Romans 5 Class Notes


[PDF]Romans 5 Class Notes - Rackcdn.com34fd314d042ccb53d82d-a5c2050bc20e179ba4cc67f087a27f92.r2.cf2.rackcdn.com/...

3 downloads 130 Views 84KB Size

TLC Women’s Bible Study Romans 5 Paul Spurlock 2/20/18

Chapter 5 Notes & Commentary 5:1 After Paul’s masterful case-making in chapter four in which he revealed examples of justification by faith from the Pentateuch (Gen. 15:6 & Abraham), the Prophets (Hab. 2:4) and the Psalms (& even including king David) (so, in essence, the “Big 3 Sections” of the Jewish Scriptures / OT), he has earned the right to once again emphatically state his main thesis: Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:2 Whereas some back at 2:17 were apparently boasting by having the “name ‘Jew’ and rely upon the Law,” Paul now makes it clear that the only One deserving of boasting (“exult” in NASB) is God! Just what is this ‘grace’ in which we stand? Unmerited favor a start, but it’s more than God’s mere attitude towards us. It’s also God’s active assistance (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9—His grace enriches us!; thus the popular acronym “God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense” is fitting; 2 Cor. 9:8 - “grace abound to you… [resulting in] having all sufficiency” (= supernatural power); 2 Cor. 12:9 “my grace is sufficient for you” (to endure suffering)). So then, grace is more than mercy & pardon—it’s empowering! 5:3-4 The next two classic verses reveal that mature Christians actually are enabled by grace to withstand persecution with a positive attitude! The three verses merit quoting in full: 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. “Tribulations.” when viewed from an eternal perspective, actually have a positive meaning & purpose in our lives. Namely, growing in “character”—the character of Jesus! 5:6-8 Some, perhaps many, will die for a good person. But other than radicalized movements with blindly loyal masses, few will sacrifice their lives for an evil person. So verse 8 says is all: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Amazing! 5:9 Some occurrences of “wrath” in the Bible refer to judgments that have already taken place (e.g. Jer. 7:29; Lk. 21:23), while other occurrences refer to the final Judgment Day. Most commentators understand “the wrath of God” here to be referring to the latter. 5:12 Once again, “Therefore” reveals that that which follows is connected to the previous section. Keeping this in mind may help us understand what follows since, as all commentators admit, it’s a difficult section to comprehend! We now enter a passage theologians have historically framed as describing the juxtaposition between Adam (called the “1st Adam”) and Jesus (called the “2nd or last Adam”). The first Adam is understood to be the corporate and/or federal head of all humanity. The last Adam (Jesus) is understood to be the the corporate and/or federal head of all in Him (Christians).

1

Throughout this section we are going to wish that the Holy Spirit would have led Paul to elaborate more! For instance, when Paul states that through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, just what exactly does he mean? For instance… •

Surely plant death existed since it was food. But did animal death exist prior to the “spread [of] death to all men” caused by Adam & Eve? (is the “all” to “all creation” or limited to “all men”)? When an elephant stepped on an ant in the Garden, was the ant squished, or did it somehow bounce back into shape? Have predators always been predators?



Does the phrase “because all sinned” mean that Adam’s sin (like a hereditary & congenital disease) is passed down to all humanity and therefore it’s correct to say that we are all “born sinners”? Or does it mean simply that since everyone who has ever lived has indeed sinned, that everyone (with the only exception being Jesus), like Adam, is rightly called a sinner? (Protestantism has historically aligned with Catholicism in holding to the position that due to everyone’s ancestral link to Adam all are born with both the consequences of sin (born sinners & in a sindamaged creation) and born bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin. The Eastern Orthodox Church agrees regarding inherited consequences but not inherited guilt—we quickly achieve that on our own!).



The Greek is rightly translated “because all sinned.” Augustine, who didn’t read Greek, used the Latin Vulgate Bible when he (& eventually the Roman Catholic Church) established the interpretation that Adam’s sin is passed down to all humanity (because the Vulgate reads “in whom all sinned”). This is quite different than “because all sinned.” The former implies “spiritual infection” via Adam; the later implies all die because all have chosen to sin.



Is tradition correct in insisting that Adam is everyone’s literal progenitor? Or is he our archetypal forefather? By “archetypal,”1 those who hold this view argue that Adam & Eve were likely literal, but that the role they play in the Genesis account is like Abraham’s is to the nation of Israel in the OT (he’s typically referred to as the “father of all in the nation” representatively but not literally since over time individuals from other people groups (like Ruth) joined Israel via conversion). In other words, other people were created along with Adam & Eve to get the human race established but they are not mentioned in the Bible. Similarly, Adam & Eve represent an original group of humans, but all of humanity today is not literally descended from them. All are still fallen in sin, though, since all have sinned. And, they argue that modern genomics studies consistently conclude that the present DNA constitution of humanity today necessitates an “original group of humans” of roughly 10,000.

Following Augustine, some “hard core Calvinists” argue that infant death proves infants are born guilty (& hence deserving of death, even as a newborn); if they die without being baptized, they are doomed to 1

A chief proponent of this view argues: “Here Adam is called the ‘first’ man, but in the context of the contrast with Christ as the ‘last’ Adam, it cannot be seen as a claim that Adam was the first biological specimen. Since Christ was not the last biological specimen, we must instead conclude that this text is talking about the first archetype and the last archetype. We must say that Adam was an initial archetype replaced by the ultimate archetype in Christ. It is insufficient to bring in biology simply because Christ was biologically descended from Adam.” (John Walton, Historical Adam—as quoted in Denis Venema & Scot McNight’s Adam and the Genome, p. 109). One among many who reject this view is Stand To Reason’s Tim Barnett who states: “First, the consistent testimony of Scripture is that the human race goes back to a historical Adam. Second, the biblical authors speak as if Adam is a real person. If Adam and Eve were not the first married couple, then it’s hard to see how Jesus’ argument for marriage being a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman holds up. Jesus grounds marriage in the created order, not a fairy tale. Similarly, the apostle Paul refers to Adam as a historical person on numerous occasions. For instance, during his sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians, Paul says, ‘And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth’ (Acts 17:26). (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:13-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Third, the doctrine of the Fall is firmly grounded in a historical event involving a historical Adam. Probably the most important theological passage that relies on a historical Adam is found in Romans 5. What makes this argument so profound is that it contrasts the work of Adam with the work of Jesus. Paul begins by establishing Adam as the originator of human sin and death in the world. A real historical man brought human sin and death into the world. Adam’s actions had real consequences for everyone who has come after him. If you remove Adam as a historical individual, then you have removed what Paul describes as the cause of sin and death. A myth cannot bring sin into the world; only a real moral agent can do that. (Summarized from: https://www.str.org/articles/was-adam-a-real-person#.WWmh-zOZMn0).

2

Hell. (As an aside, https://bible.org/question/what-are-historical-origins-infant-baptism notes that “as early as A.D. 400 Augustine appeals to the universal practice of infant baptism as proof that the church saw infants born with the stain of original sin. We find explicit mention of infant baptism as early as Tertullian around A.D. 220.” In other words, infant baptism makes completes sense if newborns that die face God with a sin debt. But all that notwithstanding, Church history reveals that for the first 300 years the established view of baptism was that it was to be entered into by converts who understood what they were doing, which excludes the very young of course. And although baptism was commanded by Jesus, it was not understood to be mandatory for salvation. Back to the warning to Adam & Eve that “in the day that you eat from (the tree of life) you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17), is the meaning of the consequence spiritual & judicial, or was literal & physical creaturely death (including human) a possibility from the start? In other words, were all creatures, including humans, intrinsically & by nature immortal as most assume? The majority of Christians understand the “death” that resulted from the Fall as spiritual death and not physical death. (When Adam & Eve sinned they didn’t die on the spot; the “death” God said they would receive is viewed a spiritual). But could it be that we are actually potentially immortal and, like Adam & Eve, we have to, in order to attain eternal life, either eat from the Tree of Life continually or, as I John 5:11-12 says, “ha[ve] the Son” in whom (solely) eternal life dwells? After all, 1 Timothy 6:16 states that God “alone possesses immortality.” Put differently, did God’s cutting off of Adam & Eve from Tree prevent their continuance of immortality, causing the process of aging & death to ensue? Could it be that we’re naturally mortal but also possess the potential for eternal life as long as we eat from the Tree (not possible again until “the new heaven & new earth” / restored Garden of eternity) or gain it via life in Christ? By analogy, is the situation sort of like our continuing to live because we have access to food and we continually eat? (and if we stopped eating we’d eventually die?). 5:13 Paul seems to go off onto another train of thought at this point (he doesn’t seem to continue with his thought in v. 12 - (& note the dash at the end of the verse in the NASB, etc.). The NRSV translation “sin is not reckoned” seems clearer than the NASB “sin is not imputed,” since “imputed” conveys the idea of a sin nature or guilt of sin being transferred from one to another. “Reckoned” conveys the idea that seems to better connect the thrust of the verse that seems to be saying that sin and its consequences (namely death) were nevertheless in the world prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law (which, once established, made the awareness of specific sins explicit). 5:14 “Adam until Moses” refers to history prior to the giving of the Mosaic Laws & Covenant. This seems to sync with the thought of the preceding verse. “Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” is one of the places in the NT from which we learn of the whole phenomenon of “types” in the Bible. “Type” is from the Greek “typos” and means a form or mold or a lesser foreshadow of the full expression to come. 5:13-17 adds to our difficulty in following Paul easily & clearly because is appears to be parenthetical! — Paul is apparently backing up to provide background. 5:15-17 are a parenthesis within a parenthesis! In short & simplified, there are two groups or “bodies” to be in: the “Old man” / 1st Adam or the “New Man” / Christ. Cf. Eph. 4:22ff; Col. 3:9 (new “man” (Gk. anthropos) is the meaning, not “new self” as in NASB & NIV et. al.). All who ever lived need the new Man (Jesus), not merely a “new & improved” self.

3

5:18-19 Now, finally, back on point (to our way of reckoning), Paul restates his point at verse 12 (“Therefore”…or “So then…”). A growing movement within Evangelicalism is called “Universal Reconciliation” (UR), which is a new term for the universal salvation of everyone or “Universalism.” Like their ancient forerunners (UR existed among Christians prior to Augustine & the Catholic Church deeming it heretical in the 5th century AD), URs believe in Hell; all who reject Christ go there. But, they argue (and making much use from verses 18 & 19), every last person will finally, after suffering for their sins in Hell, come to their senses, repent and be named among the rest whose knees “bow” and tongues “confess” that Jesus is Lord (Phil. 2:9-11). See also: Jn. 12:32 “draw all men to Myself,” Eph. 1:9-10 “the summing up of all things in Christ,” 2 Cor. 5:19-21 “God was in Christ reconciling the world” (& “world” ≠ with just the Church in Scripture), Col. 1:19-20 “reconcile all things to Himself,” 1 Tim. 4:10 “God, who is the Savior of all men,” and Rev. 21:25 (Heavenly Jerusalem’s “gates are never closed.” Finally and critically, URs state: are not the “many” in Rom. 5:19a the same as the “many” in 5:19b? The greatest mind of church fathers thought so (Origen)—but like Luther a thousand years later (but for different reasons), he was deemed a “heretic.” Responses: •

All may now have access and/or a standing as qualifying for Christ’s pardon, but after hearing the gospel by an evangelist, they still have to personally appropriate it.



Matthew 21:46 seems decisive: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Strong too is Revelation 21:8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”



Warnings of the possibility of “perishing” and missing eternal life are numerous in the Bible & sound forever (e.g. Jn. 3:16). Now, due to examples of non-literal “eternal” judgments in the OT (Isa. 34:10; Jer. 3:12 & 15:14; 25:11 & 25:9; Eze. 35:9), it’s possible there’s hope after some judgments. Is that the case here? We are not told. But assuming final judgments won’t be forever is to surely bet against bad odds. And living like what we do in the here & now doesn’t matter in eternity is the height of foolishness & clearly unbiblical!

5:20-21 The phrase “sin reigned” is personified. The “Law” failed to defeat sin (even if it did its job by exposing it). Grace (a hero who would win so to speak in these dramatized verses) defeated sin and therefore “reigns”! Hence the phrase grace abound[ing] all the more(!), for which we can be eternally grateful! (Right out of the gate in chapter 6 Paul anticipates push back “to all this free grace business” with a similar rejoinder we saw earlier at 3:7-8. In chapter 6 Paul states: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?  May it never be!”) (6:1-2 & 15); again, this misses the point. It will take Paul all of chapters 6 & 7 to parenthetically respond — and note how chapter 8 picks up where chapter 5 leaves off. (“Therefore…” of 8:1).

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Group Questions: 1. Share how you believe God has assisted & empowered you with His grace and/or how you have experienced verses 5:3-4. 2. Go through the bullet points on page 2. Share your thoughts and/or what you agree or disagree with and why (& use the Bible to make your points as best you can). 3. If humans are by nature immortal, why does John 3:16 make a big deal out of “eternal life” and contrast it with “perish[ing]”? Is this redundant? Is the “death” in Romans 3:23 merely physical or referring to spiritual death? 4. Do you think the Universal Restorationism interpretation of 5:18-19 has merit? Do you think it’s growing popularity is due to “the Church always reforming itself ” or because moderns are soft on tough doctrines?

4