The Letter to the Romans
Sunday September 7, 2014
1.
How did your reading go?
2.
What themes stood out to you?
3.
General Questions a.
As best as you can determine, what were you doing (i.e. looking for, thinking, wanting to find, etc.) while you were reading? b.
Did Paul divide up this letter into verses and chapters? c.
What would you say (after reading the letter) is Paul’s point in writing? d.
Were you made aware of anything that you previously were not in the reading? e.
Did you encounter God in the reading? If so, in what ways?
Sunday September 14, 2014
4.
Identifying Possible Reading Methods a.
Direct communication from God? i.
Where are God’s words located? ii.
Is everything Paul affirms or denies equivalent to God’s affirmation or denial? (The Galatian incident – 5:12) b.
What role should history play in our interpretations? i.
Does it matter who wrote it? ii.
Does it matter when he/she wrote it? iii.
Does it matter who he/she wrote it to? iv.
What role should the supposed psychology of Paul play? c.
What role should tradition (other influential readers) play in our interpretation? d.
What about liturgical reading and interpretation? An example from
Sunday Aug 31 e.
What role do we play in the interpretative process? i.
Do our presuppositions affect the way we understand and interpret scripture? ii.
Do we need to seek to be aware of our presuppositions as we read and interpret? iii.
Do we need to eliminate or bypass or transcend those presuppositions in order to interpret faithfully? f.
Are we trying to apply scripture? i.
What do we mean when we say this? ii.
What does it mean to apply scripture? iii.
Are we just referring to behavior modification/correction/etc.? iv.
Do we need to be aware of the context into which we are seeking to

make application? g.
Lectio and encounter h.
Summary of Methods i.
Reading for understanding (instrumental reading) ii.
Reading for encounter (reading meditatively – to get past the words) iii.
Ask the question – What do you want from this study? The answers will reveal how they read the text.
Sunday September 21, 2014
5.
Review and Clarification a.
Romans 1:16 - What is the Word of God in this text? i.
That Paul was not ashamed of the Gospel? Is it just making an historical claim? ii.
That we should not be ashamed of the Gospel? Is it making a demand on us? iii.
That the Gospel is what saves people? iv.
That the Gospel is the only thing that saves people? v.
That Paul always preached to the Jews first and then the Greeks?
Another historical claim? vi.
That we are supposed to preach to Jews first and then Greeks? Is this meant to be an example for us? Are these the only two groups that are to be preached to? vii.
Is this meant to be a blow to any human pride regarding their involvement in the process of salvation since it is God's power that does it? viii.
Could the word of God simply be a reminder to someone that the
Gospel is in fact good news and maybe they shouldn't be so angry and upset all the time? ix.
Could the word of God ever be found by asking "What does this text mean to you?" b.
Reading for understanding - language, history, tradition, reason, experience, etc. c.
Reading for encounter - seeking to get past the words d.
Can both be the Word of God? Does one have primacy? e.
A proposed interaction between the two i.
When reading for understanding of what the author meant, we are aided in our attempt to understand how they understood God, themselves and others and in that way our own encounters will be guided/effected/affected ii.
When reading for encounter we will potentially have experiences that will inform our readings for understanding f.
In this study, I am interested in reading for understanding - trying to get

at what Paul may have meant? This is not to limit the Word of God--like that could ever be done anyway. It is just to say that I have nothing else to work with but the text. I will also offer some suggestions as to where I think I hear the voice of God in the second sense (as I hope you would offer those as well--because sometimes they are not mutually exclusive but in fact happen at the same time). I have found the Word of God in and through studying the language, history, context, etc. just as I have in the occassional epiphany or soft nudge that I experience in reading and contemplating the text.
Sundays September 28, October 5, 2014
6.
Introductory Comments a.
Read 1:1-15; 15:14-16:27 b.
It’s placement in the NT canon – why here? i.
Importance? ii.
Following Acts 28:31 c.
Authorship i.
Who wrote this? ii.
Why do you think that? iii.
We will look at different approaches to Paul next week iv.
Paul’s life 1
TRADITIONAL
36CE
39
40-44
44-45
46-49
REVISIONIST
30/34CE
33/37
After 37
49
50-52
51-52
54-58
EVENT
Conversion to Christ
Visit to Jerusalem
In Cilicia
At Antioch
(First) Missionary Journey, beginning in
Antioch, to Cyprus and southern Asia
Minor, returning to Antioch
(Second) Missionary Journey, beginning in Antioch, through southern Asia Minor to N.Galatia, Macedonia, Corinth
(1Thess), return to Jerusalem and
Antioch
Jerusalem conference
(Second) Missionary Journey, beginning in Antioch, through southern Asia Minor to N. Galatia, Macedonia, Corinth
(1Thess), return to Jerusalem and
Antioch
(Third) Missionary Journey, beginning
After 37
39-41/43
41-43
See above
Indistinct from
1 Taken from Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament , p.428.

54-57
Summer 57
57/58
58-60
60-61
61-63 from Antioch through N. Galatia to
Ephesus;
Three year stay there—imprisoned? (Gal,
Phil, Phlm, 1Cor)
Paul goes through Macedonia toward
Corinth (2Cor, Gal?), winters at Corinth
(Rom), returns to Jerusalem
Arrested in Jerusalem; imprisoned two years in Caesarea (Phil?)
Sent to Rome; long sea journey
Prisoner in Rome for two years (Phil?
Phlm?) second 48/55
After 54
52-55 or 56-58
After summer 64 Death in Rome under Nero d.
Date of composition i.
Do you have an idea of when this was written? ii.
At what point in the life of the apostle was this written? iii.
What happened to the apostle after this letter was written? iv.
In the 50’s most likely 55-57CE v.
Written from Corinth – Phoebe (Cenchreae is the western port in
Corinth) and Acts 20:3 vi.
The circumstances from which Paul was writing this letter 2
Agreement Galatians 2:10
Program Acts 11:27-30
Delivery
1Corinthians 16:1-4
2Corinthians 8-9
Romans 15:25-31 Acts 20:4
Condition
Disaster e.
Intended audience i.
Who was this letter written to? ii.
Why do you think that?
Acts 21:17-26
Acts 21:27-36 iii.
Had Paul ever met these people prior to writing to them? iv.
Did he ever meet them? v.
How did the letter get to them? – Phoebe (16:1-2) vi.
Many Jews in Rome – after Pompey in 62BCE; Cicero refers to a large crowd of Jews in 59BCE (perhaps 40,000-50,000 Dunn);
Priscilla and Aquilla were Christian Jews (Acts 18) who had fled
Rome and thus were most likely converted there; the Jewish expulsion (Acts 18:1-2); Paul had wanted to visit them “for years”
(1:10, 15:23) which means that there was probably a sizable group already there) vii.
Written to Gentiles – 11:13-32; 15:7-12; 1:6, 13; 15:15-16 and
2 Taken from Crosson and Borg, The First Paul , p.218.

dominated by Jew/Gentile issues
Sunday October 12, 2014 f.
Purpose of the letter i.
Why did the apostle write this letter? ii.
What do you think the letter is meant to be about? iii.
What issues do you think Paul would seek to address? iv.
Acts 18:1-3 as a possible context v.
Reasoner’s “circle” 3
1.
Origen – Paul is the arbiter between Jews and the ethne
2.
Augustine – How does one from the ethne achieve salvation?
3.
Medieval commentators – An attempt to soften
Augustine’s hard determinism
4.
Luther – radicalizes Augustine’s with a faith/works distinction
5.
Barth – the Jewish-ethne struggle over the nature of God’s election vi.
Stendahl – Romans is Paul’s final account of his theology of mission. It is not a theological tractate on justification by faith…Romans is Paul’s account of how his mission to the Gentiles
(ethne) was grounded not only in his call to be Apostle to the
Gentiles but also in scripture.
4 g.
Textual issues i.
16:25-27 is found in different places or not found v. 24 is sometimes not found. 15:1-16:23 is sometimes not found. 6 different constructions of the letter ii.
1:1-14:23 + 15:1-16:23 + 16:25-27 iii.
1:1-14:23 + 16:25-27 + 15:1-16:23, 25-27 iv.
1:1-14:23 + 16:25-27 + 15:1-16:24 v.
1:1-14:23 + 15:1-16:24 vi.
1:1-14:23 + 16:24-27 vii.
1:1-14:23 + 16:25-27 + 16:1-23 h.
Overall structure of the letter i.
Introductory remarks – 1:1-15 ii.
The main argument – 1:16-15:13
1.
1:16-8:39 – the gospel and Christian existence
2.
9-11 – What about Israel?
3.
12:1-15:13 – Various applications and exhortations iii.
Closing remarks – 15:14-16:27
3 Reasoner, Mark, Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation
4 Stendahl, Krister, Final Account

Sundays October 19 and 26, 2014
7.
Differing views on the Apostle Paul a.
Paul the Jew i.
Php 3:4b-6 ii.
Acts 22:3-5 iii.
Acts 26:4-5 b.
Paul’s life and mission i.
Acts 9:1-22 ii.
Acts 22:6-21 iii.
Acts 26:6-17 c.
Various constructions of his life, work and theology i.
The [traditional/un-nuanced] Reformed perspective – Justification by faith (without works) through grace ii.
The [post-reformation/un-nuanced] Catholic Perspective –
Justification by faith and works through grace iii.
The New Perspective
1.
Still concerned with justification by faith
2.
Reconsiders the context out of which Paul is speaking about justification
3.
They believe that Judaism was not a “religion of works” and that it is quite wrong to construct an entire theology on that basis
4.
Rather, the Judaisms of Paul’s day were more interested in what some have called “boundary markers” of the community, namely, circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and dietary laws. This proposal presents these markers as important because Jews were supremely concerned with keeping the faith intact and pure as a sign of their devotion to God and a sign of their faithfulness and hope that God will come and deliver them from their oppressors.
5.
The boundary marker theory is meant to highlight the fact that like all groups of people concerned with ongoing identity issues, they latch onto something (ideas/doctrines, rituals, etc) in order to maintain that identity.
6.
So Paul’s doctrine of justification, according to the NPP, is that it is not so much concerned with how someone is
“made right with God” but rather who has been made right with God, i.e. who belongs to the family of God’s people…who are the children of Abraham? And according to the NPP, Paul’s answer is that the boundary markers no longer hold and a new community has been established in which the new boundary markers are those who have been baptized in the name of Jesus and made partakers of the

Spirit (ritual and charism). iv.
The Post-New Perspective v.
The Radical or Jewish Perspective
1.
Paul had a mission to the Gentiles
2.
Paul’s entire mission and therefore theology of mission (or the content of his letters) is to bring Gentiles into relationship with the Jewish God through Christ.
3.
According to this view, they read Paul as teaching that
Christ is the “end times” messiah promised by the prophets to bring in the nations.
4.
So when Paul is giving ethical instructions (contra the
Torah) he is speaking to non-Israelite Christ followers.
5.
Paul would have had a clear distinction of 4 groups of people: a.
Israelites who follow Christ b.
Israelites who don’t follow Christ c.
Non-Israelites who follow Christ d.
Non-Israelites who don’t follow Christ
6.
Based on this grouping of people, Paul’s Christ ethic of non-torah observance was only for group c while groups a and b remain under torah as the expression of their faithfulness to God (1Co 7:17-20); Gal 5:3; Acts 15, 21) and group d remains pagan.
7.
But what about Jesus? Isn’t he God and thus the only way? a.
Christ is not God but a prophet and even messiah to the Gentiles i.
Christians got this part wrong and thus need to reform that bit ii.
Christians got this part wrong, but it doesn’t matter because its all myth anyway b.
Christ is in some way (that would be consistent with Jewish tradition) a manifestation of God that doesn’t necessarily require Judaism to change c.
Christ changes everything for both Gentiles and
Jews
8.
The Effects of the Different Perspectives on the Reading of Romans – What do you think they might be? a.
Missing things that are there – It is always good to read texts of scripture with other “people”, especially people that are not of my “tribe” as this opens the eyes to see things that one might otherwise have not seen – the comparison of Acts 9, 22, 26 and the differences between the accounts as a rather superficial but real example b.
Missing potential applications – When one assumes that they “know”

what Paul was saying and do not bother considering the contextual location of Paul regarding all kinds of things ranging from his anthropology, to his view of the will, the sovereignty of God, his views of justice, etc. as well as failing to consider how our context might be different, can fail to see and appreciate other sorts of applications.
9.
Our Plan For Studying Together – Looking at the text according to the more general divisions provided by the commentators
Sunday November 2, 2014
10.
Romans 1:1-15 a.
Read the passage b.
The author of the letter i.
A description of Paul – vv. 1, 5-6
1.
A servant of Jesus Christ
2.
Called to be an apostle
3.
Set apart for the Gospel
4.
Through Christ (we) have received grace (and) apostleship
(apostleship) comes through Christ a.
To bring about the obedience of faith i.
Among all the Gentiles ii.
For the sake of his name iii.
Including yourself who are called to belong to Jesus Christ ii.
A description of the Gospel – vv. 2-4
1.
God promised it through the prophets in the Scriptures
2.
It concerns his Son a.
Who descended from David according to the flesh – why is this important? b.
Who was declared to be the Son of God i.
With power (according to) the spirit of holiness ii.
By the resurrection from the dead iii.
How was it declared? c.
The recipients of the letter i.
To all God’s beloved in Rome ii.
Called to be saints iii.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ d.
The opening greeting i.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you
1.
because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world.
2.
For God, whom I serve with my spirit

a.
by announcing the gospel of his Son, b.
is my witness that without ceasing I remember you always in my prayers, c.
asking that by God’s will I may somehow at last succeed in coming to you. i.
For I am longing to see you so that I may share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— ii.
or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.
3.
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you a.
(but thus far have been prevented), b.
in order that I may reap some harvest among you as
I have among the rest of the Gentiles.
4.
I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish
5.
hence my eagerness to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome. e.
Questions i.
The difference in Paul’s opening greeting (with his other openings)
– vv. 2-6 are an addition – why? ii.
How is calling used in this passage?
1.
The beginnings of our faith in Paul
2.
Where does the authority lie? a.
In his words? b.
In his experience? c.
Because we have the same experience? d.
Because his words made it in the bible? iii.
What is the gospel according to Paul (in this passage)? iv.
What do vv. 2-6 tell us about Paul’s Christology?
1.
Descended from David
2.
Declared to be the Son of God (with power)
3.
Where is the cross? v.
What was the goal of Paul’s apostleship?
1.
What does obedience of faith mean? vi.
Who is Paul writing to? – v.7 vii.
For what does Paul give thanks? – v.8 viii.
Paul’s travel plans – vv.9-15
1.
Why does Paul want to see the Roman Christians?
2.
What does he want to happen? a.
Impart a gift b.
Receive mutual support

ix.
What does it mean for Paul to say that he is a debtor?
1.
Who is he in “debt” to?
2.
How does Paul envision paying this debt?
Sunday November 9, 2014
11.
Read Romans 1:16-17
12.
Outline of the passage a.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel i.
It is the power of God to salvation
1.
to everyone who believes
2.
to the Jew first and also the Greek ii.
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed
1.
through faith
2.
and for faith iii.
as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith.’
13.
Questions a.
General and introductory i.
In your reading of Romans, do you think that vv.16-17 act as a kind of “thesis” statement for the entire letter? b.
16a i.
Why do you think that Paul makes the point of stating that he is not ashamed of the Gospel?
1.
Was there a charge that he was ashamed?
2.
If vv.16b-17 are reasons given by Paul as to why he isn’t ashamed, are they good reasons? ii.
What does it mean to be ashamed of the gospel? iii.
Are you ever ashamed of the gospel?
1.
Why? What are the reasons?
2.
Why not? What are the reasons? iv.
Are vv.16b-17 the reasons Paul gives for not being ashamed or are they just other statements about the gospel itself? Perhaps reasons why Paul believes the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe? c.
16b i.
What does it mean to say that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation? Does this mean that the message itself is the means God uses to exercise God’s power to bring about salvation or is it the
event to which the Gospel points that is the power of God that Paul is referring to? Does it matter? d.
16c i.
Why “to the Jew first”?

this question?) iii.
Does this order have any bearing upon us today? Do we need to somehow mimic this pattern? e.
17a ii.
Why only “Greeks”? Did the category of “Greek” make up the rest of humanity in Paul’s mind or what? (Does v.14 help in answering i.
Is the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel as message or as
the content to which the message points? ii.
What is the righteousness of God that is revealed? Is it something
given to human beings, or something that God is towards Godself? iii.
Is faith required for the revelation of God’s righteousness to be manifest in the Gospel? iv.
What does it mean to say that the “righteousness of God” is revealed in the Gospel through faith for faith? v.
From what passage is Paul quoting in v. 17 to support his argument? vi.
Does the passage Paul quotes from actually support his argument?
Why or why not?
Sunday November 16 and 23, 2014
14.
Finish discussion about v.17 from last week
15.
Read 1:18-32
16.
Outline of the passage a.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven i.
against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. ii.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
1.
20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, a.
invisible though they are, b.
have been understood and seen through the things he has made.
2.
So they are without excuse; 21 a.
for though they knew God, i.
they did not honour him as God ii.
or give thanks to him, iii.
but they became futile in their thinking,
1.
and their senseless minds were darkened.
2.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools;
3.
23 and they exchanged the glory of

the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. iii.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,
1.
to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, a.
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. b.
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. i.
Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, ii.
27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.
Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
2.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, a.
God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. b.
29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, * insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. c.
32 They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them.
17.
A proposed structure of the passage a.
18-20 – The statement of the situation: The revelation of the wrath of God and the reason given for his wrath and to those for whom it is directed b.
21-23 – An elaboration of the reason for God’s wrath: idolatry c.
24-27 – An elaboration of the consequence to idolatry: God gave them up to degrading passions d.
28-32 – Another elaboration of the consequences to idolatry: God gave them up to a debased mind
18.
Questions a.
18-20 i.
What is the wrath of God? ii.
What does it mean when Paul says, “it is revealed from heaven”?

How is it revealed? iii.
To whom is it revealed? iv.
To whom is the wrath directed?
1.
Is suppression of the truth in unrighteousness necessary?
2.
Do all people suppress the truth in this fashion?
3.
What about people who are ignorant of the truth?
4.
Does this text assume that all people are without excuse or just a specific group of people that Paul was addressing?
5.
What tense is the passage written in? What does this matter?
6.
Does Paul include himself in the group of those to whom the wrath of God is directed? (v.19 “them”) v.
What is the initial reason given as to why God is wrathful? b.
21-23 i.
According to these verses, why is God wrathful? ii.
Is this true of all humanity at all times? c.
24-27 i.
Because of their idolatry, God gave them up…to what? ii.
26 says that God gave them up to degrading passions. (27-28 describes this.) What is degrading about these things?
1.
Could degrading passions be found in heterosexual people?
Why then, must the negative aspects of these passions be seen as homosexuality itself and not some other kind of disorder (similar to what we might consider heterosexual disordered passions)?
2.
If this passage is teaching that even the desires of homosexuals are sinful, then why has nearly every
Christian group (conservatives included) adopted the modern distinction between orientation (which isn’t viewed as sinful, because people now think that that is something that can’t be helped) and practice?
3.
Is lesbianism what is being spoken of in v26b? Why or why not?
4.
What is meant by the word natural in 26b and 27?
5.
How does one determine if something is natural or not?
6.
Is it ever okay to violate nature? d.
28-32 i.
If this is a restatement of the consequences of idolatry, what is missing from this second list? Why do you suppose that is so? ii.
How much emphasis is put on this list as a kind of moral code by which the Church should draw clear lines and divide over based on varying interpretations? iii.
What is the consequence for these actions? (hint: Paul says that even these idolaters know the answer)

iv.
Paul says that this is the decree of God. What decree is he talking about? v.
In Paul’s world, who would have enacted these punishments? vi.
Why don’t we embrace this part of the passage? Why is that any less important than what we do with v.26b-27? e.
Other questions i.
What is the wrath of God in this passage? Is it in the “giving up” that God does? ii.
What is Paul’s point here?
Sunday January 4 and 11 , 2015
19.
Review Romans Chapter 1
20.
Questions a.
Who is Paul addressing in chapter 2? b.
What is Paul saying to those who judge others? (What is their offense?) c.
How do those people view themselves? d.
Why does Paul ask the two questions in v.4? What are the questions meant to expose? e.
By what standard does Paul say God will judge by? f.
What is it that will be judged? g.
What are the rewards or punishments of judgment? h.
According to v.11, what is the point of this section? i.
In v.12, what does it mean to “perish apart from the law”?
21.
Outline a.
The bait (chapter 1) b.
The hook – 2:1 i.
Paul was seeking a very deep and emotional response ii.
The “judges” exposed – 2:2-5
1.
The self- confident knowledge of the “judges” – 2:2-3
2.
The identification of their real problem: they have never encountered/accepted a gracious and merciful God – 2:4
3.
The consequences of this lack of acceptance – 2:5 iii.
The true judgment – 2:6-16
Sunday January 18, 2015
1.
The principle of judgment – 2:6
2.
Seeking and finding – 2:7-8
3.
A restatement of the principle of judgment – 2:9-11
4.
And yet another restatement of the principle of judgment –
2:12-16

22.
Questions a.
What significance does the “But…” have in v.17? b.
Paul is clearly speaking to the “Jews” in this section, what do you take his main point to be in this section? (Hint: 2:11) c.
Can you name all the characteristics of Paul’s self assured “Jew”? (Don’t look at #24 below before you try to name them on your own!) d.
What are the offenses of Paul’s self-assured Jew? e.
In vv 25-27 Paul says that if the one who is circumcised (a Jew) disobeys the law, then their disobedience nullifies their circumcision (it no longer has any benefit for them) and if the uncircumcised (a gentile) keeps the law, then his obedience is counted as circumcision. This has been interpreted in many different ways. Commentator Leander Keck states,
“…given the link between circumcision and obedience to God, the disobedience of the Jew undoes the benefit of circumcision, and the
Gentile’s obedience confers it.” 5 He also says, “Paul is not saying that disobedience terminates the Jew’s membership in the covenant community, for disobedience is not apostasy.” 6 Do you agree with him?
Why or why not? f.
Paul speaks about circumcision being a matter of the heart and not
“outward”. Does he invent this idea himself or did this idea already exist in Jewish sacred texts? i.
Deu 10:16 - Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be
stubborn any longer. ii.
Jer 4:4 - Circumcise yourselves to the L ORD , remove the foreskin of your hearts, O people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or else my wrath will go forth like fire, and burn with no one to quench it, because of the evil
of your doings. iii.
Jer 9:26 - Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and all those with shaven temples who live in the desert. For all these nations are
uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart. iv.
Eze 44:9 - Thus says the Lord G OD : No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall
enter my sanctuary. g.
Can we apply Paul’s argument about Jew’s and circumcision to Christians
23.
Outline and baptism? Why or why not? a.
2:17-20 – Paul’s Jew’s self image b.
2:21-24 – The scandal of hypocrisy c.
2:25-29 – Circumcision, Uncircumcision, and the “True Jew”
24.
The Characteristics of Paul’s self-assured Jew a.
Self identification – “you call yourself a Jew” b.
Reliance on the law – “you rely on the law”
5 Keck, Leander, Romans , p.86.
6 Ibid. p.86

c.
Relation to God – “and boast of your relation to God” d.
Knowledge of God’s will – “and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law” e.
Ability to instruct (the blind, those in darkness, the foolish, children) “and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children” f.
Possession of the law – “having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth”
Sundays January 25 and February 1, 2015
25.
Questions a.
Why does Paul ask the two questions that he does in verse 1 of chapter 3? b.
What is Paul’s “first” answer to this question? c.
Paul’s answer to his own question produces another two questions in v.3.
Why does he ask these questions? d.
How does Paul answer these two questions? (v.4) e.
How does the verse Paul quotes from the Psalms in v.4 apply in the answer he offers? f.
Paul’s answer to his own question produces yet another question in v.5.
Why does he ask this question? g.
What is Paul’s initial answer to this question? (v.6) Does this answer make sense to you? Why or why not? h.
Is the question in v.7 simply a restatement of the question found in v.5? If so, why does Paul ask the question again since he answered the question already in v.6? i.
What is the function of v.8 in Paul’s argument? j.
In the first part of v.9, Paul asks another question. Who is this question addressed to? Who is the “we”? k.
From the remaining text in v.9 through v.18, Paul provides his answer to this question. What is Paul’s answer to the question “Are we any better off…” l.
In v.19, Paul is referring to those “under the law”, who is he speaking about? m.
If all people are not “under the law”, how is the entire world made accountable to God through them? n.
Paul explains his statement in v.19 by a statement in v.20. What is his reasoning? o.
Extra Credit - As a side question, why does Paul transition from the extended quotation from the Psalm in vv.10-18 to a reference to “law” in v.19? What does this say about Paul’s view of “scripture”? Is it all given the same weight in his reasoning or do different passages function in his
26.
Outline argument function with more authority than others?

a.
3:1 – Paul’s first question in response to his reasoning in chapter 2: What advantage do the Jews have then? b.
3:2 – Paul’s initial answer c.
3:3 – Paul’s questions to his initial answer to his first question d.
3:4 – Paul’s answer to the question that arose from his initial answer to his first question e.
3:5 – Paul’s question that arose from his answer to the question that arose from his initial answer to his first question f.
3:6 – Paul’s answer to the question that arose from his answer to the question that arose from his initial answer to his first question. g.
3:7 – Paul’s restatement of the question he asked in v.5 h.
3:8 – Paul takes the reasoning found in the question in v.5 and v.7 and pushes it further and asks it in a “positive” sense i.
3:9a – Paul’s attempt to get back to his question in v.1 j.
3:9b-18 – Paul’s answer to the question k.
3:19-20 – Paul’s conclusion to his overarching point so far in the letter
Sunday February 8, 2015
27.
Review Paul’s argument so far with special emphasis on 3:19-20 as summary of the argument
28.
Questions a.
The “But now” of v.21 is Paul’s great transition from the presentation of the human “problem” of sin to God’s solution. Why does Paul start with the phrase “irrespective of the law”? What law? Why this comparison? b.
What does Paul mean when he refers to the “righteousness of God” in v.21? c.
How does Paul say this righteousness has been “disclosed”? To whom? d.
Paul says in v. 22 that there is no distinction. Who is he talking about?
Between whom is there no distinction? e.
What is Paul’s reason why there is no distinction? (v.23) f.
Verse 24-26 are some of the clearest in all of Paul’s writing as to what he thinks the gospel is. Can you explain Paul’s logic in this passage? [Hint:
Notice again his usage of the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’] g.
What kind of “boasting” is Paul referring to in v.27? Who would be doing this boasting? h.
Paul claims that “boasting” is excluded. He explains his reasoning in vv.27-28. How does Paul reason so as to conclude that all boasting [in the way he is using the word here] is excluded? i.
Paul asks the question in v.29 “Is God the God of the Jews only. Is he not the God of the gentiles also?” What is he saying here? Would this have been controversial? Why or why not? j.
Paul began this section (v.21) with a statement about God’s actions
“irrespective of the law” and he ends this chapter with the assertion that

these actions of God that were “irrespective of the law” in the end actually “uphold the law.” How does he reason from the first assertion to
29.
Outline the final assertion in this section? a.
The Big ‘But’ – The revelation of God’s righteousness irrespective of the law (vv.21-22) b.
Justification for all through Jesus (vv.23-25a) c.
The Justification of God (vv.25b-26) d.
A Return to the Original Question about Boasting (v.27a) e.
The Basis for the Rejection of all Boasting (v.27b-30) f.
The Status of the Law in Light of all Paul has said (v.31)
Sunday February 15, 2015
30.
Questions a.
Paul readdresses the question that has been swirling around in his thoughts since the beginning of chapter 3 (What advantage then, does the
Jew have?). He restates the question in 4:1 this way – What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? – Why do you think this issue is so important to Paul? b.
Verse 3 states that “…it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” What does it refer to? c.
Can you summarize in your own words what Paul is saying in vv.4-5? d.
Paul quotes David in vv.7-8 as an example of the faith as righteousness idea he is seeking to establish. What is the logic of the quote that Paul points to? e.
Verse 9 introduces Paul’s continuing concern with Jews and Gentiles.
What is his concern exactly? f.
In verses 9-12, what does Paul do with Abraham and why is it important for his argument thus far? g.
I want to make the claim that Paul is not arguing thus far that works are to be equated with trying or applying effort and then contrasting this with what he calls faith which is supposed to be taken as not needing to try or
not applying effort but rather is to be seen as receiving. So in essence, I do not think that Paul is setting effort against receiving as the nature of the gospel per se. I think that vv. 12-15 demonstrate this clearly. Why do you suppose I think that? h.
What is Paul saying in v.16? How does this serve as a summary of his argument in this chapter? i.
Verses 16-25 serve as Paul’s attempt to demonstrate the basic logic and
structure of faith as opposed to the logic and structure of law. What is his basic insight? j.
Paul ended chapter 3 with the question, Do we then nullify/overthrow the law by this faith? He answers his own question—God forbid! On the contrary, we uphold/establish the law! After having worked through

31.
Outline chapter 4, what do you think Paul meant by that statement? a.
Paul’s perennial question – v.1 b.
Abraham and the righteousness of faith – v.2-3 c.
The logic of works and faith – v.4-5 d.
The blessing of faith according to David – v.6-8 e.
Who receives this blessing? – v.9-12 f.
The triumph of faith – v.13-15 g.
The logic and structure of faith – v.16-25
Sunday February 22, 2015
32.
Questions a.
What does it mean to be ‘justified by faith’? b.
What does Paul mean when he says that we have ‘peace with God’? Is he referring to a change in God’s disposition towards us from something that was not peace to something that is now peace? Is he referring to a change in our disposition from non-peace to peace? Is he referring to sharing in
God’s peace? Or something other than these? c.
What do the justified have access to? d.
What does it mean to ‘boast in hope’? What is the content of this hope according to Paul? e.
Why would anyone boast in their sufferings as Paul insinuates? f.
It seems pretty straight forward to say that ‘suffering produces endurance’ and that ‘endurance produces character’, but what does it mean to say that ‘character produces hope’? g.
Does hope ever disappoint? Or is Paul correct in saying that it never disappoints? h.
What reason does Paul give for why hope does not disappoint? What do you think he means? i.
What does Paul mean when he says that Christ died ‘at the right time’? j.
According to Paul, for whom did Christ die? k.
According to Paul, the death of Jesus proves something, what does it prove? l.
In 4:25 Paul says that Jesus was raised for our justification. In the beginning of this chapter he says that we are ‘justified by faith’. In 5:9 he says that we are ‘justified by his blood.’ What is the relationship of these three things? m.
In 5:9, Paul speaks to readers of being ‘saved’ in the future, as though salvation was not yet complete. What does he mean? What is the ‘wrath of God’ that he is speaking of? n.
Paul reasons that if Christ died for us while we were enemies and thus reconciled us to himself, how much more sill we be saved at some point in the future from the wrath of God. He says that it is actually Christ’s life

that will save us. What does he mean? o.
Paul identifies an even greater boast than the one about future salvation.
33.
Outline
What is this ‘greater boast?’ a.
Three results of justification by faith – 5:1-2 b.
A new boast: in suffering and in hope – 5:3-5 c.
The content of the love poured into our hearts – 5:6-11
Sunday April 19, 2015
34.
Questions a.
What is the death that Paul is speaking of in v.12? b.
How does death spread to all through sin? c.
What does it mean to say that sin is ‘not reckoned where there is no law?”
(v.13) d.
How is Adam a type of Christ? (v.14) e.
Paul states in v.15 that the free gift is not like the trespass. In what ways is it not the same? f.
What is Paul pointing to when he contrasts: death and grace/free gift
(v.15), condemnation and justification (v.16)? g.
Verses 18-19 have proven to be problematic in certain kinds of settings, why do you think that is? h.
How does the law ‘multiply’ sins? (v.20) i.
What does Paul mean when he says that though sin increased, grace abounded even more? In what way(s) does he mean that ‘sin increased?’
How did/does grace abound even more? Does this apply at the individual level? j.
Though Paul will expand on these ideas in chapters 6-8, what do you think he means when he talks about the ‘dominion of sin in death’ and the
35.
Outline
‘dominion of grace through justification/righteousness?’ (v.21) a.
The entrance of sin and its results – 5:12-14 b.
The contrast between Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience –
5:15-17 c.
The dominion of sin and death and the dominion of grace and righteousness – 5:18-21
Sunday April 26, 2015
36.
Questions a.
What is Paul’s main question in vv.1-4? b.
What is Paul’s answer to this question? c.
What is Paul’s logic in v.5? d.
What is the ‘old self?’

e.
Do you feel like you live in v.6? f.
How does v.7 work? g.
How do you understand vv.8-10 to work? What do they mean? h.
How do you live v.11? i.
What is the role of the believer in vv.12-14? j.
How is v. 14 true? k.
Why does the question in v.15 arise again? l.
What does it mean to be ‘enslaved to God?’ m.
What is Paul’s overall point in chapter 6?
37.
Outline a.
Continuing in sin? – v.1-4 b.
Death to sin? v.5-11 c.
No dominion for sin! – v.12-14 d.
Sin, Righteousness and Slavery – v.15-23
Sunday May 10, 2015
38.
Questions a.
Who does it seem Paul is addressing in v.1 of chapter 7? b.
What does Paul mean when he says that the law is binding only as long as someone is alive? What point is he trying to make? (Hint: v.4) c.
According to vv.5-6, what does Paul envision for those who are ‘dead to the law?’ d.
In the next section (vv.7-13) Paul seeks to defend the law. How does he go about doing this? What reason(s) does Paul give in defense of the law? e.
What does Paul mean when he says that the law is ‘spiritual’ but he is of the ‘flesh’? f.
Many have read Paul in vv.14ff to be describing the inner turmoil of the
Christian seeking to live the Christian life and always meeting opposition from within themselves—another ‘I’—that doesn’t want to obey God. Is this what you think Paul is saying? How would that fit in with his larger argument?
39.
Outline a.
The law is binding only for the living – 7:1-4 b.
The result of being released from the law – 7:5-6 c.
The defense of the law – 7:7-13 d.
Sin, the law, and I – 7:14-25
40.
Notes a.
“Paul’s logic seems to run like this: in Christ God has acted to save the world; therefore the world is in need of salvation; but God also gave the law; if Christ is given for salvation, it must follow that the law could not

have been; is the law then against the purpose of God which has been revealed in Christ? No, it has the function of consigning everyone to sin so that everyone could be saved by God’s grace in Christ.” (E.P Sanders,
Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p.475) b.
“It is inevitable that a reader’s experience will affect exegesis. Still, we can respect this whole letter best if we do not appeal to human experience, whether our own or what is scientifically described in psychology textbooks, and instead exegete this locus in light of the literary and rhetorical conventions it reflects.” (Mark Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle, p.81) c.
“The influence of ancient rhetoric on this passage is especially evident in
Paul’s use of prosopopoiia. In prosopopoiia the identity of the speaker is conveyed not by the personal name but by the speaker’s self-disclosure, as Quintilian saw: ‘With this figure we present the inner thoughts of our adversaries as though they were talking to themselves…or pretend that we have before our eyes things, persons or utterances.’ Or, as ad
Herennium (attributed to Cicero) puts it, this device, ‘consists in representing an absent person as present, or in making a mute thing or one lacking form articulate, and attributing to it…a language…appropriate to its character.’” (Leander Keck, Romans, p.180)
Sunday May 24, 2015
41.
Questions a.
Paul makes a statement in v. 1 of chapter 8 that summarizes his previous statements as well as provides a thesis that he will seek to prove in the verses immediately following. What is this statement? b.
How does Paul seek to prove this statement? c.
What does it mean to say that God’s son was sent in the ‘likeness of sinful flesh?” Why is this important? d.
What does it mean that God “condemned sin in the flesh?” e.
How does Paul use the word “flesh?” What does he mean? [Hint: it must be something that one can ‘live’ without…look at v.9] f.
In vv. 9-10 Paul moves seamlessly from the Spirit, to the spirit of God, to the Spirit of Christ to Christ. What is the relationship of the Spirit and
God and Christ? Is it really Christ that is ‘in’ us? Paul says in v. 11 that it is the spirit of the one who raised Christ from the dead that dwells in us.
Which is it? g.
Verses 12-17 relate the obligations and benefits of ‘living in the Spirit.’
42.
Outline
What are the obligations? What are the benefits? a.
8:1 – Summary and Thesis: No Condemnation b.
8:2-4 – Why there is no condemnation for those in Christ

c.
8:5-11 – The Spirit, the Flesh and the Body d.
8:12-17 – Obligations and Benefits of Spirit life
Sunday May 31, 2015
43.
Questions a.
Do you believe Paul’s ‘if’ statement in v.17? If so, what does that mean for us? b.
Verse 18 has a word that indicates a particular time frame Paul was dealing with. What significance does this have? What did he mean? c.
What does Paul say about creation in this text? d.
What is he including in the word “creation”? How extensive does he envision Christ’s redemption extending? e.
What does Paul mean when he says we are ‘saved in hope’? [In my opinion, this is one of the most important concepts for Christians to realize and embrace] f.
How does the Spirit intercede for the saints? What is Paul talking about? g.
Verse 28 is quoted ALL THE TIME! Pause, and think through what Paul is stating in this verse. What is his point in this context? What common applications may not be warranted by this verse? h.
Paul asks 7 questions in verses 31-36. Why do you think he does this? i.
What does Paul see as the great achievement of salvation in Christ? [Hint: look at verses 35, 38-39]
44.
Outline a.
Another look at the ‘if’ statement in v.17 b.
The suffering and redemption of the cosmos – vv.18-27 c.
The glory of this redemption – vv.28-30 d.
Seven questions exploring this glory – vv.31-36 e.
Paul’s confident conclusions – vv.37-39
Sunday July 19 and 26, 2015
45.
Review first 8 chapters a.
Chapter 1 – Paul and his mission: one family of God made up of people from every culture/race/’religion’/etc. \ The guilt of the Gentiles b.
Chapter 2 – The guilt of the Jews c.
Chapter 3 – All sinful before God d.
Chapter 4 – Abraham as God’s answer (early hints of God’s universal family created and sustained by faith) e.
Chapter 5 – Christ as an answer to the Adamic/Israel problems of sin, law and death f.
Chapter 6 – Initial overview of God’s plan applied to the individual by the Spirit

g.
Chapter 7 – The law, sin and the Spirit h.
Chapter 8 – God’s answer to the Adamic/Israel problem
46.
A look ahead at chapters 9-16 a.
Chapters 9-11 – Israel, Gentiles and the Desires of God [9:1-3, 18; 11:13-22,
33-36] b.
Chapter 12-16 i.
Chapter 12 – A basis for Christian living? [12:1-2] ii.
Chapter 13 – Further ethical guidance [13:1-4] iii.
Chapter 14-15 – Organizing difference in the new community
[14:13-15] iv.
Chapter 16 – Goodbyes and a look at Paul’s partners in ministry
[16:1, 7, 17-20]
47.
Chapter 9 Questions a.
What is Paul seeking to do in chapter 9? b.
What problem is he addressing? c.
What is his ‘solution’ to this problem? d.
Why do people tend to use this passage as a ‘proof’ for the doctrine of predestination? e.
What do you think Paul believed about this doctrine? Why? f.
What is missing from this passage that is normally found in discussions about predestination? g.
Is this passage really teaching that?
48.
Chapter 9 Outline a.
Paul’s desire for Israel – 9:1-5 b.
Paul’s thesis – 9:6a c.
The argument for Paul’s thesis – 9:6b-30 i.
Point #1: Not all Israelites are ‘true descendants’ of Abraham –
9:6b-7 ii.
Point #2: The children of the promise are the ‘true descendants’ –
9:8-9 iii.
Support for Paul’s reasoning from Hebrew sacred history – 9:1-13 iv.
Anticipated objection #1 – Doesn’t this make God unjust? – 9:14 v.
Paul’s answer by narrating another event from sacred history 7 –
9:15 vi.
The conclusion Paul draws from this event – 9:16
7 There has been significant debate over the centuries as to who is speaking in vv.14-19. All assume that there is some perceived opponent that Paul is arguing with, the debate centers around when the opponent is thought to be speaking and when Paul is thought to be speaking. Nearly all seem to agree that the questions in v.14 and 19 are from the perspective of the opponent but the part in question is the text in between. Some believe that the entire portion (excluding the “God forbid!” in v.14) is actually to be read ‘in the voice of the opponent’ with Paul’s ‘answer’ beginning in v.20. Origen, Chrysostom,
Abelard, and Erasmus.

vii.
Another support from sacred history for this conclusion – 9:17 viii.
The restatement of Paul’s conclusions so far – 9:18 ix.
Anticipated objection #2 – 9:19 x.
Paul’s response to objection #2 stated in 4 questions – 9:20-29
1.
Questions #1-3: The relationship of God to humanity –
9:20-21
2.
Question #4: God displaying God’s mercy through endurance – 9:22-24 a.
Support from sacred history: Hosea – 9:25-26 b.
Support from sacred history: Isaiah – 9:27-29 d.
Paul’s conclusion – 9:30-33
Sundays August 16 and 23, 2015
49.
Chapter 9 Notes: An Extended Excursus a.
Exploring different concepts of predestination and election b.
Making appropriate distinctions: The difference between predestination and election i.
Predestination as the more general theory of the relation of the will of God to actual history ii.
Election is the specific function of God’s will in choosing a people/person for his redemptive purposes. Election would thus fall under the more general heading of predestination in this schema. c.
The ‘main’ versions of this doctrine i.
Predestination in the early church (and the eastern churches today)
– God’s will and the human will are compatible ii.
The Augustinian tradition – the introduction (in later life) of God’s will as supreme in the matters of grace and thus determinative – “I have tried hard to maintain the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God prevailed.” – Augustine, Retractions 2.1.1 iii.
The Arminian tradition – the will of God and the will of humans are compatible iv.
Karl Barth and Election – Reframing election around Jesus the
Logos of God v.
The NPP 8 and Election – Regaining the emphasis of Paul’s discussion of election as being about Israel and their place in the larger plan of God for the ‘nations.’ Thus their discussion of election tends to be more corporate in nature. vi.
The RNPP 9 and Election d.
A genealogy of the doctrines of predestination and election as seen through representative quotes
8 NPP stands for the New Perspective on Paul
9 RNPP stands for the Radical New Perspective on Paul

i.
The early churches (pre-Nicene 325CE) The early churches did not develop a full systematic treatment of these doctrines but rather as pastors, they were seeking to respond to current ideas (like
Greco-Roman conceptions of fate) as well as uphold human ethical responsibility by positing a proto-version of the freedom of the will. They rejected a depersonalized ‘fate’ or a ‘fate’ determined by the ‘gods’ and replaced it with a view of ‘providence’ that was thought to be directed by a loving, compassionate Father, rather than vindictive gods or ethereal fate. They did not recognize or seek to resolve the apparent dilemma between the freedom of God and the freedom of humanity.
1.
Neither do we maintain that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer. Rather, we maintain that each man acts rightly or sins by his free choice…Since
God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. – Justin
Martyr (c. 160, ANF 1.190) 10
2.
But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff. –
Irenaeus (c. 180, ANF 1.466)
3.
A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from passion achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself very desirous and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. For God conspires with willing souls. But if they abandon their eagerness, the
Spirit who is bestowed by God is also restrained. For to save the unwilling is the part of one exercising compulsion.
But to save the willing is that of one showing grace. –
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, 2.597 ANF)
4.
We maintain that human nature is in no way able to seek after God or to attain a clear knowledge of Him—without the help of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those who, after doing all that their powers will allow, confess that they need help from Him. For He reveals
Himself to those whom He approves. – Origen (c. 248CE,
ANF 4.628)
5.
God is good and wise. He does what is best. Therefore, there is no fixed destiny. – Methodius (c. 290, ANF 6.343)
10 The year is given to help orient the approximate time at which the quote was made. ‘ANF’ stands for
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; repr. 10 vols.
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994)

ii.
The early Augustinian tradition (400-800) During the life of
Augustine, he was engaged in many doctrinal disputes. One of those was the debate with Pelagius. Very briefly, Pelagius thought that we already had all the grace we needed through the ‘image and likeness of God’, the scriptures, the Church, etc. that we did not need a ‘supernatural’ infusion of grace in order to respond to that grace. In a sense, he believed that the freedom of the will was itself a ‘grace’ that didn’t need any additional grace in order to respond to the offer of salvation. Augustine would have none of it, nor would the churches in east or west for the majority of their history. It seems to me that the primary thing Augustine was doing in his debate with Pelagius was to protect grace as the origin and source of salvation. He feared that to give humanity too much freedom would reduce grace to something ‘attainable’ by us and thus we would have no real need of a Savior or of God.
1.
If anyone contends that God awaits our will before cleansing us from sin, but does not confess that even the desire to be cleansed is aroused in us by the infusion and action of the Holy Spirit, he opposes the Holy Spirit
Himself speaking through Solomon, ‘The will is prepared by the Lord (Prov 8:35) and the apostle’s salutary message,
“God is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).” [Canon 3 of the Council of Orange 529CE] 11
2.
If anyone asserts that by his natural strength he is able to think as is required or choose anything good pertaining to his eternal salvation, or to assent to the saving message of the Gospel without the illumination and inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, he is deceived by the heretical spirit and does not understand the word said by God in the Gospel,
“Apart from me you can do nothing” (Jhn 15:5), nor the word of the apostle, “Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our sufficiency is from God.” (2Cor 3:5) [Canon 7 of the
Council of Orange]
3.
…Not only do we not believe that some are predestined to evil by the divine power, but if there are any who wish to believe such an enormity, we with great abhorrence anathematize them. [A portion of a redaction to the
Council by Caesarius of Arles iii.
The medieval Augustinian tradition (800-1200) During this period there was more of the same from the perspective of Augustinian
11 The three quotes in this section were taken from the revised edition (1982) of The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church edited by J Neuner and J Dupuis.

doctrine with the caveat that it was developed and adapted to the cultural and pastoral circumstances of the age. One of the significant developments during this time happened as a result of the work of the Benedictine monk Godescalc of Orbais [Gottschalk]
(804-869CE). He followed the logic of Augustine that ‘the decision to redeem some was also a decision not to redeem others.’ 12 This was the beginning of what would become known as ‘double predestination’ as well as ‘limited atonement,’ which asserts that
Christ died only for the elect.
1.
Gottschalk was condemned as a heretic multiple times, whipped and beaten, exiled to a monastery, and ultimately died without recanting his teaching.
2.
Though not written from this time period, Thomas Oden summarizes very nicely the ‘classical’ position on the matter of God’s providence which is in some ways an overarching way to conceptualize God’s activity and agency in the world which results in some rather clear directions for the doctrines of predestination and our freedom as human beings made in God’s image.
3.
God’s concurring activity refers to that cooperation of divine power with subordinate powers and secondary causes that sustain, empower, and enable those myriads of natural causes simultaneously flowing through all times.
Nature is an immense complex of multilayered causality.
Christian teaching has pursued various means of relating
God’s providence to natural law and causality. How is God cooperatively present and empowering in those causes?
Classical exegetes taught the ever-recurring cooperation of divine power with all subordinate powers and secondary causes, according to the reliable laws of their operation, whether those laws pertain to the natural, rational, or moral sphere…This concurrence is occurring everywhere in anything that is occurring. If something moves, it moves by divine concurrence. Anywhere any secondary cause is at work, God is at work, not absolutely or unilaterally determining that secondary cause, but cooperating so that it can work. It works, not as if autonomously on its own, but through the laws appropriate to its level of participation in being. – Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity, pp.148-149 iv.
The Thomistic synthesis: Aristotle and Augustine (1200-1300)
During this time period, as with most doctrine that made its way into the mind of the great Doctor, providence, predestination and
12 McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology: An Introduction . Second Edition, pg.451)

election were given a philosophical grounding as well as Patristic support. The Thomistic synthesis still holds great weight for
Catholics today.
1.
In seeking to answer the question whether some people are predestined by God to salvation, Thomas answered, ‘I
answer that, It is fitting that God should predestine men. For all things are subject to His providence, as was shown above (Question [22], Article [2]). Now it belongs to providence to direct things towards their end, as was also said (Question [22], Articles [1],2). The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above
(Question [12], Article [4]). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature. Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark. Hence, properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God. The reason of that direction pre-exists in God; as in Him is the type of the order of all things towards an end, which we proved above to be providence. Now the type in the mind of the doer of something to be done, is a kind of pre-existence in him of the thing to be done. Hence the type of the aforesaid direction of a rational creature towards the end of life eternal is called predestination. For to destine, is to direct or send. Thus it is clear that predestination, as regards its objects, is a part of providence. [1a.q.23.a.1]
2.
In answering the question ‘whether the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination, Thomas replies, ‘Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet
Jeremias (Lam. 5:21): "convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." Yet predestination has in this way, in regard to its effect, the goodness of God for its reason; towards which the whole effect of predestination is directed as to an end; and from which it proceeds, as from

its first moving principle.’ [1a.q23.a.5]
3.
In responding to the sentiment that God elects for salvation based upon the merits (or goodness) of the individual
(whether that goodness is defined as ethical or just ‘plain faith’ which was not something so easily separated for
Aquinas as it seems to be for Christians today), Thomas stated, ‘The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of
God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God's goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above
( Question [22] , Article [2] ). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.’ [1a.q23.a.5.r.3] v.
The nominalist tradition (1300-1500 – the late medieval era)
During this period, the power of God was discussed in great depth and various schools emerged with different answers. One of the main points of contention was precisely what Oden refers to in the quote above, the concurrence of God’s activity in the world.
The question could be put like this: Does God’s will compete with the human will or is it the reality that grants existence to the human will? The classical and Thomist tradition would answer that the two wills were not in competition and thus God’s will was simply the reason there was room for a human will at all and that all the possibilities available to human beings in the many ‘choices’ that they make throughout their lives were subsumed and accounted for in the will of God in such a way as to allow for real freedom without dissolving the will of God. However, through a revolution in thought spawned by William of Ockham (among others), this complementary relationship would be called into question and thus put God’s will in direct relationship to human will as a zero sum game, which simply means that the

explanations for freedom that had been historically plausible for
Christians for nearly 1500 years, was no longer as reasonable. One of the primary ways this was accomplished was the recognition by
John Duns Scotus that predestination was grounded in the will of
God not the intellect of God, which closed all doors to considering that God might ‘elect according to foreknowledge.’ If predestination was rooted in the will of God, this meant that God ordained the end or goal of salvation before he ordained the means and therefore he could not have ‘foreseen’ the response of faith or action (which are means of salvation not the end of salvation) in the person as the reason for their predestination. Rather, somewhere in the inscrutable will of God (apart from God’s intellect [which I must say is quite an odd way of putting it]) he determined to predestine certain individuals and not others.
13 vi.
The Lutheran/Reformed traditions (1500-1900)
1.
Lutheran 14 a.
Luther’s large catechism (1529) - Moreover, we also confess that God the Father has not only given us all that we have and see before our eyes, but daily preserves and defends us against all evil and misfortune, averts all sorts of danger and calamity; and that He does all this out of pure love and goodness, without our merit, as a benevolent
Father, who cares for us that no evil befall us.
[Article 1] b.
The Augsburg Confession (1530) – Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.
[Article 2]
2.
Reformed a.
First Helvetic Confession (1536) [Swiss
Reformation] 15 – We ascribe freedom of choice to man because we find in ourselves that we do good
13 For a more detailed discussion of this issue, you can consult Alister McGrath’s book Iustia Dei: A
History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (second edition), pp. 119-145.
14 Though there may not be Lutheran confessional and catechetical statements on these doctrines as clear as the Reformed churches, this does not mean that Lutherans were unsure about this issue. For
Luther’s own thoughts on the matter of free will and predestination please see his Bondage of the Will .
Also, one can examine article 11 of the Formula of Concord for an explicit Lutheran understanding of
Election - http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#XI. Election.
15 One can and should also consider the considerably longer and more detailed Second Helvetic
Confession of 1566 in which this doctrine is expounded in chapter 10.

and evil knowingly and deliberately. We are able to do evil of ourselves but we can neither embrace nor fulfill the good unless we are illumined, quickened and impelled by the grace of Christ. For God is the one who effects in us the willing and the doing, according to His good pleasure. Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. [Article 9] b.
The French Confession (1559) – We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. For the ones are no better than the others, until God discerns them according to his immutable purpose which he has determined in Jesus Christ before the creation of the world. Neither can any man gain such a reward by his own virtue, as by nature we can not have a single good feeling, affection, or thought, except God has first put it into our hearts.
[Article 12] c.
The Scottish Confession of Faith (1560) [Scotland] –
That same eternal God and Father, who by grace alone chose us in His Son Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world was laid, appointed him to be our head, our brother, our pastor, and the great bishop of our souls. [Chapter 8] d.
The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561) [The
Reformed Church of the Netherlands]
3.
Anglican – The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (1563)
[England] - Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through
Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be

made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the
Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God. vii.
The Arminian/Wesleyan traditions (1500-1900)
1.
The Remonstrance of 1610 was a statement made by followers of Jacob Arminius a year after his death and was set forward as 5 articles (which is actually where we get the
5 points of Calvinism—something that ‘Calvinists’ didn’t create but rather their opponents) of rebuttal to the form of
Calvinist teaching current at the time. The first article states, “God has immutably decreed, from eternity, to save those men who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in
Jesus Christ, and by the same grace persevere in the obedience of faith to the end; and, on the other hand, to condemn the unbelievers and unconverted. Election and condemnation are thus conditioned by foreknowledge and made dependent on the foreseen faith or unbelief of men.” 16
2.
John Wesley from a sermon on Predestination (1703-1791) -
The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present. He has, therefore, if we speak according to the
16 The full text can be read here - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.ix.iii.v.html

truth of things, no foreknowledge, no afterknowledge. This would be ill consistent with the Apostle's words, "With him is no variableness or shadow of turning;" and with the account he gives of himself by the Prophet, "I the Lord change not." Yet when he speaks to us, knowing whereof we are made, knowing the scantiness of our understanding, he lets himself down to our capacity, and speaks of himself after the manner of men. Thus, in condescension to our weakness, he speaks of his own purpose, counsel, plan, foreknowledge. Not that God has any need of counsel, of purpose, or of planning his work beforehand. Far be it from us to impute these to the Most High; to measure him by ourselves! It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally? To one who was so gross in his conceptions might he not say, "Thinkest thou I am such an one as thyself?" Not so: As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than thy ways. I know, decree, work, in such a manner as it is not possible for thee to conceive:
But to give thee some faint, glimmering knowledge of my ways, I use the language of men, and suit myself to thy apprehensions in this thy infant state of existence.
17 viii.
The current landscape as I understand it (1900-present)
1.
The most telling aspect of the modern Christian mind in
North America, is how utterly absent such a doctrine is
[except in a few pockets where a resurgent and rigid
Calvinism has emerged]
2.
Roman Catholics – [306] God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For
God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan. [307] To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of "subduing" the earth and having dominion over it.
God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good
17 The sermon can be found here - http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-58-On-Predestination

and that of their neighbours. Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.
They then fully become "God's fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom.
[308]
The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Far from diminishing the creature's dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God's power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a
Creator the creature vanishes." Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God's grace.
18
3.
Orthodox - Once an evil man came to Apollo of Delphi with a sparrow in his hands, covered with a piece of clothing. He requested them to tell him whether the sparrow was living or dead. This man was sly. If the oracle said that it was lifeless, he intended to show the living sparrow. If he was told that it was living, he intended to suffocate it and show that it was dead. Thus, he wanted to trick the oracle. But his trickery was discovered and he received the following answer: It depends on you to decide, to show what you hold as
living or dead. You too, oh Christian, ask whether eternal life or eternal death is in store for your soul. It depends on you to
decide. Your predestination depends on the will of God and your will. The will of God is always ready. This means that things are determined only by your will. God desires (your salvation); if you desire this also, then you are predestined for eternal life.
19
4.
Protestants a.
Barth – A revolution in the doctrine of Election and
Predestination b.
Neo-Calvinism i.
The Gospel Coalition ii.
John Piper iii.
R.C. Sproul
18 The Catechism of the Catholic Church - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM
19 Bishop Elias Minatios - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/predestination.aspx
. One should also consider the text of the Council of Dositheus which was held in 1672 to respond to the Patriarch of
Constantinople who was suspected of incorporating Calvinist ideas into Eastern Orthodoxy. Not all
Orthodox embrace this council completely, but it is still an Orthodox voice on the matter. Read the text here - http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

iv.
Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 v.
Timothy Keller and Redeemer Presbyterian
Church vi.
Many Evangelical converts to Anglicanism in America c.
Open Theism d.
Process Theism e.
Radical Theology
5.
The problem of God’s sovereignty a.
Classical Theological Assumptions i.
God is omni-benevolent (all-good) ii.
God is omni-scient (all-knowing) iii.
God is omni-potent (all-powerful) iv.
Therefore, why would anyone be eternally separated from God by God’s own choice? v.
If God wants everyone to be ‘saved’
(omni-benevolence) and God knows what it will take to bring everyone to faith
(omni-science), and God also has the power to ‘save’ them (omni-potent) then why isn’t everyone ‘saved?’ b.
Augustinian answers i.
God
1.
Redefining goodness as that which
God does not something outside of
God to which God is accountable.
God isn’t constrained by our conceptions of ‘good’ and therefore it is ‘good’ that not everyone is saved.
(Romans 9:14-18)
2.
Redefining God’s relationship to time – because God does not exist in time, all things are present to God in an eternal present—there is no sequence with God. And if that is true, then God’s ‘election’ of certain people is not in conflict or determinative of their own choice for
God. They are viewed as
‘non-competing’ choices. ii.
Humanity
1.
The human race is fallen and is not able to save themselves. They are all guilty and worthy of God’s wrath.

Therefore if God chooses to save
some people yet not all, God is not c.
Other answers unjust. Those not chosen are just getting what they have ‘earned.’ i.
God
1.
God is not omni-scient in the ways that many Christians have thought of it. God only knows that which is there to know, which means those things that have been ‘actualized’ in history. In this view, God has chosen to limit his knowledge in such a way that he only knows things that actually happen and therefore could not ‘pre-determine’ who would choose to embrace Jesus.
(Open-theism)
2.
God is not omni-potent in the ways that many Christians have thought of it. God has either limited God’s own power or God simply is not the kind of being that more classical views have envisioned. In this view,
God’s power in conceptualized as
persuasion not coercion. In this view, the idea that God is love is lifted above all else, even to the point that one is willing to speak of God
‘risking’ when God created and when God moves to ‘save’ because even God is not able to ‘secure with absolute certainty’ every detail of existence---there is real freedom.
However, in this view, God’s persuasive love coupled with God’s patience is enough to overcome even the most obstinate of sinners.
(Process theism) ii.
Election
1.
Individual vs. Corporate Election –
Some argue that election is meant to define a people group (their calling, purpose and goal), not so much

determine every individual in the group.
2.
Abrahamic Election – Here election is seen as a vocation to witness to the
God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.
Like Abraham, the elect, are called out of their ‘homeland’ in order to wander as witnesses to God’s power and provision. This vocation is meant to be ‘on behalf’ of the world.
Therefore, election can be viewed as something that is meant to bring others into the saving embrace of
God not something that excludes them.
3.
Jesus as the Elect – Karl Barth has developed this view in detail.
Basically, he argues that since election happens in Christ, Jesus himself is the only truly ‘elect’ individual and therefore to be in
Christ is to take part in that ‘election.’ d.
My personal view i.
I reject the stronger Augustinian/Calvinist proposals as being incongruent with the revelation of God in Jesus. ii.
I tend to be quite sympathetic to open and process views of God (though I would definitely want to maintain personalist accounts of God—something that some process thinkers deny). iii.
I also believe that Karl Barth highlighted the
‘starting point’ for any discussion of election—we must begin with Jesus! iv.
I find the Abrahamic emphasis quite compelling as well. v.
So as an exercise in speculative theology
(attempting to name something that is not definitively revealed) I offer my own definition of election: the choice made by the triune God for the Son to unite all things in heaven and earth through his life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension. All who have been called and ‘caught up’ in this project of

redemption, are the elect—called to witness through word and deed to God’s action in and
through Jesus by the Spirit.
Sunday August 30, 2015
50.
Chapter 10 Questions a.
Is ‘zeal’ enough? b.
What does Paul mean by ‘enlightened?’ c.
What does a righteousness apart from law look like? d.
How does one submit to God’s righteousness? What is he talking about? e.
How is Jesus the end of law? What law? f.
How does righteousness according to law work? g.
How does the righteousness of faith work? h.
What function does gospel proclamation have for Paul in this passage? i.
What does it mean to say faith comes by hearing? Is this just the means of transferring information via speech?
51.
Chapter 10 Outline a.
Problems and Solutions – 10:1-4 i.
Unenlightened zeal – 10:1-3a ii.
Submitting to God’s righteousness as an end to law – 10:3b-4 b.
The righteousness of the law – 10:5 c.
The righteousness of faith – 10:6-13 d.
Messianic proclamation as the answer – faith by hearing – 10:14-17 e.
So where do the Jews fit in all this? – 10:18-21
Sunday September 6, 2015
52.
Chapter 11 Questions a.
Why would Paul ask the question if God had rejected his people? b.
What is Paul’s reason for answering that question in the negative? c.
How does Paul view the hardening of Israel? What does God do with it? d.
What does Paul mean when he says he wants to provoke his people to jealousy? e.
What do the two illustrations in v.16 point to? What are the first batch of dough and the root referring to? f.
In verse 22, Paul tells his Gentile hearers that if they don’t continue in faith they too will be ‘cut off.’ What does he mean? g.
Verse 28 seems to put election in relation to the gospel in such a way that they are opposed in a very real sense—what does Paul mean?
53.
Chapter 11 Outline a.
Has God Rejected His People? – 11:1-10

i.
No! – 11:1 ii.
Why does Paul say that?
1.
Because he was not rejected and he is a Jew – 11:1
2.
Because God has left a remnant like he did in Elijah’s day –
11:2-6 iii.
If God hasn’t rejected his people, then did Israel just fail to obtain the promises? 11:7-10
1.
No, the elect received it, but the others were hardened –
11:7
2.
Two passages to support God’s hardening of some of his people – 11:8-10 b.
The Revelation of the Mystery – 11:11-36 i.
Did Israel stumble to their destruction? – 11:11
1.
No! – 11:11 ii.
Paul’s Gigantic ‘But’ – 11:11b-16
1.
The stumbling of Israel led to the salvation of the Gentiles
– 11:11
2.
Therefore(?) Israel’s inclusion will mean The Resurrection of the Dead! –
3.
Paul’s ministry of jealousy – It seems that Paul’s reasoning is something like – If just a remnant of Israelites brings about the salvation of the Gentiles, what will the full ingathering of Israel be, but ‘life from the dead!’ – 11:13-16 iii.
Jews, Gentiles, Faith and Humility – 11:17-24
1.
Gentiles, do not be prideful because you have been included in God’s plan of redemption – 11:17-18
2.
If the Israelites were cut off for a lack of faith, so can you be
– 11:19-22
3.
The reality is that if Israel doesn’t continue in unbelief, they can be grafted back on – 11:23-24
4.
It is all of faith! iv.
The Revelation of the Mystery – 11:25-32
1.
A hardening of Israel and inclusion of the Gentiles –
11:25-27
2.
Israel is still elect – 11:28-29
3.
The reality of universal disobedience and thus universal mercy – 11:30-32 v.
The Only Way to Conclude These Thoughts – 11:33-36
54.
Chapter 11 Notes/More Questions a.
One of the most notable challenges in this passage is that Paul explicitly says that God had not rejected his people (Israel), but then goes on in the rest of the chapter to describe how God rejected most of his people. Did
God harden Israel in order that others might be saved? How is that right?

b.
Paul asks the question in v.11 whether or not Israel has stumbled to the point of complete destruction. His answer is an emphatic ‘No!’ Does he ever provide reasons for why he says that? If so, what are they?
Sunday September 20, 2015
55.
Chapter 12 Questions a.
In verse 1 of chapter 12, Paul uses the word ‘therefore’, what conclusion is he seeking to draw and upon what basis? b.
What is it that Paul wants his hearers to ‘offer’ as a ‘living sacrifice?’ c.
What is a living sacrifice anyway? d.
In verse 2, there are two commands. What are they? Also in verse 2, a reason is given for the commands—a goal to achieve when the commands are obeyed. What is that reason or goal? e.
St. Paul says that in order to avoid thinking of oneself more highly than one ought to think, they should think…according to the measure of faith that
God has given to them. What did he mean? f.
According to verse 6, what is one of the causes that makes Christians to differ from one another? g.
Extra Credit! – Verses 9-21 are an extended list of commands. Instead of asking a question, I will ask that in preparation for class, that you take some time and write out each command and meditate for a minute or two on each one. This practice will take about an hour.
56.
Chapter 12 Outline a.
Reasonable Worship – 12:1-2 b.
Grace and Gifts – 12:3-8 c.
The Exhortations – 12:9-21 i.
For the Saints – 12:9-13 ii.
For Enemies – 12:14-21
57.
Chapter 12 Notes a.
St. Paul directed the Christians in Rome to ‘hate what is evil.’ We are to hate evil. But this does not mean that hate is the solution to evil. It seems to me that even after a proper hatred for evil arises in one’s heart, love must come to direct it towards a proper solution—“Do good to those who wrong you. Bless those who curse you.”
September 27, 2015
58.
Chapter 13 Questions a.
What ‘authority’ is Paul referring to in v.1? b.
Is ALL authority ‘from God’? c.
Is all ‘authority’ a terror to evil? What happens when it is a terror to good?

Should we disregard Romans chapter 13 in such cases? d.
In verses 1-4, is Paul being descriptive of what the ‘authorities’ that he was familiar with in his day were actually doing or is he being prescriptive and thus setting out the model for all ‘authority’? In other words, is Paul saying this is how the government in his day operated and functioned or is he saying that all governments ought to operate and function this way? e.
In verse 4, the same word is used for the governing official as is used for a
deacon. Does this make politics a sacred work? Should ‘church and state’ be separated? Did Paul think they should be? f.
In verse 4, Paul says that the authorities are there for one’s ‘good’? This verse has been used by some to push back against a popular view among some in our culture that believe in a kind of ‘small government’ that focuses solely on national security and public order---which are mainly functions for ‘protection.’ This verse has been used to say that the government’s duties extend beyond that to include ‘the common good’ as well. What are your thoughts on this? g.
In verse 5, Paul gives 2 reasons why Christians should obey the authorities. What are they? Can you name any others? Is this meant to be an exhaustive list? h.
Is verse 7, Paul supports paying taxes for government officials. Is he thereby sanctioning and/or cementing the idea of ‘public officials’ supported through taxation, or is he just accommodating to his situation? i.
Does verse 8 require that no Christian incur debt? Why or why not? j.
According to vv.9-10, is it possible to fulfill the law? k.
What did Paul mean when he told his readers that salvation was nearer to them than when they first believed?
59.
Chapter 13 Outline a.
The Christian and Civil Authority – 13:1-7 b.
Love and Law – 13:8-10 c.
The Christian Witness – 13:11-14
60.
Chapter 13 Notes