In continuing from yesterday evening's start of a study of Romans 8, I'll be continuing my reflections on further passages in this chapter tonight.
Again, I'm writing these reflections down as a means of actively engaging the scripture instead of passively running my eyes over the text. Comments are appreciated, further elaboration, clarification or correction on my writing even more so. :]
By the way, I think I had a lot of different thoughts going through my mind yesterday. Since writing yesterday's entry, I realize that I wandered off several times from my main point and never came back to it. I was too caught up on the law for some reason. Hopefully I'll be able to stay on point tonight!
Verse 4: in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
The righteous requirements of the law. First of all, what's it mean to be righteous? Here's one definition of it.
To be righteous would mean to be right, to be found in the right, to do what is right. I was only listing out thoughts as they came to mind and I've got to say, that's all I've got. To have right standing with God is only to be had by following his commandments, and Christian are to understand that they have the status of righteousness. Now, I'm about to go on a long tangent about the law, but I hope I can come back to what I am really addressing presently about this verse. We'll see.
The verse states "righteous requirements of the law." Well, again Paul's addressing the law (which is the law of God, not general law). The requirements of the law being that a person would have to fulfill it in its entirety (for, to break one law would be equivalent to breaking all of it since, in the end, a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker), and not just for one day, but for every day that a person lives. There are many laws, on top of the famous Ten Commandments; there are all the animal sacrifices that were offered on behalf of our sin, and another for the sin of others, and then another for the nation and so on and so forth. But acknowledging that God is who he is, he is pretty smart and knows that human beings being sinful and all, can not follow the law and he didn't give humans the law just to poke his righteous finger in our faces and say, "Ha-ha!"
I think he gave humans the law at all so that they can put their faith in Jesus. Simple as that. He is the savior, and he saves people from eternal spiritual death when they realize there is a standard for righteousness and they don't meet it and can admit that they need someone else to step in for them. So Jesus, having come in human form, lived life in perfect righteousness (in complete obedience to God's commandments) and then took the full punishment for the sins of those who would believe. And I explain this basically because in understanding why God revealed the law and why Jesus took on human form, it becomes clearer that the commandment of God that Christians are to follow in order to be ascribed righteousness is to believe in the Christ, the savior, to believe in Jesus. The only way for a sinner like me can become righteous is by trading in my sinfulness for the righteousness that Christ gives me when I put my faith in him.
With no transition, I move back to the verse.
"...in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us." Jesus taking on flesh and becoming like sinful man so that sin would be punished in the flesh. What's interesting is what happens as a result of having the law fulfilled in us by Christ, which is to have a new nature. Basically, that I am not living in the endless death cycle of sinning, sinning against and being sinned against, but that I am now enabled to live free from that because someone stopped the wheel from spinning long ago. I am instead guided by the Spirit of God who compels me to desire what is right.
I am beginning to ramble. I am forced to stop here and now. My mind is tired, but I still have so much to do.
Lord help me, not to despair but to look to your word for the truth I need to be founded on so that I'm not left feeling insecure and fragile every time something hard hits.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
A study of Romans 8:1-3 (NIV)
Verse 1: Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
Radical words for a person like me to read right now. I believe that human beings are well-acquainted with a sense of justice and what it means to have justice. Different countries have come to develop different justice systems, just as each person forms their own brand of personal justice (what a person believes that he/she should do in response to being wronged). The formation of these justice systems (whether personal or governmental) signifies that every person acknowledges that any person is capable of doing evil and that that evil action should be met with consequence, and this not just so that the action will be discontinued, but for the sake of the one who was wronged; that, I'll say, the victim and their natural rights are being recognized and protected by oneself (on the personal level) and by the greater body of people (on the level of government).
So I'm reading this verse in two ways:
1. As one who has faith in Christ Jesus, that I am no longer oppressed by the rightful consequences of my wrongs because of Jesus
2. By receiving this freedom, I am laying down my right to oppress others with my sense of justice - not that justice won't be delivered, but that my vengeful, resenting self will not be the administer of that justice
I don't know how to reconcile those thoughts in light of social justice, except to say that I think that maybe there's a line that, when crossed, a person needs to be brought to justice under governmental law, but still not under the personal justice that the victim might seek for themselves.
Verse 2: because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
This verse is talking about the law that believers are set free from; that believers are no longer under the oppression of endless sin and death.
I read a blog post recently that talked about how people with religious beliefs deny death, in the sense that, out of an inability to cope with the inevitability of death, religious people just choose to delay or ignore death or even the thought of death for as long as possible. So I want to clarify that the death that's being written about by Paul here is not talking about the physical death that everyone faces. But the Bible still clearly states that "the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:23), so doesn't that mean that Christians are in denial?
No, this is not the case. Though people might be tempted to pose that question and leave it at that, what they're doing is presenting a claim, and in academia, as my English 302 professor likes to stress over and over again, those who state a claim must also put forward the opposing claim and meet the evidence that the opposing claim has. So in this case, the opposing claim would be: that Christians fully acknowledge that there is an inevitable physical death that every human being must face, but they also acknowledge that there is a separate spiritual death that exists apart from the physical death. And here is evidence for this from the Bible, which many people (Christians and Non-Christians alike) like to cite: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die" (John 11:25). There is a death that Jesus, himself, is acknowledging in this passage, but there is also a new life that he talks about, the life that is everlasting.
Verse 3: For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
A long passage.
I was talking about laws before, and the kind of law that I was addressing is the kind of law that human beings lay down through the structure of government. The law that is written about here (by the Apostle Paul, in case you were curious) is the law that God gave to the Israelites in the Old Testament section of the Bible. We can know this because Paul talks about the law in chapter 7 when he writes that "the law is holy" and "spiritual" (verses 12 and 14), and I think I can say with confidence that, while the laws that are written in government (in any government, past or present) are meant to protect or to create order, they are not meant to be regarded as perfect, holy, transcendent or spiritual (unless of course, you're talking about certain dynasties during specific time periods, like the Japanese for example, a people who'd considered their emperor was a god, a holy being, until they found out that the emperor is actually just another guy. Which is why they do not have the same system of government now as they did before, but all that to say that they might have ascribed spiritual value to their laws back then).
The law that God had given to the Israelites back in the Old Testament times did one thing and one thing only: to reveal what it means and what it takes to be holy. That being said, a byproduct of this function in the law is that it inversely exposes what sin is, much like the way that shining a flashlight shows where it is dark. We being sinful creatures, the law exposed a lot of darkness in us and the one thing that the law could not do was to make what is full of darkness (us) full of light. So Paul goes on to write that God did something. He did not just give the law, he knew the limitations of the law in that it could not save anyone from their sins, and that, though their sins are exposed, those that sin (sinners) are still under condemnation. In other words, just because everyone can see one persons mortal wound to the neck doesn't mean that that person is going to live, because just the exposure is not the healing.
What God did was to send himself to take our place. He sent "his own Son in the likeness of sinful man", meaning in human form (the immaculate conception, the manger, Gabriel and shepherds, and the gift-bearing wise men, aka Jesus was born). Why human form? Why not something magnificent, like a many-armed angel or a BA (referring to bad-a**, falling just short of academic here, I know) griffin that talks? I'm posing a somewhat tangential thought, but really, Jesus could have made it a little easier for us to recognize him as God by showing up as something supernatural. But Paul explained: "what the law was powerless to do...God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man" (verse 3).
It's beginning to click. God took on human form because it was necessary so that sin could be condemned in the flesh. The NIV (New International Version) of the Bible stated it a bit strangely, so here's another translation that's easier to understand.
I'm a Christian, and I've been what's called a born-again Christian since I was about 12 years old in 7th grade. It's so easy to just condense the message of the Bible (the Gospel) into bite-size phrases, like "Jesus loves me" or "He died on the cross for my sins" and to leave it at that. The reason why that's damaging is because, over a pro-longed period of time, that shallow thought is all I understand the Gospel to be and everything about who God is and how much he truly knows, loves and cares for me in every way. And suddenly, my relationship with God becomes more like a bad long distance relationship (bad in the sense that it doesn't make sense why God would want to continue being in this relationship with sinful, dysfunctional me) that I, being the fickle and neglectful one in the relationship, toy with ending every so often because I believe it's within my power and that it would have no adverse effects on me. Would it make more sense to adjust that analogy a bit and say instead that it my relationship with God becomes more like a woman in a long distance relationship with a man that is and has everything that she could possibly want, need or desire but she still sleeps around and toys with the thought of ending the relationship because she thinks she can get away with it? Because she thinks he will not know or won't care because she could phrase it just right when she asks for forgiveness so that he'll be sure to forgive her?
I'm not sure if that clarifies or complicates, but my point is (and I'll bring it to a close here for tonight) I have not been experiencing the richness and the depth of Christ and my relationship with God because I have not cared to seek him out. And I have not cared to seek him out because I have not been confronting the truth of my situation and what he's done and what he continues to do in sanctifying me, and the truth that I have not been confronting his the Bible, which contains the law, which reveals God's holiness and my sinfulness. This is why I'm writing this series of (my own personal) studies on Romans 8:
1. To bring myself to engage God's Word in a way that is active and requires both the discerning of heart and mind in unison
2. To present my thoughts for others to read or engage in if they so choose
For now I'll stop here.
God bless.
Radical words for a person like me to read right now. I believe that human beings are well-acquainted with a sense of justice and what it means to have justice. Different countries have come to develop different justice systems, just as each person forms their own brand of personal justice (what a person believes that he/she should do in response to being wronged). The formation of these justice systems (whether personal or governmental) signifies that every person acknowledges that any person is capable of doing evil and that that evil action should be met with consequence, and this not just so that the action will be discontinued, but for the sake of the one who was wronged; that, I'll say, the victim and their natural rights are being recognized and protected by oneself (on the personal level) and by the greater body of people (on the level of government).
So I'm reading this verse in two ways:
1. As one who has faith in Christ Jesus, that I am no longer oppressed by the rightful consequences of my wrongs because of Jesus
2. By receiving this freedom, I am laying down my right to oppress others with my sense of justice - not that justice won't be delivered, but that my vengeful, resenting self will not be the administer of that justice
I don't know how to reconcile those thoughts in light of social justice, except to say that I think that maybe there's a line that, when crossed, a person needs to be brought to justice under governmental law, but still not under the personal justice that the victim might seek for themselves.
Verse 2: because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
This verse is talking about the law that believers are set free from; that believers are no longer under the oppression of endless sin and death.
I read a blog post recently that talked about how people with religious beliefs deny death, in the sense that, out of an inability to cope with the inevitability of death, religious people just choose to delay or ignore death or even the thought of death for as long as possible. So I want to clarify that the death that's being written about by Paul here is not talking about the physical death that everyone faces. But the Bible still clearly states that "the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:23), so doesn't that mean that Christians are in denial?
No, this is not the case. Though people might be tempted to pose that question and leave it at that, what they're doing is presenting a claim, and in academia, as my English 302 professor likes to stress over and over again, those who state a claim must also put forward the opposing claim and meet the evidence that the opposing claim has. So in this case, the opposing claim would be: that Christians fully acknowledge that there is an inevitable physical death that every human being must face, but they also acknowledge that there is a separate spiritual death that exists apart from the physical death. And here is evidence for this from the Bible, which many people (Christians and Non-Christians alike) like to cite: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die" (John 11:25). There is a death that Jesus, himself, is acknowledging in this passage, but there is also a new life that he talks about, the life that is everlasting.
Verse 3: For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
A long passage.
I was talking about laws before, and the kind of law that I was addressing is the kind of law that human beings lay down through the structure of government. The law that is written about here (by the Apostle Paul, in case you were curious) is the law that God gave to the Israelites in the Old Testament section of the Bible. We can know this because Paul talks about the law in chapter 7 when he writes that "the law is holy" and "spiritual" (verses 12 and 14), and I think I can say with confidence that, while the laws that are written in government (in any government, past or present) are meant to protect or to create order, they are not meant to be regarded as perfect, holy, transcendent or spiritual (unless of course, you're talking about certain dynasties during specific time periods, like the Japanese for example, a people who'd considered their emperor was a god, a holy being, until they found out that the emperor is actually just another guy. Which is why they do not have the same system of government now as they did before, but all that to say that they might have ascribed spiritual value to their laws back then).
The law that God had given to the Israelites back in the Old Testament times did one thing and one thing only: to reveal what it means and what it takes to be holy. That being said, a byproduct of this function in the law is that it inversely exposes what sin is, much like the way that shining a flashlight shows where it is dark. We being sinful creatures, the law exposed a lot of darkness in us and the one thing that the law could not do was to make what is full of darkness (us) full of light. So Paul goes on to write that God did something. He did not just give the law, he knew the limitations of the law in that it could not save anyone from their sins, and that, though their sins are exposed, those that sin (sinners) are still under condemnation. In other words, just because everyone can see one persons mortal wound to the neck doesn't mean that that person is going to live, because just the exposure is not the healing.
What God did was to send himself to take our place. He sent "his own Son in the likeness of sinful man", meaning in human form (the immaculate conception, the manger, Gabriel and shepherds, and the gift-bearing wise men, aka Jesus was born). Why human form? Why not something magnificent, like a many-armed angel or a BA (referring to bad-a**, falling just short of academic here, I know) griffin that talks? I'm posing a somewhat tangential thought, but really, Jesus could have made it a little easier for us to recognize him as God by showing up as something supernatural. But Paul explained: "what the law was powerless to do...God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man" (verse 3).
It's beginning to click. God took on human form because it was necessary so that sin could be condemned in the flesh. The NIV (New International Version) of the Bible stated it a bit strangely, so here's another translation that's easier to understand.
I'm a Christian, and I've been what's called a born-again Christian since I was about 12 years old in 7th grade. It's so easy to just condense the message of the Bible (the Gospel) into bite-size phrases, like "Jesus loves me" or "He died on the cross for my sins" and to leave it at that. The reason why that's damaging is because, over a pro-longed period of time, that shallow thought is all I understand the Gospel to be and everything about who God is and how much he truly knows, loves and cares for me in every way. And suddenly, my relationship with God becomes more like a bad long distance relationship (bad in the sense that it doesn't make sense why God would want to continue being in this relationship with sinful, dysfunctional me) that I, being the fickle and neglectful one in the relationship, toy with ending every so often because I believe it's within my power and that it would have no adverse effects on me. Would it make more sense to adjust that analogy a bit and say instead that it my relationship with God becomes more like a woman in a long distance relationship with a man that is and has everything that she could possibly want, need or desire but she still sleeps around and toys with the thought of ending the relationship because she thinks she can get away with it? Because she thinks he will not know or won't care because she could phrase it just right when she asks for forgiveness so that he'll be sure to forgive her?
I'm not sure if that clarifies or complicates, but my point is (and I'll bring it to a close here for tonight) I have not been experiencing the richness and the depth of Christ and my relationship with God because I have not cared to seek him out. And I have not cared to seek him out because I have not been confronting the truth of my situation and what he's done and what he continues to do in sanctifying me, and the truth that I have not been confronting his the Bible, which contains the law, which reveals God's holiness and my sinfulness. This is why I'm writing this series of (my own personal) studies on Romans 8:
1. To bring myself to engage God's Word in a way that is active and requires both the discerning of heart and mind in unison
2. To present my thoughts for others to read or engage in if they so choose
For now I'll stop here.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)