You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for February 2010

Romans – An Expedition

February 27, 2010 By Randy Olds Leave a Comment

I’ve read through the entirety of Paul’s epistle to the Romans several times and have of course spent countless hours reading specific portions of it, but I’ve never launched a specific study of this crown jewel of Pauline writings. During the times that I’ve read through it I have necessarily read through many portions that I had difficulty with, thinking to myself that I’d one day have to come back to that portion of the epistle at a later day to try and make better sense of it. And portions of it I have, such as the troublesome Romans 9 on which I wrote a post on a couple of weeks ago.

I decided to launch a formal expedition onto the slopes of the book of Romans a few days ago, and I must say that I already feel a little daunted. I use the term expedition because of some of the terminology that I’ve encountered in my initial survey of the epistle in the writings of N.T. Wright, Martin Luther and others.

Wright says of Romans; [Romans] dwarfs most of [Paul's] other writings, [it is] an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision.”In another commentary Wright likens a study of Romans to an expedition to Mars writing that “to many Christians in the Western world, Romans remains as much of a mystery as Mars. “I tried to read it once,” they say, like a scientist describing yet another failed space probe, “but I got bogged down and couldn’t work it out.”

Martin Luther, at the end of his preface to the book of Romans writes; “Therefore it seems that St. Paul, in writing this letter, wanted to compose a summary of the whole of Christian and evangelical teaching which would also be an introduction to the whole Old Testament. Without doubt, whoever takes this letter to heart possesses the light and power of the Old Testament. Therefore each and every Christian should make this letter the habitual and constant object of his study. God grant us his grace to do so.”

It seems to me that the book of Romans can somewhat be compared to a Reader’s Digest condensed version of the Bible as a whole, containing in it a synopsis of the entirety of Christian teaching and doctrine, and I’m not altogether sure that this is not what Paul intended in this letter to Rome. But whereas the slope of the Bible is a very long climb to the top, the slope to the peak of Romans is seemingly sheer at points and therefore may require a bit more focussed effort to scale.

I’m sure that I’ll not gain a complete understanding of all of the teaching that Paul was wishing to convey in this study, but I hope to gain a better understanding of the epistle as a whole that will help me in my walk with God. As is often the case, I have a bit of a feeling that I may have bitten off more than I can chew, but with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, I am convinced that I will learn from this study precisely what I am able to understand at this point and will be able to grow spiritually from it.

So I therefore stand at the base of this mountain named Romans surveying the slope ahead, wondering what adventures I will encounter on my journey. I know that I will have to come back here again and again over the years and make different ascents up the slope. But, when I come back I will have my notes from this first expedition and will better know the slopes and will undoubtedly make better time and discover parts of the mountain that I’ll miss this time around.

Filed Under: Romans

Time for Romans

February 26, 2010 By Randy Olds Leave a Comment

I had to go to my Dr. on Wednesday because my back had got to hurting so bad that I simply wasn’t sure that I could continue on anymore. After a perfunctory examination, he was concerned that I may have herniated another disc ( I blew out one a number of years ago and had surgery to correct it) and promptly took me off of work until a more certain diagnosis can be had. I’ll be off work for at least a week and a half. Hopefully it’s not serious and perhaps a cortisone injection or two will fix me up. I get an MRI today and will go see a back specialist next week.

With quite a bit of free time available while I’m waiting for a diagnosis, I decided that this might be a good time to launch into a formal study of the book of Romans. I had my wife go to the bookstore and purchase Martin Luther’s Commentary on the Book of Romans as well as N.T. Wrights book on Romans. Along with my Bethany Parallel Commentary and Bible, I have begun my study in hopes of gaining a better understanding of Paul’s epistle to the Romans in it’s entirety.

Because my back pain is keeping me from spending extended periods of time in a sitting position, I’ll be doing the majority of my study from this written material, with very little online research. If my back will allow me, I’ll try and post my thoughts on my blog as I go along, although my posts may not be as long as some of my previous ones.

I began last night with Martin Luther’s Preface to the Book of Romans and, having only read this once before (and that was some time back!), am already feeling excited by starting this study. Luther’s Preface really is a work of art! I’ll be posting along the way as much as my lower back allows me.

Filed Under: Romans

Do We Really Have Free Will?

February 24, 2010 By Randy Olds Leave a Comment

I threw my back out pretty good last week, so it’s been difficult to spend any appreciable time on the keyboard. Low back pain makes sitting at the PC a little troublesome, and my laptop is on the blink. I hate not posting anything , though. Hopefully, I’ll be back at full speed soon, and be able to resume blogging at my previous tempo. Until then, I’ll probably just post snippets, or links like this one, on….Free Will.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

He Steadfastly Set his Face to Go to Jerusalem

February 19, 2010 By Randy Olds Leave a Comment

My wife and I attended the Ash Wednesday service yesterday. Although we’ve technically been members of the Methodist Church since 2003, this marked the first time that I’ve attended an Ash Wednesday service and also marks the first year that I’ve purposely set out to ‘observe’ Lent, if ‘observing’ it is even the proper term. ‘Focus on’ might be a better use of words.

I actually had to do a little bit of research on Lent and Ash Wednesday over the last week as my wife and I prepared for the season. Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of the Lenten season leading up to Easter, and is a time of repentance, self-reflection and often some form of self-denial as we prepare for Easter. The 40 days of Lent (not counting the Sundays, which are considered Feast Days) symbolically represent the 40 days that Jesus fasted in the wilderness prior to His temptation.

I am approaching this Easter with a fuller understanding and much deeper respect of the reality and infinite importance of the event than I have ever before in my life. Over the course of the last year and a half or so I have finally begun to get the barest glimpse of how important it is to follow Christ to the Cross in whatever way that I can muster on a daily basis.

During the Ash Wednesday service our pastor mentioned a verse that he said was in the middle of Luke, although he didn’t mention chapter and verse, about how Jesus was going through the villages and towns teaching the people as He made His way toward Jerusalem. I went home after the service and searched for the scripture. It turned out to be Luke 13:22 that our pastor was quoting, but while I was looking for it I stumbled over Luke 9:51 first. I think that I like the American King James Version of 9:51 the best;

“And it came to pass, when the time was come that He should be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem”

As I approach this Easter and the rest of my life as well, I want to try and follow Jesus’ example as is described in this little verse in the Gospel of Luke.

There is quite a bit that transpires between 9:51 and Good Friday in the Gospel of Luke. It would appear to me that the time period is probably considerably longer than the 40 days of Lent although it’s more than likely not a year or more. The point that I’m trying to get to is this; although Jesus had a vocation, His ministry, to accomplish along the way and He wasn’t deterred from it, He nonetheless had His eyes firmly set upon Jerusalem and the larger picture. As he taught His disciples and preached to the crowds along the way, He steadily kept His eyes on the picture of a hill.

The picture of a little hill that we call Calvary where He was to pay the ultimate price for all of mankind.

As I go through this Lenten season, I hope get some of that focus that Christ had as He resolutely set his face toward Jerusalem and the Cross that awaited Him there.

The ideal, of course, is to celebrate Easter every day and work at having the focus that Christ did throughout our lives. I realize, however, that although this is the goal that I am aiming at, it is somewhat like ‘shooting arrows at the sun.’ I realize the imperfection of my humanity and that my sanctification is most definitely still a work in progress.

With that said, I am still going to do my best to steadfastly set my toward Jerusalem over the course of the next forty some-odd days and intentionally pause to reflect as Easter draws closer and closer on the incredible reality of the arisen Christ and how that impacts my life and worldview, not to mention eternity. Along the way, however, I also want to also focus on the vocation that Christ has for me as I anticipate commemorating His resurrection this Easter, that vocation being the ‘lamp set upon a hill’ and the ‘salt of the earth.’

I have great difficulty on many days keeping my focus on Jerusalem and the Cross for more than a few hours at a time. It seems that one distraction or another is constantly arising. I lose focus. I have to repent and start afresh, once again asking Christ to strengthen me and help me along. My hope is that this season of Lent will perhaps help me build a bit more strength and stamina to maybe be able to go little further before I again stumble, although stumble I know I will.

The one thing that I am sure of however is that when I do stumble, my Lord will be there to help me up and put my feet back on the path again. Then I will once again set my face toward Jerusalem, His Cross, His love and the salvation that He has given me. And I will give thanks at set forth again.

Filed Under: Easter, Jesus Christ, Lent

Romans 9, Unconditional Election or a History Lesson to Stress a Point?

February 16, 2010 By Randy Olds Leave a Comment

I love it when a scripture that I’ve been struggling with suddenly makes sense. It’s like finally figuring out where a piece of a jigsaw puzzle fits that you’ve been messing with for days or watching the fog lift to reveal a beautiful morning. Such is the case for me with Romans 9 today. I’ve gone back and forth to Romans 9 trying to make sense of some of the harder portions of it for some time now, and although I’ve read many commentaries on Romans in general and Romans 9 in particular, both from the Reformed view as well as from non-Reformed theologians such as N.T. Wright, I still haven’t ever been able to make complete sense of it in any way that I’ve been comfortable with. That is, until today.

Romans 9, along with the first two chapters of Ephesians, seems to be the major proof texts for the Calvinists that want to argue for Unconditional Election, the “U” of the Calvinist TULIP. There are of course other scriptural references that Reformed theologians use for their case for unconditional election, but Romans 9 appears, at least at first glance, to be an ironclad polemic for their point.

The argument in verses 8-13 where Paul tells the story of God’s choosing of Esau over Jacob so that “God’s purpose according to election might stand” before they had even been born, and that “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” really seems to indicate that election is possible, if not probable. Then, in verse 15, God tells Moses “I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” again indicates that God can and will sovereignly elect who He wants to.

The Calvinist will then go on to the next set of verses in 16-20 about God hardening Pharaoh and telling him, “For this very reason I have raised you up; so that I may display My power in you, and that My name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” Of course, following this is the discussion in verses 19-21 about the potter having the right over the clay to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor.”

I’ve had numerous discussions with my Calvinist neighbor about predestination and election, and he always comes back to Romans 9 and challenges me to give a better explanation than that of the Reformed view. Although I’ve read various expositions of it, it wasn’t really until this weekend that I really sat down and decided to try once again to make sense of these verses that initially seem to be such an in-your-face argument for unconditional election.

The key, of course, is to read the entire chapter in its proper context, both within the scope of the epistle to the Romans as well as the rest of scripture. The letter to the Romans is addressed to Gentile converts to Christianity, and many of them did not have an in-depth knowledge of the Pentateuch or of the history of Israel and of Israel’s God. Therefore, in order to explain more fully to them the magnitude of the blessing (salvation through faith in Christ) that they had received, Paul felt it necessary to give them a brief history lesson in the middle of his epistle.

At the beginning of Romans 9, Paul bemoans the fact that many of his countrymen (i.e. the Israelites) were apparently cut off from the promise (i.e. covenant) because of their rejection of the Messiah, Jesus. Paul then goes through the next 15 or so verses (the problematic ones) explaining how God had soveriegnly chosen particular individuals through His Divine will to fulfill His covenant with Abraham, sometime choosing the non-obvious one (Jacob over the first-born Esau). If you look at these verses alone and out of context unconditional election seems apparent.

What must be understood is that the election spoken of in Romans was for national and vocational purposes, not individual and salvific ones. God chose Israel to be the priestly nation to which all of the rest of the world was to be saved through, not Moab or Edom (the descendents of Esau and Ishmael). Of course, Israel failed at her vocation and God sent Christ to set things right and fulfill the purpose that Israel had all along which was to bring all nations to God.

I find an interesting parallel between Romans 9 and Matthew 21:23-43, especially Matthew 21:33-43 and the parable of the landowner. The parable of the landowner who sends his servants to the vineyard who are then beaten and killed, and then sends more servants who suffer the same fate, and then finally sends his own son, who is then killed and thrown out of the vineyard. This parable is of course a parallel of Israel’s repeated rejection of God’s prophets and ultimately her rejection of the Messiah, Jesus Himself. Jesus tells the chief priests after relating this parable to them that their inheritance will be given to a nation that will produce fruit.

I find it significant that at both the end of this pericope in Matthew (Matthew 21:42) as well as at the end of Romans 9 (Romans 9:33), Jesus and Paul both quote scripture about “the stone that the builders rejected” and the “stumbling stone” of the Israelites. Jesus is apparently referring to Psalms 118:22-23 and Paul is referring to Isaiah 8:14, 28:16 but both scriptures are referring to the same thing, that is Christ as being the ‘stumbling stone’ that ‘the builders rejected.’

I also found Romans 9:22-23 to be significant when studying this over the weekend; “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory” It certainly appears to me from the reading of the entirety of Romans 9 that the ‘objects of His wrath’ in verse 22 must be Israel, but it must be noted that God bore with Israel in great patience. And if you study the Old Testament, it is obvious the many, many years of patience that God had with Israel. And, of course, his wrath on Israel with her repeated exile and eventual destruction (70 AD) is of course obvious as well.

I think another piece of the jigsaw puzzle that is essential in unlocking Romans 9 is Paul’s own summary at the end of the chapter (Romans 9:30-32); “What should we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness—namely the righteousness that comes from faith. But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. Why is that? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.”

Once again, as through the rest of Paul’s writings, Paul is stressing salvation, or imputed righteousness through faith in Christ as being what is important, and that Israel’s works could not bring salvation. Israel stumbled over the stumbling stone of faith in their Messiah. It is faith that God wants in us…not hollow works of the law.

There is of course a lot more to this Chapter in Romans than I could address in a blog post, and there is of course plenty that I am probably bumbling over. As I said at the beginning, I feel like I am just now getting a grasp on this difficult chapter and I’m sure that there is a lot that I’m looking over. I do feel a lot more comfortable with Romans 9 now than I did prior to this weekend.

In summation, I don’t think that Romans 9 has much of anything to do with individual election as related to personal salvation. Like John Wesley and many others before me, I abhor the doctrine of unconditional election. I tend to see Romans 9 as a history lesson that Paul is giving in the middle of his epistle to the Gentile Romans. He wants to stress the point that God originally chose Israel, but that Israel failed at her vocation to be the ‘light of the world’. Now through faith in Christ that vocation to be the light of the world has been passed on by the sovereign act of God to all that choose to believe in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike.

NOTE – I want to thank Rachel Held Evans for her blog post that was somewhat related to this topic this morning. I had already spent much of the weekend going over some of this material and her post as well as the discussion that followed and a good link that she posted on Romans 9 helped me to firm up where I was going with all of this.

Filed Under: Calvinism, Romans

Back to Blogging, Bodily Resurrection and Happy Birthday

February 15, 2010 By Randy Olds Leave a Comment

I’ve missed blogging for the last two weeks. I intentionally took a little break to put together a talk that I’ve been asked to give for my Tres Dias group at the end of the month, and various other events and distractions extended my ‘little break’ to two weeks!! The Superbowl (my team won!!!!), a freak Texas ‘blizzard’, as well as some extra time spent with friend and family have extended this break as far as I can stand. Writing about my continuing journey into coming to a fuller knowledge and understanding of God has become nearly as important to me as actual Bible Study and daily prayer.

I am almost finished with N.T. Wrights ‘The Resurrection of The Son of God’ and I must say that, perhaps in combination with all of the other distractions going on during the last month, it has been the most challenging theological tome that I have read to date.

The main thrust of the book is the argument for the bodily, physical resurrection of not only Jesus but of the Christian believer as well. Wright starts off with all of the Old Testament works indicating the Jewish hope for bodily resurrection leading up to the Second Temple period, including various apocypha that point toward a bodily resurrection. He then explores in great depth all of the New Testament writings themselves arguing for the bodily resurrection.

Wright then delves into the writings of the patristics concerning bodily resurrection from Clement to Polycarp all the way through the second and third century apologists such as Justin Martyr and Theopholis before turning to the theologians such as Tertullian and Origen.

Wright then turns to the alternative polemics against bodily resurrection of early Syriac Christianity and the gnostic writings such as are found in the Nag Hammadi texts and elsewhere and provides arguments against these writings and how they are notably late and have significant Platonic influences. Although I have briefly read through the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ and other Nag Hammadi texts before, Wrights exposition of them and polemic against them has given me much more exposure to these gnostic writings than I have had before. Some pretty interesting stuff there….gotta wonder where the writers got their source material.

Coming from the Armstrong tradition of resurrection being a purely spiritual experience (we’re all going to be glorified ‘Spirit Beings”) and then moving from there to the Baptists and Charismatics who really don’t speak much about a bodily resurrection and just pretty much give the standard fare of ‘going to Heaven when we die’, I have found Wright’s arguments in this book very compelling and thought-provoking.

I must admit that I had never really given much thought to ‘bodily resurrection’ until a year or two ago when I first heard it preached, although seemingly in passing, at the Methodist church during a sermon on the final judgement. I remember at the time going, “huh?,” but didn’t put much more thought into it until about a year ago when I read Wrights more popular and much easier to read “Surprised By Hope.”

After reading “Surprised By Hope” and doing a quick survey of the scriptural material on the subject, I was fairly well convinced of the idea of ‘bodily resurrection’ (in a glorified and incorruptable body of course) and began to realize how much some of the gnostic spiritualization of resurrection has pervaded Christianity. I also see where the Christian worldview, both individually as well as corporately is somewhat compromised by the lack of emphasis on bodily resurrection. I’m sure that I will find more significance on the topic of ‘bodily resurrection’ or as Wright puts it both in this book as well as in ‘Surprised By Hope’ as ‘life after “life after death”‘ once I have had time to digest the considerable material covered in this book.

Although “The Resurrection of The Son of God” has been a very interesting and enlightening read, I will be glad when I have finished it. I have about 150 or so of the 800+ pages left and am looking forward to moving on to different material. I have at times felt bogged down by the sheer magnitude of all of the sources that Wright explores in this book, and am looking forward to reading something perhaps a little lighter.

I’ll be (hopefully) getting back into my regular blogging this week, and although I may touch some more on this book, there are many other things that I want to write about as well.

And, oh yea, I turned 43 today! Happy birthday to me!!

Filed Under: blogging, Bodily Resurrection
« Older Posts