A Study of the Epistle to the Romans
The Whole World Under the Sentence of Condemnation (Romans 3:9-20)
The conclusion of the first section of Romans, called condemnation, answers the question, "Is the world lost?" This division comes almost in the center of the chapter. I have always been sorry that when they divided the Bible into chapters, they did not begin one there. There is no more definite division in the whole Bible. Note verse 21 begins "But now." He is introducing a new thing into the text.
Three sections of this first division deal with the Gentile, the moral man, and the Jew. Paul now comes to the conclusion of this section. Notice what particular class of men he is dealing with: "both of Jews and Gentiles" (v. 9). He has dealt with them separately, and now he is going to bring them together in the final section of the first division. In the world there are only two classes of people in the eyes of God: Jews and Gentiles.
Paul answers the question, "How many Jews and Gentiles are there who are righteous": verse 10, "there is none"; verse 11, "there is none," and again, "there is none"; verse 12, "there is none."
Four times the expression "none" is used. But that is only the negative side. "None" is the answer to the question, "How many righteous are there?" Now for the positive side. How many sinners are there? How many of all these people are sinners? The answer is to be found in the latter part of verse 9. It is the word "all," appearing also in verses 12 and 19.
The word "none" appears four times, and "all" appears three times; three and four equal seven. If the number seven marks completeness, then the indictment that God brings against the world is a complete one - sevenfold - a complete indictment of evil. This section sums up all that has gone before, in order that Paul may bring the whole world to the judgment bar of God and leave them standing there - trembling and silent!
In this section is a picture of a courtroom with a criminal on trial. The very terms that the apostle uses are legal. There are several elements involved in a human trial. First, a charge. Then, very often there is an indictment, written and carefully prepared, and it has perhaps one, two, three, four, or a dozen counts. Then there is an opportunity given for the prisoner to make his defense. Finally, there is a verdict brought in specifying the guilt or innocence of the party. These four elements appear in this passage: 1. The Charge, verse 9; 2. The indictment, verses 10-18; 3. The Defense, verse 19; and 4.The verdict, verses 19-20.
The Charge
"What then?" Paul is summing up all that has gone before. He has talked to the Gentile, both the heathen and the moral man; he has talked to the Jew. And he has condemned all of them. Now he is going to conclude, and so he says, "What then? What shall we say in conclusion? Are we better than they?" ("We," the Jews.) "Are we Jews better than the Gentiles?"
His answer is, "No, in no wise." Then he explains why. He says, "For we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." The word "prove" is a very bad translation, for it means "to lay a charge against somebody in a court." It does, however, include the idea of proving that charge, because Paul not only laid a charge against the world, but he proved the charge. So we might speak of it as a proven charge. Just like a charge might be laid before a criminal in a courtroom.
What was the charge? "All under sin." He does not say that all have sinned. He will say that later on. he does not say, "I charge Jews and Gentiles that they are all sinners," but "They are all under sin." This is a very striking phrase, especially in the original. It means that these people are not only under sin, but they are under all that goes with sin. Sin has its guilt, sin has its power, sin has its condemnation, and sin has its doom! Paul is saying that every one of these people (both Jews and gentiles) is under the guilt of sin, under the power of sin, under the condemnation of sin, under the doom of sin! All these ideas are gathered up in this statement.
This is really no new charge. He says in essence, "We made that charge before." But when did Paul make that charge? In the three sections we have been studying. He is only gathering the whole thing up in one great sweeping statement, making the charge that every man in the world is under sin!
~Alva J. McClain~
(continued with # 29)
Friday, June 7, 2013
The Signpost of a Provoked Heart
Without a doubt, God has plans for you. Your life is no accident. You have a purpose. In today's devotional, we will discover an important key to help you understand your calling.
Let's look first at Acts 17:16-17,
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.
The word provoked literally means that his spirit was deeply troubled, his spirit was grieved within him.
That gives us the first step in understanding your purpose. What grieves your heart? Paul was grieved about this city wholly given over to idols. And the next verse begins with the word therefore. He did something about it.
Generally, the things that grieve you in your heart are things that God has gifted you to change. They point you to your purpose.
For instance, in Job 30:25, Job said, "Has not my soul grieved for the poor?" If you read Job's story, a big part of his ministry had to do with helping the poor. It was tied to what caused his heart to grieve.
Then there was David who was grieved and provoked as Goliath was taunting the Israelites. Why? David was called to be a leader and a warrior in Israel. It was a signpost pointing to his calling.
What is it that provokes you in your heart? Whatever it is, do something about it.
~Bayless Conley~
Thursday, June 6, 2013
The Gospel of God's Grace # 27
A Study of the Epistle to the Romans
Argument Cannot Save the Jew
Some have said that this is the hardest portion of the book of Romans to understand, and it may be. But I hope I can help you to understand it. I am going to call this the fourth division:
There are in these eight verses four objections and four answers:
Verse 1. An objection
Verse 2. Paul's answer
Verse 3. Another objection
Verse 4. Paul's answer
Verse 5. Another objection
Verse 6. Paul's answer
Verse 7. Another objection
Verse 8. Paul's answer
Paul had been a Pharisee once and knew the pattern of their thinking. So he states their arguments here and answers them. These four objections in verses 1, 3, 5, and 7 are not independent of one another. There is only one real objection, and that is in the first verse; and when Paul answers that, the Jew squirms and varies his objection slightly, though to something that Paul says has already been answered.
"What advantage then hath the Jew? Of what is the profit of circumcision?" (3:1). The Jew did not like to ask that, did he? "What advantage is there in being a Jew if all you say is true, Paul? If we are condemned with the rest of the world, what good is it to be a Jew?" The Jew had a right to ask that. So Paul answers, "Much every way: first of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God" (v. 2).
The Jew somehow thought that by being a Jew, he could escape the judgment of God. But nevertheless there is an advantage in being a Jew (see 9:4-5). A great deal, but Paul is not going to discuss all the various reasons; he is just going to take one, "the oracles of God - Scripture." That word "oracles" singled out a certain element in Scripture - the prophetic element - the promises concerning Jesus Christ. Was not that a tremendous advantage for the Jew to have: that in his hands God committed the oracles that told of the coming of the Messiah? The Jew ought to have known Christ when He came. The very advantage that the Jew had was the very thing that condemned him, because he did not believe in the Messiah when He came. He did not make the most out of his advantage.
The Jew knew that this was a good answer. But he sidesteps the answer by objecting to something in it (3:3). The Jew knew that he had not believed those oracles, and so he says, "Well, what if some of us did not believe? We had the oracles - we will admit that. But we did not all believe them. Shall the unbelief of some cancel out the faithfulness of God?" Do you see what he is saying? He is saying, "Supposing that God back in the Old Testament did promise the Jews a Messiah; supposing that He came and some of us did not believe? Won't God have to keep His promise to the Jewish nation anyway?" He is arguing that God must keep His promises whether the Jew is a sinner or a righteous man.
Paul answers: "God forbid!" God's faithfulness cannot fail - it cannot be made "of none effect." Paul expands: "Yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar" (3:4). If every man in the world becomes a liar, God will still remain true - it dos not matter what happens. "That thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when Thou judgest" (Psalm 51:4). The very song of David showed God to be righteous when He condemned him.
The response of the Jew is clever but wicked. The Jew took this Scripture, twisted it out of shape, and made a terrible thing. He said, "But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath?" (3:5). If God's righteousness appears in a clearer light because of our sin, can God blame us for our sin? The word "commend" means render conspicuous or being out in a clearer light. To put it in other words, the Jew says, "If our unrighteousness makes clearer the righteousness of God, He would be unrighteous to take vengeance on us."
What is Paul's answer to that? Again his answer takes on tremendous force. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?" Every Jew believed that God would judge the world. Paul is saying that if God cannot judge a sinner because his sin makes the righteousness of God more conspicuous, then He cannot deal with any sinner. That sort of reasoning would clear the slate for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, and it would get rid of all judgment.
The Jew loved that argument, so Paul pursues the movement of this objection a step further. "If the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?" (3:7). He is still arguing that somehow, if the sin of man would make conspicuous God's righteousness - if man's lie made God's truth appear the greater - how then can God justly judge the sinner? The Jew is trying to argue that he ought to escape somehow. That is clever but fallacious reasoning. It is an attempt to escape the real issue and serves as a present refuge of sinners, and the Jew was one such.
Paul takes him on his own ground: "If you fellows are going to say that, then let us press that argument to its logical conclusion and see just exactly where it leads, as some people say." And what is the logical conclusion of that doctrine? Here it is: "Let us do evil that good may come." That is the logical outcome of that doctrine, and that is exactly what the Jesuits of the Catholic Church hold, namely this, that the end justifies the means. It does not matter what you do, just so the end is good. "Let us do evil that good may come." Paul says, "That is exactly what they say about us, and it is slander." Do you know what they said that about Paul? Paul taught salvation by grace apart from works. So the Jews used this doctrine against him. In effect they said, "This man Paul says that the more you sin, the more good comes out of it." So now Paul turns what they said about him right back on them! What is his answer to the whole thing? "Whose condemnation is just!"
There are two very solemn lessons from this. First, the strictest legalism leads to the worst license. Many well-meaning people want to keep the law today. They want to impose it on us Christians. They say, "f you do not teach the Ten Commandments, soon your folks will be sinning, and they won't care what they do." That is wrong. Those very Jews who would not accept the fact that they were condemned and would not accept Christ as Saviour, while depending on their law, finally said, "Let us do evil that good may come." This is the logical outcome of that frame of mind.
Second, by the same token, there are many professing Christians who are trusting in similar things today. Just as the Jew trusted in his law, his circumcision, and his birth, so those who are born of Christian parents and christened when they were babies keep the Ten Commandments (they do not really keep them) and think God will let them by! They need to read this passage and realize that there is no refuge for a sinner in keeping the law, in church ordinances, in mere human birth, no matter how good the family may be from which they come.
"What then? Are we better than they?" (3:9). Who are the "we"? The Jews. Who are "they"? The Gentiles? No, in no wise; for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin." All under sin - that is his conclusion.
From the argument of this passage, is there not reason to praise God that He has made a way of escape from the condemnation He has brought upon the world?
~Alva J. McClain~
(continued with # 28 - The Whole World Under the Sentence of Condemnation)
Argument Cannot Save the Jew
Some have said that this is the hardest portion of the book of Romans to understand, and it may be. But I hope I can help you to understand it. I am going to call this the fourth division:
There are in these eight verses four objections and four answers:
Verse 1. An objection
Verse 2. Paul's answer
Verse 3. Another objection
Verse 4. Paul's answer
Verse 5. Another objection
Verse 6. Paul's answer
Verse 7. Another objection
Verse 8. Paul's answer
Paul had been a Pharisee once and knew the pattern of their thinking. So he states their arguments here and answers them. These four objections in verses 1, 3, 5, and 7 are not independent of one another. There is only one real objection, and that is in the first verse; and when Paul answers that, the Jew squirms and varies his objection slightly, though to something that Paul says has already been answered.
"What advantage then hath the Jew? Of what is the profit of circumcision?" (3:1). The Jew did not like to ask that, did he? "What advantage is there in being a Jew if all you say is true, Paul? If we are condemned with the rest of the world, what good is it to be a Jew?" The Jew had a right to ask that. So Paul answers, "Much every way: first of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God" (v. 2).
The Jew somehow thought that by being a Jew, he could escape the judgment of God. But nevertheless there is an advantage in being a Jew (see 9:4-5). A great deal, but Paul is not going to discuss all the various reasons; he is just going to take one, "the oracles of God - Scripture." That word "oracles" singled out a certain element in Scripture - the prophetic element - the promises concerning Jesus Christ. Was not that a tremendous advantage for the Jew to have: that in his hands God committed the oracles that told of the coming of the Messiah? The Jew ought to have known Christ when He came. The very advantage that the Jew had was the very thing that condemned him, because he did not believe in the Messiah when He came. He did not make the most out of his advantage.
The Jew knew that this was a good answer. But he sidesteps the answer by objecting to something in it (3:3). The Jew knew that he had not believed those oracles, and so he says, "Well, what if some of us did not believe? We had the oracles - we will admit that. But we did not all believe them. Shall the unbelief of some cancel out the faithfulness of God?" Do you see what he is saying? He is saying, "Supposing that God back in the Old Testament did promise the Jews a Messiah; supposing that He came and some of us did not believe? Won't God have to keep His promise to the Jewish nation anyway?" He is arguing that God must keep His promises whether the Jew is a sinner or a righteous man.
Paul answers: "God forbid!" God's faithfulness cannot fail - it cannot be made "of none effect." Paul expands: "Yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar" (3:4). If every man in the world becomes a liar, God will still remain true - it dos not matter what happens. "That thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when Thou judgest" (Psalm 51:4). The very song of David showed God to be righteous when He condemned him.
The response of the Jew is clever but wicked. The Jew took this Scripture, twisted it out of shape, and made a terrible thing. He said, "But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath?" (3:5). If God's righteousness appears in a clearer light because of our sin, can God blame us for our sin? The word "commend" means render conspicuous or being out in a clearer light. To put it in other words, the Jew says, "If our unrighteousness makes clearer the righteousness of God, He would be unrighteous to take vengeance on us."
What is Paul's answer to that? Again his answer takes on tremendous force. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?" Every Jew believed that God would judge the world. Paul is saying that if God cannot judge a sinner because his sin makes the righteousness of God more conspicuous, then He cannot deal with any sinner. That sort of reasoning would clear the slate for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, and it would get rid of all judgment.
The Jew loved that argument, so Paul pursues the movement of this objection a step further. "If the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?" (3:7). He is still arguing that somehow, if the sin of man would make conspicuous God's righteousness - if man's lie made God's truth appear the greater - how then can God justly judge the sinner? The Jew is trying to argue that he ought to escape somehow. That is clever but fallacious reasoning. It is an attempt to escape the real issue and serves as a present refuge of sinners, and the Jew was one such.
Paul takes him on his own ground: "If you fellows are going to say that, then let us press that argument to its logical conclusion and see just exactly where it leads, as some people say." And what is the logical conclusion of that doctrine? Here it is: "Let us do evil that good may come." That is the logical outcome of that doctrine, and that is exactly what the Jesuits of the Catholic Church hold, namely this, that the end justifies the means. It does not matter what you do, just so the end is good. "Let us do evil that good may come." Paul says, "That is exactly what they say about us, and it is slander." Do you know what they said that about Paul? Paul taught salvation by grace apart from works. So the Jews used this doctrine against him. In effect they said, "This man Paul says that the more you sin, the more good comes out of it." So now Paul turns what they said about him right back on them! What is his answer to the whole thing? "Whose condemnation is just!"
There are two very solemn lessons from this. First, the strictest legalism leads to the worst license. Many well-meaning people want to keep the law today. They want to impose it on us Christians. They say, "f you do not teach the Ten Commandments, soon your folks will be sinning, and they won't care what they do." That is wrong. Those very Jews who would not accept the fact that they were condemned and would not accept Christ as Saviour, while depending on their law, finally said, "Let us do evil that good may come." This is the logical outcome of that frame of mind.
Second, by the same token, there are many professing Christians who are trusting in similar things today. Just as the Jew trusted in his law, his circumcision, and his birth, so those who are born of Christian parents and christened when they were babies keep the Ten Commandments (they do not really keep them) and think God will let them by! They need to read this passage and realize that there is no refuge for a sinner in keeping the law, in church ordinances, in mere human birth, no matter how good the family may be from which they come.
"What then? Are we better than they?" (3:9). Who are the "we"? The Jews. Who are "they"? The Gentiles? No, in no wise; for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin." All under sin - that is his conclusion.
From the argument of this passage, is there not reason to praise God that He has made a way of escape from the condemnation He has brought upon the world?
~Alva J. McClain~
(continued with # 28 - The Whole World Under the Sentence of Condemnation)
Leave It To God
"Roll on Jehovah thy way" (Ps. 37:6).
Whatever it is that presses thee, go tell the Father; put the whole matter over into His hand, and so shalt thou be freed from that dividing, perplexing care that the world is full of. When thou art either to do or suffer anything, when thou art about any purpose or business, go tell God of it, and acquaint Him with it; yes, burden Him with it, and thou hast done for matter of caring; no more care, but quiet, sweet, diligence in thy duty, and dependence on Him for the carriage of thy matters. Roll thy cares, and thyself with them, as one burden, all on thy God. --R. Leighton
***
Build a little fence of trust
Around today;
Fill the space with loving work
And therein stay.
Look not through the sheltering bars
Upon tomorrow;
God will help thee bear what comes
Of joy or sorrow. --Mary Butts
***
We shall find it impossible to commit our way unto the Lord, unless it be a way that He approves. It is only by faith that a man can commit his way unto the Lord; if there be the slightest doubt in the heart that "our way" is not a good one, faith will refuse to have anything to do with it. This committing of our way must be a continuous, not a single act. However extraordinary and unexpected may seem to be His guidance, however near the precipice He may take you, you are not to snatch the guiding reins out of His hands. Are we willing to have all our ways submitted to God, for Him to pronounce judgment on them? There is nothing a Christian needs to be more scrutinizing about than about his confirmed habits and views. He is too apt to take for granted the Divine approbation of them. Why are some Christians so anxious, so fearful? Evidently because they have not left their way with the Lord. They took it to Him, but brought it away with them again.
~L. B. Cowman~
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
The Gospel of God's Grace # 26
A Study of the Epistle to the Romans
The Jew Under the Sentence of Condemnation
His Birth Cannot Save the Jew
Paul turns to that in the third section and deals with that very question: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter" (2:28-29). Paul shows that there is such thing as being a Jew merely in outward form. But God demands an inward reality and would not recognize any man as a Jew unless he has that. Some people think this statement teaches that every Christian is a Jew, but what it really teaches is that every Jew is not a Jew. No man can be a Jew unless he is born outwardly as a son of Abraham, and also inwardly in spirit; therefore, a man born only outwardly of Abraham is not a true Jew.
Notice these contrasting word pairs: outwardly - inwardly; flesh - heart; spirit- the letter; man - God. Those two verses are similar to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to Nicodemus. He was a Jew outwardly. He had everything outwardly. The Lord Jesus Christ said o him, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). That matter of heart circumcision was not anything new; the Old Testament is full of it. No Jew could deny that Paul was on safe ground when he talked about circumcision of heart (see Jeremiah 4:4).
By the way, these two verses solve a difficult question raised later (see 11:26), where Paul says that all Israel shall be saved. People ask, "Is it possible that every Jew from the beginning of time is going to be saved?" Yes, every one of them, but "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly." The Jew, in order to be a real Jew had to be born of God. The new birth is not a distinctively Christian doctrine. It belonged to the Jew as an Old Testament revelation. Nicodemus should have known it. Christ said, "Art thou a teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things?" (John 3:10). God demanded the inward reality, not merely the outward shell of profession that the Jew had.
Paul is dealing with this inward and outward profession. Look back at the seventeenth verse and you will see why he uses a peculiar expression there. He says: "Behold, thou that are called a Jew." They are just called Jews. There is a wholesome lesson here for us. Perhaps we may paraphrase the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth verses in this manner: "For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, neither is that baptism which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Christian which is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." That does not mean that we are not emphasizing the importance of the outward rite, but we are saying that the outward rite is a worthless thing apart from the inward reality in our own lives.
The Jew does like sinners do today - he takes refuge in argument. If a man is uncovered, he will flee to another refuge and hide; finally he is entirely uncovered and convinced that he has no place to flee from the indictment and he is a sinner. It is then that he will resort to argument. That is what the Jew does. First he had taken refuge in the law; then in circumcision; then in Jewish birth. Now he takes refuge in argument! This is frequently the refuge of the sinner. Show him that he is a sinner, and he will begin to raise objections. Answer his objections and he will leave them and object to your answers. Often he will just keep on doing this.
~Alva J. McClain~
(continued with # 27 - "Argument Cannot Save the Jew")
The Jew Under the Sentence of Condemnation
His Birth Cannot Save the Jew
Paul turns to that in the third section and deals with that very question: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter" (2:28-29). Paul shows that there is such thing as being a Jew merely in outward form. But God demands an inward reality and would not recognize any man as a Jew unless he has that. Some people think this statement teaches that every Christian is a Jew, but what it really teaches is that every Jew is not a Jew. No man can be a Jew unless he is born outwardly as a son of Abraham, and also inwardly in spirit; therefore, a man born only outwardly of Abraham is not a true Jew.
Notice these contrasting word pairs: outwardly - inwardly; flesh - heart; spirit- the letter; man - God. Those two verses are similar to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to Nicodemus. He was a Jew outwardly. He had everything outwardly. The Lord Jesus Christ said o him, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). That matter of heart circumcision was not anything new; the Old Testament is full of it. No Jew could deny that Paul was on safe ground when he talked about circumcision of heart (see Jeremiah 4:4).
By the way, these two verses solve a difficult question raised later (see 11:26), where Paul says that all Israel shall be saved. People ask, "Is it possible that every Jew from the beginning of time is going to be saved?" Yes, every one of them, but "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly." The Jew, in order to be a real Jew had to be born of God. The new birth is not a distinctively Christian doctrine. It belonged to the Jew as an Old Testament revelation. Nicodemus should have known it. Christ said, "Art thou a teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things?" (John 3:10). God demanded the inward reality, not merely the outward shell of profession that the Jew had.
Paul is dealing with this inward and outward profession. Look back at the seventeenth verse and you will see why he uses a peculiar expression there. He says: "Behold, thou that are called a Jew." They are just called Jews. There is a wholesome lesson here for us. Perhaps we may paraphrase the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth verses in this manner: "For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, neither is that baptism which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Christian which is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." That does not mean that we are not emphasizing the importance of the outward rite, but we are saying that the outward rite is a worthless thing apart from the inward reality in our own lives.
The Jew does like sinners do today - he takes refuge in argument. If a man is uncovered, he will flee to another refuge and hide; finally he is entirely uncovered and convinced that he has no place to flee from the indictment and he is a sinner. It is then that he will resort to argument. That is what the Jew does. First he had taken refuge in the law; then in circumcision; then in Jewish birth. Now he takes refuge in argument! This is frequently the refuge of the sinner. Show him that he is a sinner, and he will begin to raise objections. Answer his objections and he will leave them and object to your answers. Often he will just keep on doing this.
~Alva J. McClain~
(continued with # 27 - "Argument Cannot Save the Jew")
Choosing Love Over Rights
We talk a lot about rights these days. Yet the attention given to human entitlements hasn’t brought about corporate or personal freedom. Instead, most people are prisoners of jealousy (you have greater rights than I do!), greed (I deserve more!), or bitterness (my rights have been violated!).
Instead of focusing on the privileges due us, we should take the biblical perspective of loving enemies and forgiving persecutors (Matt. 5:44). Believers lay down their rights so they can take up the cause of a holy kingdom. That doesn’t mean that we let people trample on us. Rather, we offer a proper response according to biblical principles. In short, believers should be more concerned about showing God’s love to those who do wrong than about demanding their rights.
Maybe you’re thinking, But he doesn’t know how I’ve been mistreated. Indeed I do not. But what I do know is how Jesus Christ, our example, reacted to terrible abuse. He was betrayed by His friends, persecuted by His people, condemned by His peers, and crucified for our sins. Yet He said, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34).
Before assuming that Jesus’ capacity for forgiveness and love is out of reach for mere human beings, remember: His Spirit dwells in believers. We can choose to give away our rights and let God’s love work through us.
Luke 6:29 says to turn the other cheek and give up more than is asked because expressing love outweighs exerting our rights. You can’t lose when you show others the boundless care of the Lord. You gain His blessing, and, hopefully, someone will be saved because of your example.
~Charles Stanley~
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
The Gospel of God's Grace # 25
A Study of the Epistle to the Romans
The Jew Under the Sentence of Condemnation
Paul put his finger on a terrible inconsistency of the Jew (2:22). The Jew would shudder righteously if he saw an idol in a temple, or in speaking of idolatry; and yet he was willing to deal, as a merchant, in the very plunder that men stole out of those temples!
Not every Jew was guilty of all that Paul names here. Not every Jew was an adulterer nor a thief, but there was one respect in which every Jew failed. The first thing Paul asks is "Teachest thou thyself?" Every Jew failed to teach himself, and the Jews are not peculiar in that respect. We might put that question to the church and a good many Bible teachers today. "Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, doest thou steal?" What a man says is worth nothing unless it has come into his own life and been worked out there in righteousness and service for God.
Paul stops asking questions and makes a direct charge: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." And then he adds, "as it is written." The Jew trusted in the law (or what we call the Old Testament), and Paul says in effect, "This charge is not mine. The very law in which you trust condemns you and proves that you have blasphemed the name of God through your life among the Gentiles" (see Isaiah 52:5). Jesus made a similar statement: "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope" (John 5:45). The prophet Ezekiel was told by God: "They profaned my holy name; in that men said of them, these are the people of Jehovah" (Ezekiel 36:20). When the Jews lived among the Gentiles, the Gentiles looked at them saw how they lived, and said, "If this is the people of Jehovah, what kind of God must Jehovah be!" That is the charge.
In Paul's own words, they were "Instructed out of the law" (v. 18), "having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth" (v. 20), he made his boast in the law (see v. 23), and yet he broke it. Paul's conclusion: the Jew dare not take refuge in the law, because he had broken that law, and that same law now condemns him.
What will be the Jew's answer? He will say, "Perhaps that is true, therefore I cannot take refuge in it, but I am circumcised, and circumcision is the mark of God upon His own. No circumcised can be lost."
His Circumcision Cannot Save the Jew
"Circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision (2:25). It can be summed up in a sentence: Circumcision could not save the Jew because he had not kept the law.
"If therefore the uncircumcision [the Gentile] keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?" (2:26). Lack of circumcision would not condemn a Gentile just as the possession of circumcision would not save the Jew. The whole question rests upon the law. The Jew cannot be saved by his circumcision, because he has not kept the law; but if the Gentile did keep the law, lack of circumcision would not condemn him. And furthermore, the morality of the uncircumcised Gentile will judge and condemn the Jew who is circumcised. The very fact that the Jew was a circumcised man would only heighten his guilt in the eyes of God, because it showed he had the law.
This situation has a parallel among religious people today, too. The man who trusts in the rite of baptism, in membership in the Christian church will face a heightened guilt and condemnation in the eyes of God. His conduct with the doctrines of Christianity increases his responsibility.
The conclusion here is that circumcision could profit a man if he kept the law. But the Jew had broken the law; therefore it was worthless to him as a means of salvation. The Jew's answer would be: "Perhaps I have broken the law, and perhaps that divinely appointed rite, the seal of God, is worthless to me, but I am still a Jew. I am a son of Abraham, and God has made certain promises to the sons of Abraham and the Jews, that He dare not break. That will save me."
~Alva J. McClain~
(continued with # 26 - "His Birth Cannot Save the Jew")
The Jew Under the Sentence of Condemnation
Paul put his finger on a terrible inconsistency of the Jew (2:22). The Jew would shudder righteously if he saw an idol in a temple, or in speaking of idolatry; and yet he was willing to deal, as a merchant, in the very plunder that men stole out of those temples!
Not every Jew was guilty of all that Paul names here. Not every Jew was an adulterer nor a thief, but there was one respect in which every Jew failed. The first thing Paul asks is "Teachest thou thyself?" Every Jew failed to teach himself, and the Jews are not peculiar in that respect. We might put that question to the church and a good many Bible teachers today. "Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, doest thou steal?" What a man says is worth nothing unless it has come into his own life and been worked out there in righteousness and service for God.
Paul stops asking questions and makes a direct charge: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." And then he adds, "as it is written." The Jew trusted in the law (or what we call the Old Testament), and Paul says in effect, "This charge is not mine. The very law in which you trust condemns you and proves that you have blasphemed the name of God through your life among the Gentiles" (see Isaiah 52:5). Jesus made a similar statement: "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope" (John 5:45). The prophet Ezekiel was told by God: "They profaned my holy name; in that men said of them, these are the people of Jehovah" (Ezekiel 36:20). When the Jews lived among the Gentiles, the Gentiles looked at them saw how they lived, and said, "If this is the people of Jehovah, what kind of God must Jehovah be!" That is the charge.
In Paul's own words, they were "Instructed out of the law" (v. 18), "having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth" (v. 20), he made his boast in the law (see v. 23), and yet he broke it. Paul's conclusion: the Jew dare not take refuge in the law, because he had broken that law, and that same law now condemns him.
What will be the Jew's answer? He will say, "Perhaps that is true, therefore I cannot take refuge in it, but I am circumcised, and circumcision is the mark of God upon His own. No circumcised can be lost."
His Circumcision Cannot Save the Jew
"Circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision (2:25). It can be summed up in a sentence: Circumcision could not save the Jew because he had not kept the law.
"If therefore the uncircumcision [the Gentile] keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?" (2:26). Lack of circumcision would not condemn a Gentile just as the possession of circumcision would not save the Jew. The whole question rests upon the law. The Jew cannot be saved by his circumcision, because he has not kept the law; but if the Gentile did keep the law, lack of circumcision would not condemn him. And furthermore, the morality of the uncircumcised Gentile will judge and condemn the Jew who is circumcised. The very fact that the Jew was a circumcised man would only heighten his guilt in the eyes of God, because it showed he had the law.
This situation has a parallel among religious people today, too. The man who trusts in the rite of baptism, in membership in the Christian church will face a heightened guilt and condemnation in the eyes of God. His conduct with the doctrines of Christianity increases his responsibility.
The conclusion here is that circumcision could profit a man if he kept the law. But the Jew had broken the law; therefore it was worthless to him as a means of salvation. The Jew's answer would be: "Perhaps I have broken the law, and perhaps that divinely appointed rite, the seal of God, is worthless to me, but I am still a Jew. I am a son of Abraham, and God has made certain promises to the sons of Abraham and the Jews, that He dare not break. That will save me."
~Alva J. McClain~
(continued with # 26 - "His Birth Cannot Save the Jew")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)