Church was to pastor a people and shepherd them through a new covenant apart from the law, as sustained by grace, faith, and sanctification amid cultural treachery, false teaching, and interpersonal hostilities. He brought the gospel to people through outreach, and he discipled many. He planted Churches, and he set in order fellowships and assemblies of believers for sustained growth. He was especially known for his teachings (doctrines) of justification and sanctification as they accompany the work of the Holy Spirit through the gospel.

As F.F. Bruce meticulously traverses Paul’s letters, he illuminates apostolic revelation from divine inspiration around numerous subjects. Paul’s work and writings fully immerse the reader in undeniable foundational truths from the most profound theological topics to eschatological concerns and daily living by faith and obedience. Moreover, the author’s caliber, range, and volume of citations from scholars, patristics, and numerous primary and academic sources are entirely impressive. To such an extent, this labor of love from F.F. Bruce is a treasure of timeless analysis to bring out precisely the truth and meaning of the gospel for all who would believe. As appointed by Christ Jesus, Paul’s work served our LORD with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength. Paul suffered well.

The Macedonian Path

By on in Theology

It is technically incorrect to conclude that the dominant message of Philippians is the nurturing of Christian joy. The Greek word for “joy” (χαρᾶς) that Paul wrote in his letter to the Philippians appears several times to the reader. According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), this word is a term that refers to the human experience of gladness. As Paul uses the term in various locations, they together do not substantiate the letter’s intended purpose. When a reader carefully examines each use of the “joy” term among all verses (Phil 1:4, 1:25, 2:2, 2:29, 4:1), without including the similar term “rejoice,” it becomes clear that the purpose of the letter does not rest upon the meaning of joy concerning the Philippian believers. The use of the term joy and its meaning is intended to describe a state of being that accompanies the actual purpose of the letter.

The letter’s purpose is to direct the Philippian church toward a joyful unity in the life of the gospel. Paul warns believers against false teachers and ministers who would lead people into error and cause division and the loss of peace. By Paul’s encouragement, “joy” is merely an adjective to the noun “unity” in the gospel and life of the church. Paul doesn’t explicitly inform his readers that the purpose of his letter was to pursue joy, but their pursuit of unity infers its presence. Paul urges believers to strive toward a humility of mind in pursuit of unity. Like Christ, by following His example and practice, believers are to conduct themselves in peace, gentleness, confidence, and the knowledge of the gospel toward unity of mind. In contentment, while circumstances were either easy or difficult, Christ and Paul were models to imitate.

Conversely, from Philippi to Thessalonica, the believers in Macedonia were new believers (less than 2-years of age) concurrent to when Paul and his fellow workers established the church. The Thessalonian believers were susceptible to doubt, instability, and suspicion, so when Jewish hostilities emerged concerning Paul and the development of the church, he fled the city only to cause a loss of confidence among those left behind. As Paul proclaimed, his visit was not in vain, but it was necessary to restore their confidence after his abrupt departure by elaborating upon his background and further intentions. Paul’s ministry was made thoroughly credible by his appointment by Christ, background, hardships, and intentions, as demonstrated by other churches established within Cilicia, Galatia, and elsewhere. While he left Thessalonica, he did not abandon them.

Paul’s aspirations for those in Thessalonica aligned with Christ’s charge to make disciples. Their growth, development, and sanctification were a priority as he immediately sent his disciple Timothy toward that purpose. To build confidence upon his background and apostolic authority further, he commissioned Timothy to visit them and strengthen their faith. His appointment to Timothy was immediate while they were gathered together in Athens. Moreover, to further remove any suspicion from the Thessalonian church, Paul appeals to their memory about the warnings against the afflictions he was to suffer. They witnessed firsthand his escape as necessary to continue his ministry. The situation they together endured was a testimony to the authenticity of Paul’s work with them in the gospel and their fellowship as believers. Paul informed them that this was an indication that his work was for their benefit, and he did not intend to leave them to the wolves.

The location of the Thessalonian church in Macedonia was a region of convergence around a diversity of thought. Cultural influences from the Greco-Roman worldview of the populace had a bearing upon people to include new coverts and believers who brought with them presuppositions or religious and ideological baggage. In reference to 2 Thess 2:2, Paul’s warning about deceptive messages and letters was further attestation about the false intentions of people who were of some influence upon believers or the church itself.

Intentional or not, errors circulated among believers about the Parousia and eschatological concerns carried enough weight that he elaborated on what implications arose from false conclusions that potentially grew more widespread. As a corrective measure, to align diverse views and erroneous instruction toward eschatological truth, Paul draws the reader’s attention to revelatory facts based upon the authority of the Spirit and God’s word.

Paul doesn’t specifically elaborate upon the diversity of erroneous thought but instead focuses on truth as necessary to inform those of the church about what to believe. Regardless of background, Jew, Gentile, God-Fearer, Roman, Greek, or otherwise, Paul makes clear that the strengthening of the Thessalonians was of utmost necessity. Diversions from their sanctification stemming from the diverse and erroneous views without apostolic authority did not hold sway as formative doctrines and traditions were taking shape within the church.

It was false teaching among believers that the Parousia had already occurred. And while the Thessalonians didn’t believe the false teaching, there was a warning from Paul concerning neglect and abstention from work. With a sense of imminence concerning the return of the LORD taken root, the daily needs and interests of the church were not attended as they should. Believers, even recent converts, were obligated to satisfy daily life demands to assure the needs of people were met. Specifically, as no one would know the specific day or hour of Christ’s return, families and church members needed to remain in proper standing as contributors to the community, the economy, and family life. It was unethical to abstain from duties and responsibilities that assured sustenance and the growth or maintenance of people and the church.

As the Parousia had not already occurred, it was false teaching that it was in the past. Suppose believers had concluded that the second coming of Christ had already occurred, and they were consequently left out. In that case, they could have given themselves over to licentiousness or grave immorality in betrayal of their faith. False teaching to have this effect was of concern to Paul and his fellow workers in the gospel. A falling away of believers into apostasy would impede the growth and development of the church founded in Thessalonica. Consequently, it was necessary to clarify what circumstances and expectations were surrounding the return of Christ to believers there and in the region as a whole.

The Dispatch of Antiquity

By on in Theology

The significance of communication within the early church within Asia-minor can not be overstated. As there were numerous nationalities, languages, cultures, traditions, and religious commitments within the Greco-Roman empire located further East of Rome, the distribution of populations beyond Judea grew more widespread. Until the 19^th century, the traditional perspective was that Paul traveled through Northern Galatia in 56 A.D as the Gauls inhabited it. The inhabitants of Southern Galatia were Galatian in name only as Roman imperialism and its populace consisting of different ethnicities occupied the area. They were not ethnically Gauls. By comparison, the biblical record explicitly identifies Derbe, Iconium, and Lystra as the towns Paul visited with the gospel. While there is no record of his visitation to North Galatia that consisted of ethnic Gauls, churches formed in Southern Galatia would have been supported by correspondence as read from his letters to the Galatians. To conclude that Paul was writing to a Galatian church in the North is to speculate from silence and an absence of specific revelatory detail and the historiographical record. Paul specifically wrote to the Galatian people of Southern Galatia, which likely made its way to Northern Galatia.

By comparison, as Paul wrote to the believers at Ephesus, the introduction of the letter itself was explicit concerning its intended readership. The letter was written to the saints who were at Ephesus. The text doesn’t specify “the Church” or the equivalent in Greek by way of introduction. Further along in the body of the letter, there are various references to the church, but not as a directed reading of the saints at a specific assembly in Ephesus per se. The assemblies in Ephesus are inclusive of the language and terminology of the church as it concerns Paul’s apostolic instruction. Early manuscripts that do not specify the population of believers in Ephesus don’t expressly exclude them by inference. If Paul’s letter was copied to form another early manuscript and circulated to exclude the locale at Ephesus, it would serve as a circular letter among congregations of saints in Asia-minor without a specific target audience for more widespread instruction and applicability.

The biblical text doesn’t indicate that the letter was initial correspondence to the saints at Ephesus or that it was intended for eventual circularity at the outset. To conclude otherwise that there is evidence is simply a matter of historical theory outside the authority of scripture itself. Conversely, whether corroborated or not by other literary means, it is reasonable to conclude that all letters were eventually shared and served as a basis for apostolic instruction toward Godly living, doctrine, discipleship, and many other matters of pertinent interest and truth. Paul’s letter from Laodicea specified in Colossians doesn’t specify it as the letter written to the saints in Ephesus (Col 4:16). There is a compelling rationale about the nature of the letter’s intended circularity, and a reader could surmise its origin from Ephesus. Still, there isn’t explicit certainty, or biblical proof, that it was intended as a generic letter or from a template for broader consumption later in time.

More distinct from other correspondence, Paul wrote to the believers of Colossae about false teaching (Col 2:8) as the Colossian heresy formed and threatened to produce a corrosive effect. These believers were exposed to gnostic Judaism or at least primitive gnostic thought that inferred that the redemptive work of Christ and the grace of God wasn’t enough. More specifically, and according to F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit, false teachers from the synagogues of Phrygia were the source of Hellenistic Judaism that produced false and speculative beliefs that didn’t have a place for the gospel and Christ as a salvific necessity. As a form of syncretism took shape and found its way to believers in Colossae, specific emphasis was placed upon the angels and their agency responsible for creation. As elemental beings (stoicheia), they were to be feared and served through asceticism. Christ Himself was subject to the spiritual world’s divine plenitude (plērōma), or principalities and powers according to the spiritual élite presented as advanced and progressive wisdom and knowledge (gnōsis). Essentially, through false teaching, Christ wasn’t enough.

By comparison, Paul’s defense of the gospel to the Judaisers of Ephesus with different circumstances. He contended with Jewish Christians who held bodily circumcision as necessary to attain right standing before God. As an inclusive requirement of the new covenant, it was asserted that Gentiles must become circumcised to share in the fellowship of those who belong to Christ. As concluded of the Colossian heresy, Christ again wasn’t enough, but for different reasons. Through false teaching, Christ wasn’t sufficient.

While correspondence continued, in various locations within the Eastern Anatolian peninsula of Asia, several churches were planted that were undergoing spiritual development. They were under the apostolic leadership of Paul and his fellow laborers in the gospel of Christ. Their instruction delivered in oral and written form originated from shepherds appointed, and letters read for the purpose of teaching, rebuke, correction, and training in righteousness. In such efforts, written correspondence and spiritual gifts were given among people for God’s glory and growth in well-being. To that purpose, the distribution of letters interspersed included letters “coming from Laodicea.” In contrast, they would pass from the saints at Ephesus, the saints of Asia as a circular letter, or from Hierapolis and Laodicea itself (c.f. Col 4:16). Concerning the specific reference to Colossians 4:16, where Paul wrote, “see that you also read the letter from Laodicea” (ESV), some would reference it (without conclusive evidence) as the circular letter to the Ephesian believers. While others could surmise that the letter was directed explicitly to the Laodicea church – a letter now lost and absent from the canon of scripture. The perspective that the letter was yet additional correspondence circulated among the various churches in Asia is another theory of interest. It indicates a corpus of texts that served multiple purposes over some time. As needs and coordination for instruction, guidance, travel logistics, supplies, and support became a necessity for a network of churches, the body of believers in Asia had to rely upon a means of communication involving Paul and his variously named helpers.

The Apostolic Burden

By on in Theology

When thinking through Paul’s teachings to the church at Corinth in the first century, about the resurrection body (1 Cor 15), there are corresponding principles about purity (1 Cor 6-7) that concern the church today. The coming transformation of the saints is predicated upon perishable flesh that belongs to the LORD (1 Cor 6:20). As the LORD inhabits His people by the Spirit, we are in this life set apart for a resurrection body as mortality must put on immortality (1 Cor 15:53). The likeness, character, and perception of our bodies together constitute an image of the earthly that will bear the image of the heavenly. Just as there is no sin in the resurrected body, there is to be no sin in the flesh among the saints, as Paul charges believers to “stop sinning” (1 Cor 15:34). The person who joins himself to the LORD (1 Cor 6:17) is to flee immorality as the body is a seed sown for spiritual immortality at the resurrection.

Impurity has no place in the believer’s life as the body is meant for the LORD as it dwells in a perishable state subject to imperishability through the resurrection Apostle Paul wrote about (1 Cor 15:50-57). The body indwelt by the Holy Spirit is not to be joined with another in immorality.

Paul wrote concerning unbelievers who have no business being in judgment over believers. As they are “unrighteous,” they do not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9) since it will at some point be given over to the Father (1 Cor 15:24). The text of Scripture is explicit that sin will no longer have a place as death is defeated. As death is the outcome of sin, and the sting of sin is removed by washing and regeneration (Titus 3:5), impurity has no place in the resurrection body.

The Corinthian church’s situation regarding such matters weighed upon Paul. In fact, the markers between Paul’s interlude (2 Corinthians 2:14 through 7:4) concerned his loss of heart and his restoration through the work of God within the Corinthian Church. While he wrote of his depression and sorrows as he was disheartened by what was occurring at the Church in Corinth, he set about to write of the glory of the Gospel ministry. He emerged from his sorrow and heartache to produce a written exposition of his commissioning, empowerment, and ministry for reconciliation of people to God through Christ. In elaborate detail, he wrote of the meaning and depth of the calling, affliction, and glory to the endurance of believers for reconciliation. For reconciliation, repentance was necessary of the Corinthian Church as well as their separation from those immersed in sinful and self-destructive lifestyles.

Upon completion of Paul’s interlude, he wrote of his comfort and renewed confidence as he met with Titus to continue his ministry. Titus’ report that the Corinthian Church repented brought joy to Paul, and God restored his heart to continue on an itinerary of ministry to the churches in Macedonia. To include those further around the coastal regions of the Aegean. Paul’s letter to this effect was of significant encouragement as he described the circumstances and events surrounding his absence. Moreover, the facts involving his ministry about the suffering, disappointment, and restoration were of redemptive merit as reconciliation was a fruit of his labors toward the Church at Corinth. The instabilities resolved were directly about his intentions concerning the development of the Church in Achaia as the body of believers there was aligned to the gospel ministry. Namely, the ministry Paul set upon and delivered according to his commissioning in Christ. He was accountable for the Church.

To dissuade Paul from exalting in his stature as an Apostle of Christ, he was given a thorn in the flesh. To keep him in check where he would remain in a humble state before God and others, he was given a condition that impeded or blocked his ability to make a big deal about himself or his accomplishments. There are various theories about the identity of the “thorn in the flesh” as they involved a messenger of Satan (2 Cor 12:7). The various speculations about what the affliction was about consist of a range of possibilities. The leading explanations were a physical disorder or adverse circumstances that negatively affected his ability to pursue self-glory.

There is substantial speculation that Paul’s expression was idiomatic as a way to make clear a condition he endured as it rendered him incapable of borrowing on his own stature or achievements to bring about certain outcomes involving the development of the Church. While Paul was at times harsh and direct in his epistolary dialogs, the work of the Spirit and the glory of God didn’t belong to Paul even through his aggressive methods and assertive messaging. The glory of God and Christ through his ministry was the perspective to sustain, and Paul was intentionally situated subordinate to that. Likely for the development and well-being of the Church and Paul’s spiritual well-being.

In addition to a physical malady, or adverse circumstances, personal adversaries were a possibility to explain how Paul was physically subdued somehow to keep him in check. Personal foes could have included false apostles, a continual opponent, or the Corinthians themselves.

Paul was also addressing those within the Corinthian fellowship who were professed believers within the church he established. If the people of the church, while they professed their faith, did not repent (as the Lord grants them; 2 Tim 2:25) and live out their lives by the Spirit, genuine saving faith was apparently absent. To which, Paul’s imperative was for church members to examine themselves and self-assess if they were in the faith or not. While it is not immediately apparent from his letter what one does to perform a self-assessment (2 Cor 13:5), the context of the passage indicates that Paul turned the tables on them who cast into question his authority and the authenticity of his apostleship. Their rebellion against Paul brought into question the presence of the indwelling Spirit among them as he wrote to the Romans (which was after his letters to the Corinthians):

“For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” – Rom 8:15-16

This bearing of witness appears to be a means of authentication as the early Corinthian church did not have the full testimony and instruction of new covenant scripture. Paul urged them to self-test, but the professing believers in the Corinthian church (who were authentic believers) were also warned about the Spirit who should indwell them. Otherwise, more specifically concerning consequences, compare what he wrote about the division between Israel and Gentiles; as he warns elsewhere at a later time:

“Then you will say, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.” – Rom 11:19-22

Paul’s pleading to the Church at Corinth is explicit within the letter itself as it is with his message of appeal (2 Cor 5:20). To borrow on the authority and identity of God as Paul and Timothy were ambassadors for Christ, he sets aside his authority, which the Corinthian Church questioned. Furthermore, Paul wrote in the 2^nd person plural on behalf of Christ to beg Church members to become reconciled to God. Paul’s premise upon his appeal was that some within the body weren’t in right standing before God and that reconciliation was necessary to Him through Christ as necessary.

Only through Christ is reconciliation to God possible. Yet, through Paul’s appeal, their circumstances and status were more evident through their situation itself and direct correction to inform them of pressing sinful problems and reverse course. The Corinthian Church was made entirely aware that to obtain reconciliation, their conviction of wrong-doing and repentance was of necessity as they were under grace (2 Cor 6:1-2). The church body would have understood their letter of Paul’s charge as correspondence continued, and their obligation was to continue not as unbelievers but those who live by the Spirit as they were under grace.

Paul was God’s ambassador through Christ. They were to abide by New Covenant imperatives concerning faith and the fruitful living that followed as the Church had corresponding obligations concerning morality.

The Waters of Contention

By on in Theology

In the 1980s, when the notion “New Perspective of Paul” (NPP) was first offered, it intended to reinterpret the soteriological meaning of Apostle Paul’s writings. To shape differently an understanding of justification by faith to include (by necessity) the personal maintenance of salvation by works righteousness. Among NPP interpreters of Scripture who advocate grace and forgiveness by repentance for salvation under the new covenant, NPP advocates insist there is a works righteousness that must accompany initial salvation as an ongoing way to perpetuate a person’s salvific status. Grace through faith to include works of the law as a fully effective performance-based means of sustained justification. Where without observance of the law, or works of righteousness, salvation is unattainable as a born-again believer inevitably lives through dry seasons of faith, devotion, and practice. Fruits of the Spirit are evidence of justification and sanctification, not a prerequisite to holding up salvific favor. Salvation belongs to the Lord.

The NPP was set against the “Old Perspective” of the Reformers’ doctrine Sola Fide (faith alone) by grace as a means of justification. Its objections against Protestant doctrines of salvation by faith alone stemmed from how the Reformers reacted against the RCC’s abuses. NPP wrongly concluded that protestants read their objections of RCC abuse into Scripture and asserts that the “Old Perspective” holds a false understanding of Paul’s Judaic opponents and their view that justification is by grace through faith to include righteousness that comes by further effort and obligations.

First introduced by E.P. Sanders in 1977, Covenantal Nomism are together terms that claim 2nd temple Judaism accepts salvation by grace as valid, but its maintenance was through Mosaic Law. The Mosaic covenant involved the free grace of God, as shown to Israel. Still, it was necessary to sustain law-keeping and keep oneself in the covenant to inherit salvation. The term nomism (from the Greek nomos, law) originates from the notion that ethical and moral observance of the law involves personal conduct. In his Systematic Theology, Grudem defines Covenantal Nomism as the belief of Jews during the time of Christ who obeyed Mosaic laws out of gratitude to remain God’s people. Still, an initial inheritance of salvation was by election and grace. To remain the people of God, it was necessary to “stay in” or continue in the faith by satisfying the Mosaic law to maintain the covenant. Covenantal Nomism is correlated to a marriage covenant where marriage is maintained by effort, continued intimacy, and consummation once vows are made.

In contrast to Covenantal Nomism, Variegated Nomism involves Jews within 2nd temple Judaism who held that salvation was through law-keeping by various ideas. To attain and maintain salvation, legalism extended through the lives of individuals by different means of covenantal adherence. The distinction between the two rests upon the various forms of Judaism that held a keeping of the law by covenant, gratitude, and faith, to set a person on a path of justification involving progressive sanctification for final eschatological salvation. Both reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and personal belief (union with Christ) as considered righteousness.

The timeline of Paul’s mission work in Asia-minor is historically recounted as a period of church development at Corinth by iterative attention. The church was founded between 50 and 52 A.D., with initial success and stability until Paul heard reports of discipline issues sinful behaviors. In about 55 A.D., Paul wrote initial correspondence to the Corinthian church concerning what he learned about the church’s spiritual condition. In reply, in the Spring of 56 A.D., the Corinthian church writes to pose questions of Paul. After that, Paul writes more comprehensively, 1 Corinthians to immediately return the church to order involving instruction and spiritual correction. The course of 56 A.D. escalated further with Paul’s emergency visit (“painful visit) to Corinth for more direct personal attention toward the fledgling church immersed in sinful Greek culture.

Further along the Spring of 56 A.D., Paul wrote a scathing follow-up letter of contention about the purpose of his visit. His motives were of a position and “abundant love” and “anguish of heart” as his desire would be their joy and obedience according to the Spirit and the teachings entrusted to them. Undue divisiveness, isolation, and alienation of members in the Corinthian Church were especially of deep concern. After a period of anxiety while in Troas (Troy) and Macedonia, Paul wrote again to the Corinthians (Fourth letter; 2 Corinthians) and sent his letter ahead before his third and final visit. Before leaving for Jerusalem to conclude his 3rd journey, he spent time in Corinth to deal with the core of individuals of the Church who were causing problems and divisions.

As 1 Corinthians was written as a letter of various concerns about the Church in Corinth (chapters 1 through 6), Paul wrote at considerable length to answer questions from the body of believers there (chapters 7 through 16). The second part of the Corinthian letter responded to questions that were brought to Paul while he was in Ephesus. Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 7:1, 16:17), were those who delivered the questions answered by Paul as he undertook the completion of the first part of the letter. There is speculation that the questions answered in the latter half of 1 Corinthians were stimulated by the initial letter Paul wrote (letter A) not long after the church was planted.

The literary structure of the letter is further evidence of the clear partitioning between the first and second half of the correspondence between Paul and the Church. The first several chapters (1 Cor 1:10 – 6:20) involve Paul’s concerns about general divisiveness, disorder, and the necessity of church discipline. While the first three chapters involve divisiveness as significant divisions within the church were evident, he addresses the matter with principles as he doesn’t appear to attend to specific disputes or questions. The distinction with the latter half of the letter was a body of disparate matters to indicate responses to particular questions posed by the Corinthian congregation. The interpersonal hardships among Corinthian church members imposed upon one another exerted undue strain that needed resolution. To relieve the strain, the Church leadership, or its body, leaned upon Paul’s authority to resolve specific issues of contention.

The Birth of an Empire

By on in Theology

The primary reasons for Apostle Paul’s writing to the Romans are diverse and numerous. There are four that appear to carry the most widespread recognition. The main proposals are as follows:

a. Theological Treatise – A theological book recognizing that it is a letter as there is a depth concerning the efficacy of the gospel and its corresponding redemptive path. The letter’s theological meaning is underdeveloped due to the absence of ecclesiological and Christology doctrines. Romans was written predicated upon existing knowledge. This is an occasional letter to work through the implications of justification, sanctification, etc.

b. Missiological Concerns – Centered around the gospel’s progress and its support within the Church. Paul probably wants to make Rome the center of Western Christianity as Antioch is to the Eastern part of the Roman empire. Consequently, some might conclude that Romans is an exhaustive missional support letter.

c. Apologetical – The position that Christianity is a defense at the heart of the Roman empire. As it is said that the book of Romans is principally apologetical, it does not specifically address disputes as such. It has functional elements that are apologetical, but as an occasional letter, the book itself is not principally centered toward that purpose.

d. Pastoral – Conflict in the church is addressed as an occasional matter between the Jew and Gentile. There is a need for healing where the Gentiles and Jews are urged to be messengers of reconciliation within the Church. Paul’s efforts toward the development of unity concerning one people of God by the gospel is the apex of the book of Romans.

In all of Paul’s writing, there are social and cultural concerns about the nature of his work with the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. The assertion Paul makes about “not being ashamed of the gospel” corresponds to his confidence that there was no loss of status, experience, or undue strain due to the gospel’s relevance, necessity, and power. Negativity, opposition, or disputes Paul encountered during his missional pursuits through the gospel had no bearing upon him personally. He didn’t internalize ridicule or slander, nor did he yield to hard or soft persecution when he set himself in association to Christ’s death and resurrection. Any humiliation he may have been expected to endure from socio-cultural pressures didn’t weigh upon Paul to negatively affect what Christ set him apart to do. The development of the church and the discipleship of numerous Gentile believers throughout the Greco-Roman empire was the fruit of his efforts regardless of what cultural conditions were in place about a disgraced messiah perceived by society or the populace.

Paul boasted in the gospel. He proclaimed that “it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.” Namely, to both the Jew and the Gentile, God’s righteousness is revealed through the faith of those who believe the gospel. As the righteous were to live by faith according to the gospel, the power of God is made evident and salvific toward those who believe. Moreover, the righteousness of God applied to believers who would mock or despise Paul, and followers of Christ were poignantly unwise by comparison as they would remain captive to sin while in a condemned state subject to cumulative wrath of God without mercy. The mercy of God available to those who would accept Christ and His gospel would be the kind of power needed for salvation.

Apostle Paul’s background and conversion had pressing implications about Israel’s election, their rejection, and eventual restoration. Paul wrote in distress about the loss of Israel’s estate (Rom 9:1-3). While it is evident through Scripture that Israel was YHWH’s portion (Deut 32:8-9). They were to become a Kingdom of Priests under the Old Covenant (Ex 19:6), their unbelief about God’s redemptive plan was foretold as a matter of prophetic certainty (Isa. 10:22-23, Hos 1:10, Rom 9:30-33), they would become a people who would become sidelined. The election of YHWH’s people Israel remains an eschatological certainty while their ultimate rejection of the Son of Man revealed as Jesus the Messiah was intentional. To harden the Jews, make them jealous (Rom 11:14), and soften the Gentiles where the Kingdom of God would become filled until the fulness of Gentiles would enter through the gospel (Rom 11:25), the sovereign plan of God was made evident.

While Israel’s unbelief was prophesied, it was ongoing too (Isa. 65:2, Rom 10:21). In paradoxical contrast to Jewish responsibility and the lost condition of Gentiles, the sovereignty of God was at work to produce salvation history. From the fall of humanity and the series of covenants to follow, Jesus the Messiah would shepherd his people, the spiritual seed of Abraham, to the Kingdom of God. In this way, the book of Romans is pastoral as it concerns the redemption of believers, both Jew and Gentile, who represent humanity restored. Most especially the Jews as they are to be saved as a matter of prophetic fulfillment (Isa. 59:21, Jer. 31:33-34, Rom 11:25-32). The pastoral work of God is a celebration of God’s sovereignty as His wisdom and abundant mercy is made clear.

As Paul’s work further made a lasting impact, the biblical world of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia included coastal cities that emerged as places of incubation in support of early Christianity. The Kingdom of God on Earth was to begin from Jerusalem for the Jew first and then into Samaria, Antioch, throughout Asia Minor and Rome. While Antioch of Syria was the traditional birthplace of Christianity, it was the point of initial operations of Paul, Barnabas, and others to advance the Kingdom from the East. Paul had a base of support to commence his missionary efforts throughout Asia Minor and into Europe, including Macedonia, Achaia, and Rome of Italia.

To achieve Paul’s objectives to reach Spain, a grounding of the Church in Rome was necessary for monetary and resourced support toward the ongoing development of churches in Europe. As Paul exhausted his efforts to plan and develop churches and build a network of support for Christianity present with Jerusalem, Antioch, and smaller communities, he sought to extend his efforts. With an established base in Rome, it was to be a base of operations from the West to reach deeper into Europe. Especially into Spain, the outermost territory of Europe for Paul to complete his appointed work. Antioch from the East, Rome from the West, and Jerusalem to the South were geographical centers of outreach and discipleship to grow the Church. The gospel made its way throughout the biblical world to build momentum by the work of the Spirit and His apostles, where kingdoms of humanity became overlapped of far greater significance by a spiritual empire of Christendom.