Monthly Archives

November 2018

Nov 19
0

Preface to the Definitive Roguecleric Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

 

This commentary is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. It is meant to serve as an emendation and corrective to what others have written. I am a great admirer of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’s six-volume commentary on Romans 3:20 to 8:39, the portion of the letter he felt was paramount. He left chapter 9 untouched, however, which is a shame. Martin Luther made extensive reference to Romans, saying in his preface to his German translation, “This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel. It is well worth a Christian’s while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or to meditate on this letter too much or too well.”[1] He traces his theological conversion to contemplating verse 1:17, and John Wesley came to personal faith while listening to a sermon that quoted Luther’s preface.

Romans is Paul’s most self-consciously theological letter. Typically, his letters focused on pastoral issues generated by the struggle of living a Christian life in a pagan world. Romans has its share of pastoral admonitions, but from the outset, Paul is looking for opportunities to depart from the immediate to focus instead on the eternal, to use the pastoral as a springboard to address the theological. Once the theological foundation has been laid, he can return to the pastoral. For him, doctrine leads to understanding, understanding leads to hope, and hope leads to godliness.

Paul’s theological concerns revolved around what he calls the mystery of God, namely, how a humanity divided into Jew and Gentile could be reconciled to God and each other that they all might become one. His audience in Rome is predominately Gentile but nevertheless includes prominent Jewish members. Paul is therefore faced with the challenge of introducing concepts that may be novel to one group or the other, without losing touch with either one. Even though Paul was eminently successful in achieving balance in his presentation, we in the West have been relatively unsophisticated in our interpretation of the text.

I maintain that all our theological conundrums are caused by reading a Jewish or Eastern document, the Bible, with a Western or Greek mindset. While this is a problem when reading the rest of the Bible, it becomes critical when reading Romans. It’s not that Paul showed his own cultural limitations by thinking and writing like a Jew, but that as a Jew he was in possession of concepts and insights that cannot be translated into an Aristotelian idiom without alteration and loss. As will become clear in my exposition, there is a reason God chose one people as his medium of specific revelation: a long history of interaction with God has given the Jews a unique spiritual and intellectual heritage. We have to read and think like them if we want to understand that revelation. We in the West have let our cultural and intellectual prejudices obscure the fine balance Paul worked so hard to achieve.

Let me be specific. To really understand Paul, you have to remember that as a Pharisee, he used the rhetorical tools most favored by rabbis in their scholarship and disputations. Chief among these tools is that of symmetrical parallelism, or chiastic structure. Instead of a linear sequence of syllogistic deduction, as Greeks tended to favor, the Hebrew rabbis, Jesus included, would construct an argument that makes a series of points, each following from that which precedes it. They reach a conclusion, and then the argument is repeated in reverse order until they return to the starting point. Thus, the points in a seven-step chiasmus could be viewed as ABCDCBA. Each intermediate step shares a similar thought with its corresponding step. Sometimes these thoughts are simple repetition, sometimes the second is a corollary to the first. This device can be found in a single sentence, a paragraph, or even the whole document. It was used to show the inherent logic of the statements being made; to provide clarity in a written medium that lacked spaces, sentences, paragraphs, capitalization, punctuation, or other delimiters; and to aid in memorization where written documents were the exception rather than the rule. As we will see, to read a chiasmus as linear thought can lead to confusion and genuine suffering.

Another tendency is for Paul to express himself in the form of a diatribe—that is, an informal rhetorical dialogue with imaginary opponents. Sometimes he labels his antagonists, “Now you, if you call yourself a Jew,” but he’s usually content to refer to his audience in abstract terms that render his attacks less threatening. The translation introduces labels that help clarify this back and forth repartee: Paul, Jewish Teacher, or Teacher of Law. Further, Paul employs litotes, where he uses double negatives to assert a positive.

Finally, in addition to what Paul did, we should pay attention to what he did not do. He avoids terms that would tend to defeat his intention of bringing reconciliation to a mixed congregation of both Jew and Gentile. For instance, he avoids the term church in the opening address. Nor does he speak of Christians, for he doesn’t want to act as though Judaism is totally bankrupt and being replaced. Further, he avoids speaking of synagogues because they have historically been the province of Jews alone. He knows God is making a new humanity in Christ, and he avoids using terms that hearken back to old distinctions. Instead, he speaks of family and the unity implied by that concept. His overarching theme is that we can all join God’s family, where he’s a benevolent father who has met all our needs in the person of his son. He speaks variously to Gentiles, then Jews, then back again repeatedly. He’s always mindful of the criticisms his ideas will arouse, and he’s careful to deal with each in its turn. Every once in a while, he’s able to drop his defenses and sing a hymn of praise to God without reservation.

In order to display the rhetorical structure of this epistle, I’ve used Robert Bailey’s translation of the Greek text,[2] the Novum Testamentum Graece.[3] The Scripture is laid out in cascading format to illustrate the chiastic form as perceived by its modern translator, in an attempt to reconstruct what Paul originally intended. Words in italics indicate text not found in the Greek source. The Bailey translation precedes my comments. Robert Bailey and I both provide footnotes for further clarification and commentary—his are primarily concerned with rhetorical structure, mine with exegetical interpretation. His notes appear immediately following the scripture excerpts, while mine follow normal footnote patterns. My footnotes are intended to complement his. The New International Version of the Bible is by necessity a paraphrase, edited in order to read better and offer more clarity. When it provides something the Bailey text misses, I have added it with notation. In addition to using italics for emphasis, words in my comments that are italicized are keywords pulled from the scripture passage. Words that are capitalized in the body of a sentence should be understood as referring to cardinal concepts or typologies.

The overall structure of the letter forms a chiasmus along the lines of ABCBA:

 

[EXT]A) 1:1–7

  1. B) 1:8–17
  2. C) 1:18—15:13
  3. B) 15:14—16:23
  4. A) 16:25–27[/EXT]

 

Thus, A and B consist of greetings, housekeeping preliminaries, and buttoning up. The main body of the text, C, consists of insights into God’s plan of redemption that has revolutionized the standing of all humanity, Jew and Gentile, in his eyes. This main body, which is extensive, can be further subdivided as a chiasmus along the lines of ABCCBA:

 

[EXT]A) 1:18—3:20: Jews and Gentiles have both dishonored God.

  1. B) 3:21—4:25: Jews and Gentiles alike can receive righteousness from God.*
  2. C) 5:1—8:39: All are justified, those who live by the Spirit are also saved.*
  3. C) 9:1—11:36: God’s plan of redemption as experienced by Jew and Gentile.*
  4. B) 12:1—13:14: Life in the Spirit within the church and society.*
  5. A) 14:1—15:13: Potential cultural conflicts between Jew and Gentile.*[/EXT]

 

* I have renamed all sections except the first and have included these titles in the chapter introductions. Bailey’s original titles are included with the text of the scripture.

It is interesting to note that the major exegetical blunders that have been committed by interpreters of this epistle have occurred in the two sections of conclusion labeled C above. In the case of Romans 5, we have no commentators to my knowledge who make a distinction between justification and salvation, as Paul does. Like Calvin, they assume this is simple parallelism or repetition, not a profound distinction that clarifies the rest of Christian soteriology.[4] In 8:29–30, my exposition shows that a linear interpretation leads to misunderstanding, while a chiastic interpretation leads to clarity and logic. In this way I’m able to offer a reconstituted Ordo Salutis, a genuine first. In the case of Romans 9, most commentators, including Calvin and Luther, adopt a literalistic approach as opposed to metaphorical. The result, especially for Calvin, is an atrocious image of God who hates his creation.[5] Time and again in these critical sections, chiastic structures play an important part in conveying the sense of Paul’s argument. These and other themes are repeated whenever warranted by the text.

Chapter designations in the Bible are arbitrary at best, but they serve to divide the text and commentary into manageable portions. For ease, my chapters correspond with the text of Romans. Because theologians do not always use words in the same way, I’ve appended a Glossary of Soteriological Terms at the end of the commentary to document how I understand these words. I believe I am using them in the sense Paul was. Let us keep Paul’s goals and methods in mind as we read the text and confront those passages that have led to the doctrinal and denominational confusion that characterizes the Christian church today. We should read Paul according to his methods and intentions, not our own.

[1] Luther, Preface, lines 1–2.

[2] Bailey, “God’s Good News to the Romans.”

[3] Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece.

[4] Will Durant says of Calvin, “ . . . we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense.” Durant, The Reformation, 490.

[5] Frederick Calder writes of Calvin’s view of God: “ . . . as a being of whom, in point of malignity, the prince of the lower regions is but a faint image and expression. . . . far more odious than anything ever dictated by the prophet of Mecca.” Calder, Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, 267–68.

 

 

To order this commentary, please use this link: https://www.amazon.com/Romans-Definitive-RogueCleric-Commentary-Rhetoric/dp/172527394

 

Nov 19
0

The Ordo Salutis: Corrected

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

The ordo salutis, or order of salvation, has been a legitimate theological pursuit from the earliest times. The term was apparently first used by Lutheran scholars in the 1720’s, and it refers to the chronology of God’s plan of redemption. Though it has been most thoroughly developed in the Protestant church to fuel the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, it is a useful framework for discussing soteriology in any branch of the Christian tree. Based largely on Paul’s thinking as revealed in Romans 8:28-30, one would think that these three verses would be readily parsed and clearly understood. Instead, the opposite has happened. What appears to be a simple chronology of steps in how an individual is redeemed, turns out to be anything but simple. Taken as a linear sequence, it defies logic and Scripture; as evinced by the on-going controversy it engenders.

 

It is the intent and purpose of this paper to show that a Greek or Western exegesis of these verses which understands them to be a linear, temporal sequence is in fact in error and untrue to the intent of the author who was himself a Jewish or Eastern scholar. Versed in the rhetorical tools of the Pharisees, Paul used their structures and techniques not to obscure, but to elucidate. Without an appreciation of what those structures and techniques are, it is impossible to understand Paul’s meaning. By recovering that appreciation, Paul’s intent becomes clear, as does the subject of this paper, the ordo salutis.

 

Chief among Paul’s rhetorical tools was the use of symmetrical parallelism, or chiastic structure. Chiastic structures involve the development of a logical argument along the lines of an X, or chi, where a logical assertion is made, which leads to at least one and perhaps more assertions, eventually evolving into a conclusion in the interior of the structure. Then, the logical argument is repeated in reverse order, wherein each element leading to the conclusion is either repeated or complemented somehow, until the first element is matched. Thus, a seven element chiasmus would be represented as A,B,C,D,C,B,A, where D is the conclusion. Chiasma can be found within a sentence, paragraph, or an entire document; often enfolded within one another. They were used by Hebrew scholars for any number of reasons, including the desire to show the inherent logic of the statements being made, to provide clarity in a written medium that lacked spaces, sentences, paragraphs, capitalization, punctuation, or other delimiters, and to aid in memorization where written documents were the exception rather than the norm. Our appreciation for symmetric parallelism is relatively recent, dating from the late 18th century. Even then, most scholars were content to view rhetorical structures as stylistic phenomena, without particular regard for the ultimate impact they would have on the arguments proffered by the authors. This focus has changed only recently, mostly in the latter half of the 20th century. As a result, culturally sophisticated exegesis has been lacking with regard to the soteriological arguments that have swirled around the ordo salutis. I hope to show that this application is long overdue, and can provide the clarification that Protestant, and indeed all Christian theology, desperately needs.

 

Application: Romans 8:28-30

 

Verse 28 is not part of a chiasmus, but instead is an introduction and qualifier for the chiasmus that is to follow. Specifically, Paul is setting forth the group or population of those to whom God issues calls. Is salvation universal? Of course not. The testimony of all of Scripture is that God’s plan of redemption is universal in concept and potential, but in reality is somehow limited in efficacy. Calvin and his sycophants have ascribed this reality to the belief that God has chosen some for salvation and the balance for reprobation on an arbitrary basis, by somehow limiting the atoning power of Christ’s blood on the Cross. Jacobus Arminius, among others, has countered that it is through God’s omniscient foreknowledge of our response to the Gospel that grace is limited to some and not all. I contend that although Arminius’ vision of God is less odious than that of Calvin, it, too, misses the point of this verse. What Paul is saying is that God redeems a select group, to be sure, but it is a group that self-selects according to one criterion: they love God. This accords readily with the balance of Scripture, that says that God has chosen to redeem those of a “noble and good heart,” who “obey,” and put God’s Word “into practice.” There is nothing capricious about membership in this group.

 

The corollary to loving God is to be called by Him according to his purpose. The temptation here is to see calling as the first step in a logical, temporal sequence in the ordo salutis. I contend that this is premature, and that the second half of this verse is merely stating that those who love God qualify for God’s plan of redemption, which results, as far as the experience of Paul’s readers is concerned, with experiencing a call from God. More anon.

 

Now for the fun. I would represent verses 29 and 30 in the following form:

 

A – “For those God foreknew…”

 

B – “he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined…”

 

C – “he also called; those he called,…”

 

B – “he also justified; those he justified…”

 

A – “he also glorified.”

 

Thus, we see that A represents actions of the Father, who foreknows or elects a certain kind of person, somebody who loves and obeys him and who puts his Word into practice. This kind of favored individual is ultimately rewarded with glory when they complete their service on earth, a “good and faithful servant.” These are monergistic actions that reflect God’s eternal counsels outside of time.

 

B represents actions of the Son, or developments that involve the instrumentality of Jesus the Christ, and though they, too, are monergistic, they differ from the A themes in that they are subject to historic witness. Note that predestination, a term that occurs six times in the Greek, has no particular soteriological overtones. The other two places in Scripture where it refers to God’s plan of redemption are found in Ephesians, where Paul uses it to encourage his Gentile readers that God, in his eternal counsels, has decided that Gentiles as well as Jews are eligible for redemption. It cannot be interpreted as referring to some sort of cosmic roulette whereby some are consigned to salvation and others to preteration. It simply means something is already decided; it is part of a larger scheme that is inviolate. Here it refers not to the accepted late medieval usage that God predestines some to heaven and some to hell, but rather the determination that those who are elect, on account of their response to the Gospel, will in fact be sanctified or improved upon in an objective way on account of their association with Christ in the person of the Spirit. God is not interested in mere acquittal for a rebellious humanity, but in an actual, observable reformation of manners. Although we necessarily filter and diminish the person of Jesus who dwells in the heart of a Christian, we nevertheless present a more mature, holy and integrated persona than we would have prior to our conversion. It is the Father’s intention that we join a new family, a family wherein he’s the Father and Jesus is the chief sibling, and that we become his agents for the spread of the Gospel and the ultimate redemption of all humanity.

 

The great imperative suggested by the B theme in this chiasmus is twofold. Mentioned first is the determination of the Father that Christ be found in us; that we play host to Jesus that he might bear fruit through us. Although this violates the logical priority of any ordo salutis in chronological terms, it is mentioned first by Paul because it is contingent. There is an element of synergy here because although our conformance to Christ is a predetermined desire of the Father, it is nevertheless particular because it involves our cooperation. It is not that we must perform a work, that we actively do something of our own engineering, but that we cease to do something, and that is to maintain our rights, recommit Adam’s sin of self determination, and thereby grieve the Holy Spirit so that he cannot work through us. The sacrament associated with the necessity that Christ be found in us is the Eucharist, wherein the believer kneels, and by taking the elements affirms that just as the body requires physical nourishment from without on a regular basis, the life of Jesus in his heart also requires regular nourishment from Him. Here is further proof that a sequential interpretation of these verses serves Paul’s purposes poorly.

 

The first action Jesus performs for us from a theological perspective is also a B component, but it is presented second because it is a universal fait accompli for all humanity. That is, we are justified, one and all, by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. In contravention of accepted Reformed soteriology, there is no limit to the power of the blood of Christ. As we read in the parable of the wedding feast, God invites all to the feast, good and bad. The two accounts of a last judgment in Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 do not mention sin as a basis for disqualification. Rather, what is mentioned in these two accounts is not bad things done, but rather good things not done. In the former account it is largesse withheld from fellow humans, specifically Christians, and in the latter it’s the absence of the life of Christ in us. Just as Christ is expected to be in us, we are all unilaterally placed in Christ from a forensic, legal perspective as of Good Friday. The sacrament tasked with communicating this reality is Baptism, and an associated Confirmation, wherein we both celebrate our prior and efficient justification, and also identify with Christ’s death to self-will that we subsequently allow. The B component of this chiasmus can be summarized as the sovereign determination that there be a complete interpenetration between the believer and Christ, all made possible through Good Friday and Pentecost. What counts in Paul’s mind is not which of the two components is presented first, but rather that these are the historical manifestations of prior determinations of the Father, and as such are trustworthy.

 

The conclusion to the chiasmus is found in the concept of calling. As Paul said in verse 28, God calls those who love him and who therefore cooperate with His plan of redemption. The Romans were apparently beset with troubles and persecutions, as Paul goes on to acknowledge. Paul places these burdens in context by saying that they are the norm for any person who aspires to follow God in a lost, pagan world. This call, to complete the picture, is the province and action of the Holy Spirit. As Oswald Chambers points out, “The Holy Spirit is the Deity in proceeding power Who applies the Atonement to our experience.” This call can be answered, or it can be resisted. Thus, the logical conclusion to Paul’s picture of God’s plan of redemption is that there are monergistic actions outside of time, A, that are the Father’s province alone. Then there are monergistic actions, B, that culminate in events in time and history, one of which is independent of human response, and one of which is not. C represents God’s decision to involve his human children, and it therefore becomes contingent in some way. For the plan to work there must be a synergy between God’s plan and our heart. Our action is not positive that it be regarded as a Pelagian work, but rather a negation, the cessation of a work: the pernicious work of rebellion initiated by Adam.

 

A reconstituted ordo salutis from God’s perspective would be as follows:

 

1) God elects those who love him, as a class, to participate in his plan of redemption.

2) God determines that those who love him will join a new family as his children, and predestines that they will be conformed to the likeness of his Son.

3) God ordains that Jesus should die on a Cross in place of a sinful humanity and thereby justifies all. God raises his Son from the dead to validate our justification.

4) Jesus ascends to his former glory as previewed in the Transfiguration.

5) As of Pentecost the Spirit of Jesus is poured out on all who are willing to accept righteousness and power vicariously from Jesus.

6) God commands his children to preach the Gospel to all the world that all might perceive a call to membership in God’s family.

7) God confers glory on all those who bear fruit.

 

All these are monergistic decisions that God has made from eternity, God being something of a supralapsarian, knowing that a free humanity would fall and require redemption. Four of them have historical referents, events witnessed in time and place, though proceeding from God’s eternal counsels, and having efficacy not limited to time or place.

 

A reconstituted ordo from man’s perspective would be as follows:

 

1) We hear the Gospel preached and our conscience bears witness to its truth. It is attractive because it posits monergistic actions that bring assurance. We learn that God is both rational and kind in terms of whom he favors and rewards. We find that in Christ our two major problems are solved, those of guilt and powerlessness. We realize that a response to these unilateral actions on God’s part is warranted. They constitute a personal call.

2) Such a gracious Savior has the right to be Lord; we cede our will to him.

3) The Father confers the Holy Spirit on all that are disposed to receive both righteousness and power vicariously from Christ. Sanctification begins, we are conformed more and more to the likeness of Christ.

4) Empowered by the Holy Spirit, we bear fruit in other lives.

5) At death, we receive glory and honor as a good and faithful servants.

 

Conclusions

 

The advantages of an exegesis of Romans 28-30 that takes Hebrew rhetorical structures into account are many. First of all, it delivers us from the illogic of a sequential model that makes no sense. To place justification, which is universal, near the end of a temporal sequence, is to require the development of fantastic concepts such as limited atonement. To interpret calling, the end of the process from the perspective of human agency as first, and make it a synonym for election, is to deny humans the role in their redemption that God has graciously offered. Foreknowledge, which is in fact a synonym for election, no longer has to refer to the arbitrary selection of some individuals over others, but rather refers to God’s legitimate and fair decision to seek collaboration and fellowship with people who love him rather than those who hate him. Predestination is liberated from reference to foreknowledge, election, calling or choice, to refer instead to a simple desire on God’s part that his love and power be evinced in real lives in real history with real benefits for all. Perhaps glorification is the only step in the ordo salutis that emerges from the pages of history with something of its actual meaning intact, that God can and will reward those who please him at the heavenly banquet.

 

Most importantly, a culturally and intellectually correct exegesis of these verses allows an ordo salutis that conforms to the clear intent of the balance of Scripture, particularly the parables of our Lord. Most notably, it solves the conundrum of universality and particularity in redemption. All are invited and justified, but not all are saved. How can this be? Paul makes a distinction between justification and salvation in Romans 5:9,10 and 10:9,10. They are not the same. All are delivered from moral guilt, not all are spared at a second judgment, this time not for sin, but for fruitlessness. Jesus is Savior of all, but evidently he is not Lord of all. To bear fruit you must play cooperative host to the Holy Spirit, for apart from Him we can do nothing. Unless we bear fruit, as represented by wedding garments freely offered to all guests, we will be evicted from the presence of God. The branches that are burned as useless were originally “in Me.”

 

Further, these verses conform to a larger, coherent soteriology. Two actors: God and man. Two problems: guilt and powerlessness. Two solutions, both involving Jesus: his death and his life. Two historic events: Good Friday, and Pentecost. Two sacraments: Baptism and Holy Communion. Two titles for Christ: Savior and Lord. Two judgments: Good Friday and the Final Judgment. Two outcomes for man: glory or reprobation.

 

The only hope for ecumenical rapprochement and effective evangelism is an accurate understanding of God’s plan of redemption, the ordo salutis. As long as churches, denominations, communions and factions cling to their shibboleths of soteriological error, the Church will be enervated and the parousia delayed. Christ, a gracious groom, waits in his Father’s house for a bride to reach a maturity that will allow their marriage and the consummation of the ages. For two millennia an accurate explication of God’s mode of redemption has been before us. If we can learn to love him with our scholarship as well as our hearts, we can break out of our self-imposed limitations and become the children, and Church, God has always intended us to be.

 

 

Nov 16
0

Mother’s Day Collect

By | Cleric Comments | No Comments

Heavenly Father, we thank You for the gift of life, and for the privilege of being part of the mystery of its creation.  We thank You for the mothers who conceived, bore, and nursed us; who dressed, fed, and worried about us.  May they be blessed with the knowledge that what they did, they did not only for us, but on Your behalf; being the hands, arms, hearts of God bringing blessings to His little ones.

Lord, we also ask Your special blessings on those women who for any reason do not have children.  For all those who desired children but could not have them, or those who lost children through miscarriage, abortion, adoption, or death.  May Your comfort and love be real on this most difficult day.

And finally, Father, may Your blessings be on the little ones who will be mothers in the future.  May they find godly, loving husbands; may they delight in life and marriage, and may the Holy Spirit protect them in an uncertain world where mothers and their love will be more important than ever.  Amen.