Expositional Archives - Page 96 of 109

Romans 37: The End Of The Law (10:1-4)

Joe Harby on October 18, 2009

Introduction

We have already seen that Christ is the foundation stone and the stumbling stone, depending. For the one who believes, He is the foundation of all. For the one who does not believe in Him, He is the rock of offense.

The Text

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom. 10:1-4).

Summary of the Text

Paul has already said that he could wish himself lost if that would benefit his kinsmen (Rom. 9:3). Here he repeats his heart’s desire and prayer—that they would be saved (v. 1). He can testify on their behalf that they are zealous, and that it is a zeal for God. But it is not in accordance with knowledge—it is a false-hearted zeal (v. 2). Their problem is that they were ignorant of God’s righteousness (v. 3), and they were “going about” to establish their own righteousness (v. 3). As a result they had not submitted to God’s righteousness (v. 3). Paul’s conclusion is that Christ was the end (telos) of the law “for righteousness to” every one who believes (v. 4).

The Whole Point of the Law

When Paul says that Christ is the “end of the law,” he does not mean that Christ is the abolition or limit of the law, as in the phrase the “end of the dock.” He means that Christ was the whole point of the law, as in “what is the chief end of man? The word end here does not mean limit or boundary, but rather it means purpose or point. The law of God was therefore teleological (from telos), and the telos, the one it was driving toward was Jesus Christ. He is the point of the whole Bible. But He is the point of the law as more than just a person or placeholder. He is the end of the law in His righteous obedience. More on this shortly.

Ignorant of God’s Righteousness

Remember the conclusion of chapter nine. There is a trap for sanctimonious saints. There is a pit for the pious there. There is something in the (religious) human heart that wants to be righteous on its own. In our own tradition, in our own teaching and preaching, we must be careful not to leave any room for this tendency whatever.

A recent interpretation of Paul says that the “righteousness of God” refers only to God’s own faithfulness in keeping His own promises. It does not refer, the argument goes, to any righteousness of God that can be imputed to others. This view of God’s righteousness is deficient when held up next to this passage, for four reasons.

First, if the righteousness of God refers to His own righteousness, then the Jews were not ignorant of it. Second, they were “going about” to establish their own righteousness. Instead of what? Instead of the antecedent, the righteousness of God. They wanted their own righteousness instead of the righteousness of another. Third, the righteousness of God was not something they were willing to submit themselves to. This submission, we have just learned, is by faith—and if it is the righteousness of another, it has to be a submission by faith, by definition. And fourth, consider closely the language of v. 4. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. This fourth point requires some more from us.

Grace Everywhere You Look

If Christ is the whole point of the Torah, and if Christ is a stone of stumbling and rock of offense, then it follows that the whole point of the Torah is a stone of stumbling and rock of offense. In Scripture there is grace everywhere you look, and if you don’t want to see it, then you have to do some strange things to the Scriptures.

The language of v. 4 is consistent with the doctrine of imputed righteousness, and is consistent with nothing else. Everyone who believes receives something. What is that? They receive righteousness. We know that it cannot be their own righteousness because, if it were, they would not “receive” it, but would already have it, and we also would not have just been told that those who wanted their own righteousness were stumbling over the rock of offense.

I looked at multiple translations, and they all render it for righteousness to. Paraphrase this, amplify it. “Christ is the whole point of the Torah, His life and work being the complete fulfillment of it, in order that His righteousness might come to every one who believes in Him, instead of continuing to trust in his own righteousness.”

Ignorant Saintlets

What is the kind of thing that would make someone stumble so egregiously over news this good? God in His covenant righteousness sends a righteous Messiah, in order that the people of God might be gathered up and included in His righteousness, and reckoned as complete and perfect in Him. What would make someone kick against this?

The answer is found in our text. Religiosity is the thing that hides the righteousness of God from us. But it does not hide the righteousness of God considered as a goal toward which we might strive—no, it magnifies the righteousness of God that way. And the higher the bar, the better. At least that is what ignorant saintlets think.

God offers us a salvation that is by His grace from first to last. But because the God who offers us grace is also fully and completely righteous, there must be a completion of His holy requirements. This means that we, if we are to be saved at all, must be content with the righteousness of another, imputed to us. And in order to be content with this, we need to be willing to have all our good deeds despised by God. We must be willing for God to put them away with loathing, holding them between His thumb and forefinger. We must be willing for God to laugh at all our pious striving. Beads of sweat have broken out on the forehead as we wrestle with lust, with covetousness, with pride, with anxiety, with sin . . . with everything but our culpable ignorance of what God is like. Poor, ignorant sap. Christ is here. Believe in Him.

Romans 36: The Stumbling Stone (9:30-33)

Joe Harby on October 11, 2009

Introduction

Why is the issue of faith and works so complicated? The answer is that it is not—it is the sinful human heart that is complicated. Because of that, we take something straightforward—trust God in all things—and tie it up into knots. But the issues outside the heart are simple. They binary. Either you will build your life on the cornerstone that is Jesus Christ, or that same stone will fall on you and crush you (Luke 20:17-18).

The Text

“What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom 9:30-33).

Summary of the Text

What do we say in response to the argument from Hosea and Isaiah? Our conclusion is that the Gentiles, who were not chasing righteousness, have nevertheless attained that righteousness (v. 30). The righteousness they attained to is the righteousness that is “of faith” (v. 30). Israel in the meantime was chasing after righteousness and did not catch it (v. 31). The righteousness they did not catch was something they missed because they did not understand the “law of righteousness” (v. 31). The law of righteousness is faith. This is made plain in the next verse—why did they not attain what they were chasing? Because they did not chase by faith, but rather by works of the Torah (v. 32). They tripped over the stumbling stone, and this issue of faith/works was that stone (v. 32). The quotation is from both Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16. In Isaiah 8, God sets the rock of stumbling (v. 14), and in verse 17 we see the right response to that stone, which is trust. Moreover, verse 17 is quoted in Heb. 2:13. And in Isaiah 28:16, the precious cornerstone is the one which, if someone trusts in it, they will never be dismayed. This verse is also quoted in 1 Pet. 2:6 and later in Romans 10:11. This is a stone of stumbling and it is a stone in which we are to trust—see the flow of the argument in 1 Peter. 2:6-8.

Line on Line

We know from the teaching of the New Testament that the stone of stumbling and the basic foundation stone are the same stone—Jesus Christ. The stone was rejected by the appointed builders, and so they in turn were rejected. But we must pay attention not only to the fact of their rejection of Christ, but must pay close attention to the nature of their rejection of Christ.

In Isaiah 8, the stone is a stone of stumbling. In Isaiah 28, it is a cornerstone, one in which we are invited to trust. But there are some other things in Is. 28 as well. Isaiah rebukes the people for their sin (vv. 1-8). They react to him —who is Isaiah trying to teach? Sunday School kids who can’t even read yet (vv. 8-9)? What they think is beneath them is actually way ahead of them. Then v. 11 is quoted in 1 Cor. 14:21, and applied to the gift of tongues (Dt. 28:49. So t hen, Isaiah says, you despise the abcs? ‘l’ll give it to you that way (v. 13)—so that you will fall backward, be broken, snared, and captured. But the one who trusts in the stone will be blessed (v. 16). The gift of tongues was therefore a sign of judgment on unbelievers, particularly unbelieving Jews (1 Cor. 14:22).

Faith Is a Pair of Eyes

In religious affairs there can be a vast difference between what you are doing and what you think you are doing. In our text, the Jews were “following after” the law of righteousness and, when they got there, they discovered it was actually the law of unrighteousness. The Gentiles who did not have a thought of righteousness at all found themselves tackled from behind by that righteousness. Found by God, they found they had faith in Him. Pursuing God with all their hearts, or so they thought, the Jews found that they did not have faith in God. They had faith in their way of having faith in God. The Torah was not intended for that use, but that is the use they put to it. And so when Christ came, they could do nothing but stumble over Him. Faith in faith, faith in your way of having faith, is damnable. Faith is a pair of eyes, designed to look at Christ. If they don’t see Him, they are blind eyes.

The Nature of Stumbling

Take two men. One says that we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ alone, by faith alone, plus nothing or no one else. Is he right? Of course he is right. But suppose he says this, not trusting in Jesus but rather trusting in his correct doctrinal formulation. He is lost, precisely because his formulation is correct. And flip it around. Another man can have a true heart-felt trust in Christ, but have been taught a real mishmash of doctrinal incoherencies. Can he be saved? Yes, but only because what he was taught is wrong. Was the Torah false doctrine? No, as we will see in Romans 10:6. Did God know that men would get it backwards? Yes, and He planned to use this as a way of bringing men to real faith (Rom. 10:5).

So Trust in Jesus Christ

You were lost in sin, and Jesus Christ was sent to die on the cross in such a way as to deal with all that sin. All of it. He was buried, and then raised to life again so that you could participate in that eternal life. Look to Him. That’s it —the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for screwed up people. That’s the gospel. Don’t look to Him while holding your mouth just so. Don’t trust in Him and in your church volunteer work. Don’t believe in Him coupled with your mastery of the Westminster Confession. We are saved by grace, not law. We are saved by grace, not refined law, not doctrinal law, not the law of righteousness. No, we are justified by the law of righteousness, which is faith.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Romans 35: Saving The Remnant (9:25-29)

Joe Harby on October 4, 2009

Introduction

In order to understand Scripture rightly, we have to understand the flow of redemptive history. God’s revelation to us is progressive, and it unfolds over centuries. If we treat the Bible as the book that fell from the sky, we are going to have a terrible time comprehending it rightly. The works of God’s judgments and deliverances are sequential.

The Text

“As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved . . .” (Rom. 9:25-29).

Summary of the Text

In this short passage, we have four quotations, two from Hosea and two from Isaiah. This is a good place to let the apostle instruct us on what the two prophets were talking about. We have just learned in the previous verse that the vessels of mercy included the Gentiles (v. 24). Paul then confirms this by saying that Hosea predicted it by saying that God will take those who were not His people and make them His people (v. 25; Hos. 2:23). He follows it up with another citation. Those who were called not the people of God would be accepted as children (v. 26; Hos. 1:10). Isaiah cries out concerning Israel—even though the children of Israel were as the sand of the seashore, only a remnant would be saved (vv. 27-28; Is. 10:22-23). Isaiah had made the previous point that unless God saved a remnant, the Jews would have been wiped out just like Sodom and Gomorrah had been (v. 29; Is. 1:9).

Summary of the Citations

If you read carefully through the first two chapters of Hosea, this is what you will find. God takes Israel as a bride, and just as Hosea found Gomer unfaithful, so God found Israel unfaithful. Because of this, God put Israel away entirely (Hos. 1:6), but will have limited mercy on Judah (Hos. 1:7). Then those who were put away for their apostasy (and called “not God’s people) will again be called God’s people. This is the doctrine of the remnant followed by the full restoration. Paul also quotes Hosea on this restoration in a way that includes the Gentiles in it (Hos. 2:23). The restoration of Israel (utterly put away) means that other nations can come to the Lord also. Note the phrase comparing Israel to the sands of the sea (Hos. 1:10).

Isaiah uses the same expression—the sand of the sea—and says that even though Israel be of that great number, a remnant shall return to the Lord (Is. 10:22). The Lord will make short work of it in a decisive judgment (Is. 10:23). Paul is not dragging the Gentiles into this without warrant because just a few verses later, Isaiah himself includes the Gentiles (Is. 11:9-10). This is not conjecture, because Paul himself quotes this verse later in Romans while justifying the mission to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:12). In short, Paul is not prooftexting here—he is appealing to a sustained vision from the Old Testament. And then of course we see what a great mercy that gift of a remnant was (Is. 1:9).

Redemptive Timeline

Put all this together, and what do we have? The nation of Israel was called out from the nations to become and be a light for the nations. Though they grew and flourished numerically (sand of the sea), they consistently went astray, again and again, as anyone who has read their Old Testament knows. We have a history of cyclic apostasies and restorations. This typological pattern climaxed when the Messiah came. The vast majority of Israel fell away, and God spared a remnant. That remnant was to be used in such a way that the Gentiles would come to the Messiah, and then all Israel would eventually return, resulting in a huge blessing for the entire world (Rom. 11:15).

Remember Your Place In the Story

Now take what this means at the simplest level. It means that the ratio of saved to lost varies widely based on what moment in redemptive history we are dealing with. We cannot take particular passages like “many are saved but few are chosen,” universalize them for all time, and make them a permanent fixture. It is not playing fast and loose with the text to contextualize it.

Narrow the Way

For example, if you were to say to someone that you believed that the vast majority of the human race will be saved (as you should believe), the first thing you will hear is that the Bible says that the way is narrow, and only a few find it (Matt. 7:13-14). But remember the remnant. What are the remnant? The few who find it. What else are they? They are first century Jews. Consider it this way—with comments interspersed.

“Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate [through which the remnant enters]: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able [the majority of unbelieving Israel falls away]. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets [the streets of first century Israel, remember]. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out [the kingdom is taken from the Jews and given to those who will bear the fruit of it (Matt 21:43)]. 29And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God [the Gentiles will flood in and sit down with the patriarchs and with the remnant]. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last” (Luke 13:23-30).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Romans 34: Bad Puppet (9:14-24)

Joe Harby on September 19, 2009

Introduction

We now come to some hard words, whether they are hard to understand or simply hard to take. And as we seek to be faithful to what God has given us here, we have to be mindful of Peter’s caution—there are places in Paul’s epistles where it is not safe for ignorant or unstable people to go (2 Pet. 3:16). But if we receive the hard words the right way, the reward will be tender hearts. If we reject these hard words, then it will be our hearts that become hard—just like Pharaoh’s.

The Text

“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid . . .” (Rom. 9:14-24).

Summary of the Text

We have already seen Paul refuses to let us draw the conclusion that God is ineffectual (v. 6). Here he refuses the implication that God is unrighteous (v. 14). This means that he rejects the ancient Epicurean conundrum on the problem of evil—wherein God must either be incompetent or malevolent. Paul rejects both options. Paul vindicates God from charges of unrighteousness by citing the divine prerogative, as spoken to Moses (v. 15). God will have mercy on those He will have mercy on, and He will show compassion to those He wants to show compassion to. Note that we are talking about mercy and compassion, not justice. It does not depend on the one who wills or runs, but rather upon the mercy of God (v. 16). The flip side of this (not showing mercy) is evidenced in God’s treatment of Pharaoh (v. 17). Paul repeats the principle again, this time with both sides stated (v. 18). Then the obvious objection is raised—if God makes us do these things, how can He judge us for them (v. 19)? Paul’s answer looks like a non-answer to us—as in, “shut up, he explained” (vv. 20-21). But there is far more to it than that. What if God, wanted to display His wrath, needed vessels of wrath (v. 22)? What if He, in order to display His mercy, needed vessels of mercy (v. 23)? And those vessels of mercy, as it turned out, were selected not only from the Jewish race, but also from all the nations (v. 24).

Characteristics of the Biblical Position

The biblical position on this issue is concerned to reject the either/or fallacy of impotence or malevolence. The biblical position begins by asserting the prerogatives of God, and not the rights of man. As it turns out, that is the only way to preserve anything for man. And the biblical position provokes the objection of v. 19. Just as preaching the gospel of grace will provoke the objection that this leads to “sinning that grace may abound” (6:1), so the preaching of sovereign grace will provoke this objection—and nothing else will.

Bad Puppet!

When Paul summarizes the objection that is mounted against what he is saying, our initial reaction to it is yeah! “What about that?” If God hardens some and has mercy on others, where does He get off blaming us for being hard? It is as though God commands the little wood puppet to avoid certain evil dances, then makes the puppet dance them, and then smashes the puppet to smithereens. “Bad puppet!”

Before answering the objection, if your sympathies are there, whose side are you on? Paul’s or the apostolic critic?

Potter and Clay

Paul’s answer does two things. First, it assumes the absolute right of the Creator to dispose of His creation as He pleases. God is the Potter, and we are the clay (Is. 64:8). But second, notice that he also presupposes genuine moral responsibility on the part of the clay. He blames the clay for thinking a certain way, and for “replying against God.” The point of his illustration is to display relationship, and not to claim that men are inert substances like clay. They are subject to authority like clay. In some respects we are nothing like clay, being much greater than clay—but of course, God is infinitely greater than a potter. We are more like clay than God is like a potter. We are more like fictional characters in a Shakespeare play than God is like Shakespeare.

God Is No Zeus

When Paul reminds you that God is the Potter, don’t try to get satisfaction by making Him just ten times bigger than we are. God is not a big creature, like Zeus was. When one creature forces another, his exercise of freedom displaces the freedom of the one acted upon. If we conceive of God like that, simply bigger than anything, we cannot escape the idea that He is actually a bully. But remember the Creator/creature divide. But I have a question. In the scene where Hamlet is deciding whether to kill his uncle while he is at his prayers—how much of that is Shakespeare, and how much of it is Hamlet?

What If

So why is there sin and evil in the world? This is the ancient question—why would an omnipotent, omni-righteous God create a world that would go off the rails the way it has? Paul does not assert here, but he does indicate a direction—what if? If this were the answer, Paul would have no problem with it. In a world without sin and evil, two attributes of God would go unmanifested. And since their manifestation glorifies God, In a world without sin, we would not see God’s fierce wrath and His great power. But it glorifies Him for us to see His wrath and power. That is the first reason. The second is that in a world without sin, we would not see the greatness of His mercy. In order to forgive sinners, we must have them. Before reacting against these suggestions in anger, take a moment to compare this answer to the typical “free will” theodicy. The evil is there—to which god is it offered?

Riches of Mercy

It is strange that a passage so full of mercy could generate so much anger and distress. God offers His mercy through Christ, and we don’t want to take it because mercy presupposes our wickedness (Is. 64:8). If there are ten inmates on death row, and the governor pardons seven of them, what is that? If it is mercy, then how is it construed as injustice to the remaining three?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Romans 33: Jacob I Have Loved (9:7-13)

Christ Church on September 13, 2009

Introduction

We come now to the central lesson of all evangelical religion. We come now to the glorious revelation of the sovereign grace of God, as revealed in the gospel, and only through the gospel. We come now to the promises, which are great and precious.

The Text

“Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God . . .” (Rom. 9:7-13).

Summary of the Text

We have seen that not everyone who is of Israel is to be counted as Israel. This answers the objection God’s word has somehow failed (v. 6). But how does this work out in the course of scriptural history? For example, in order to be a “child of Abraham” it is necessary to be more than a child of Abraham. The promise was given to the line of Isaac (v. 7). Paul quotes Gen. 21:12 here. He then says that Abraham had two kinds of children—children of the flesh and children of the promise. The children of the promise are the ones who are considered to be his seed (v. 8). Quoting Gen. 18:10,14, Paul quotes the promise directly. Not only that, but the same thing is repeated over again in the next generation. Rebecca conceived twins by one man, the patriarch Isaac (v. 10). And then Paul says that before these twins were born, and so that God’s prerogatives in election would stand unchallenged (v. 11), God declared through a prophecy that the elder would serve the younger (v. 12). This is found in Gen. 25:23. And finishing the thought, the apostle quotes from Mal. 1:2-3. Jacob was loved by God, and Esau was hated and rejected by Him (v. 13).

Twin Nations

In debates between Calvinists and Arminians, a point is often made about that inflammatory quote—”Esau I hated”—and it is a point we should readily grant, but only to a point. The quotation is not from the book of Genesis, like the others here, and is rather from the last book of the Old Testament (Mal. 1:2-3). Malachi in context is talking about the nations of Israel and Edom. It is the word of the Lord to Israel (Mal. 1:1), and His hatred of Esau is why Edom is referred to as judged (v. 4). If we are following Paul’s argument here in Romans, the corporate love that God showed to Israel did not mean that every Israelite was saved. Neither did His hatred of Esau mean that every Edomite was lost (Job 1:1). At the same time, it does mean something. If God’s sovereign dispensing of grace apart from works extends to entire nations, why would be balk in applying it to individuals?

Ishmaelites and Edomites

The unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day drew themselves up to their full height. “We are children of Abraham,” they said. “Oh,” he replied, “Ishmaelites then?” “No,” they retorted. “We are descended from Isaac.” “Oh,” he replied. “Edomites then?” They had the generations of the patriarchs to learn the lesson, but their unbelief had blinded them. Every generation has to learn the same lesson over again, and it can only be learned by the sovereign grace of God. Learning this lesson is the gift of God.

Sovereign Authority in the Promise

The unbelieving heart always wants to trap God in the fine print. Paul’s point here is that we are not nearly so adept at reading that fine print as we think we are. We say that God promised salvation to the seed of Abraham, and there, we have Him. Paul points out, in the fine print, that Ishmael is the seed of Abraham in a certain sense. Right? We retreat—God promised salvation to the seed of Isaac. Surely He can’t wriggle out of t hat. Paul points to the next paragraph down. What about Esau? Is he part of this salvation? The point is that when God reveals, at the culmination of history, that the seed of Abraham are all those who share the faith of Abraham (Gal. 3:28-29), this is not moving the goalposts. This is not a fourth quarter rule change. God has been doing this from the very beginning. It has always been for the children of the promise, and never for the children of the flesh alone.

Not of Works

Related to this, the fundamental contrast for Paul is always between grace and works, and note that the allure of “works” here is centuries before the Torah was given. Jacob had the position he did by grace, and it was not of works (v. 11). Jacob was given something apart from works long before his great, great grandson Moses, giver of the Torah, was born (Ex. 6:16-20). The Torah wasn’t around but works were. Works always are, whispering in your ear.

The Elder Serves the Younger

We know that God draws straight with crooked lines, but we sometimes rush to assign blame where the Bible does not. While she was pregnant, Rebecca inquired of the Lord and was told by God that the older twin would serve the younger (Gen. 25:23). Contrary to this word, Isaac favored Esau (Gen. 25:28), despite the fact that Jacob was a perfect man (Gen. 25:27). Rebecca believed in the word of the Lord, and she favored her righteous son while Isaac favored the son who gave him the kind of food he liked (Gen. 25:28). Isaac was willing to give the blessing for the sake of food, and Esau was willing to sell his birthright for the sake of food. The deception of Rebecca and Jacob saved Isaac from a spiritual disaster. Isaac tried to reject the word of the Lord, but was graciously prevented.

Not the Children of God

Now we need to embrace both sides of what Paul is saying. The children of the flesh are of the children of God in one sense (v. 6) but, as he says in v. 8, they are not the children of God in another. We are the children of God by faith (Gal. 3:26). Evangelists of Christ must never be shy about telling Christians that they aren’t, or telling evangelicals that they need to be born again. And pastors of Christ must never tire of telling Christians that they are accepted in the Beloved.