my take on the letter to the Romans has always been Paul's thesis on
the need for both Jews and Gentiles to be in reconciliation with one
another as Christ has reconciled all through Himself
Shalom
bammamma
So, as I progress through these readings, it strikes me that Paul
suggests it is faith that brings us to a place that is in ways
comparable to the same place the Psalter places us ...presumably on
God's initiative (with or without faith???).
Perry in Waterloo County
Paul describes the life of faith with reference to God, Jesus and
the Holy Spirit. Even now, we have peace with God through Jesus, and
our hope for the future is grounded in the love of God that we
experience through the Spirit.
I think I will do my sermon on one Greek word: "dikaiothentes" ...
"having been justififed."
An aorist that is also passive - a legal declaration of innocence
that was done to us in the past, and still stands as effective
today.
There is a month of sermons in this one word.
One could set up the courtroom scene with believers on trial before
the Father as the judge, Satan as the prosecuting attorney, Jesus as
our 'dream team' defense attorney, and the Holy Spirit who is our
star witness. This ties into Trinity Sunday, too.
Unfortunately this is heresy in that this analogy completely
separates the persons of the Trinity. But settle down...it's just an
analogy and not a 100% accurate description. All you have to do is
confound the three persons in next week's message and it'll even
out!
Luther in IA
-
v 7 - I never have understood that ... rarely will anyone die for a
righteous person, but maybe for a good person someone will..
What's the difference between a righteous person and a good person?
And, also, isn't that the exact opposite of human nature?
People, in complimenting another, might say something like, "I'd die
for him/her." and the implication is that the person is righteous,
or good. Yet, Paul's saying something entirely different.
Sally
Sally,
Isn't a righteous person one who has been redeemed by Jesus Christ,
and a "Good person" maybe someone who is morally good, but doesn't
know Christ? I think about the discussion between Jesus and the Rich
Young Ruler where Jesus asks him, why do you call me good? No one is
good but God alone!"
Susan in Wa.
"A good person" can also be translated "a good thing."
Luther in LA
In your courtroom scene, you might consider the Holy Spirit as the
defense attorney. The word John uses for Holy Spirit is Paraclete
and has courtroom connotations. Jesus would then have to be the
personal (incarnational) witness who has seen us and knows us
personally.
Lexicon entry: parakale,w), properly, summoned, called to one's
side, especially called to one's aid; hence,
1. "one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader,
counsel for defense, legal assistant; an advocate": Demosthenes, p.
341, 11; Diogenes Laėrtius 4, 50, cf. Dio Cassius, 46, 20.
Steve in WY
Sally
My own take on that verse is that Paul was trying to show those who
were insisting they were still the chosen Jews, and therefore
righteous because they still followed the law (were circumcised and
knew and followed the whole torah even as followers of the Way. They
would have been the "Brethren" mentioned by Paul in the 16th
chapter. He had already shown them that both Jews and Gentiles fell
"short of the Glory of God." Therefore Christ Crucifixion was for
sinfulness and not for so call righteous persons. My take is that
Paul was trying to get all the factions in Rome to "Welcome one
another," for they were all the same even those who considered
themselves righteous.
Shalom
bammamma
Along the trial theme:
from Easton's Bible Dictionary
Justification [N] [B]
a forensic term, opposed to condemnation. As regards its nature, it
is the judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of
those who believe in Christ, and accounts, accepts, and treats them
as righteous in the eye of the law, i.e., as conformed to all its
demands. In addition to the pardon (q.v.) of sin, justification
declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied in respect of
the justified. It is the act of a judge and not of a sovereign. The
law is not relaxed or set aside, but is declared to be fulfilled in
the strictest sense; and so the person justified is declared to be
entitled to all the advantages and rewards arising from perfect
obedience to the law (Romans 5:1-10). Susan in NE
Is anyone working with 5:1-5 only? I'm working with the title of "It
could have gone either way . . ." focusing on the fact that when
difficulties come in our life, we have the choice to hope or to
despair. Paul seems to be echoing some of what modern psychology
tells us in that choosing to hope will allow us to endure . . . even
triumph over suffering. If you remove the psychologizing, you still
end up in verse 5 with an affirmation of God's love and hope in that
love that allows one to believe that things will get better or that
there is hope even in the midst of suffering.
Jason in GA
Sally;
In the Old Testament (which was the Scripture they had back then)
the phrase "righteous" is not a moral term as we understand it, but
refers to someone who has a place in God's Community. Any member of
the worshipping community was among the righteous
revgilmer in texarkana
- Date:
What about Gods love being Poured into our hearts? Any thoughts
about this? I need help this week! Sactownrev
Is anyone intrigued by the verses which refer to endurance? I'm
playing with an idea for my small, struggling church that
"endurance" is a promise we need to grab, hold close and then learn
to run with...
In the UMC, this service is shared between Trinity and Peace with
Justice Sunday. I am trying ot reconcile the two concepts. The
Romans text is striking to me as a concept of a chain reaction of
redemption. Our personal redemption/reconciliation is initiated by
God (the Creator), enacted/manifested by God (the Word), and
sustained by God (the Pourer of love). I want to be careful not to
separate the Trinitarian Partners, but show how they work together
as Partners in the process without being absent in each step. Hence,
the use of the Proverbs scripture about Wisdom being there at the
creation event. Anyway, I see this redemptive process adopted and
repeated by us after the outpouring of love to bring peace with
justice into this world. Is any of this making sense? Help!
Sally,
As I see it, Paul is saying that it is rare but sometimes it could
happen that an individual would have the courage to die for a good,
righteous person. But Jesus died for us even when we were ungodly,
weak, sinners [and almost nobody else would do that!]. In other
words, I don't see Paul making a distinction between good and
righteous; he is using them as synonyms.
JKS
To Sally,
On verse 7, I think Paul is saying that, in a time of danger, one
might be willing to lay down their life for a "good person." Someone
might be willing to get in the way of the bullet that killed Gandhi-gi,
for example. Someone might be willing to take a bullet for a
president. However, who would take a bullet for, say, a common
person - or even, in this case, for a sinner?
Jason in GA
I'm doing only 1-5. My message is, "The Bridge the Trinity Built"
It's a bridge of GRACE (1-2a) - God built a bridge between Himself
and man which we come to solely by His grace. The word "peace" would
be "shalom" in Hebrew. We have, not only peace, but welcome and a
sense of belonging.
It's a bridge of GLORY (2b) - We boast in our hope (Eugene Peterson
calls it "alert expectation" of sharing the glory of God. At a
Christian home for educationally challenged children, they find that
the windows are always messy after they speak of Jesus' return. The
children press their faces and fingers against the windows looking
for Jesus to come back. This "hope" is "messy windows" expectation.
It's a bridge of GREATNESS (3-5) Suffering produces endurance
(fortitude), which strengthens, or even purifies our character
(Peterson calls it "the tempered steel of virtue") and it is this
character that produces a "messy window" hope in us. Suffering has a
purpose - to grow us in our hope and give us something to exult in -
His glory.
JG in WI
Jason - no, I disagree. Paul says "rarely" will someone die, and it
was my question, my point exactly!!! and he also says "someone MIGHT
dare to die"
But Still, Thank you, ALL for your comments on that verse. I ended
up drawing the same conclusion I always have.
*shrug* and say "Huh!" and go on!!! The idea of the pericope is that
our life of faith is one of endurance and character, and one to be
inspired by our justification by Jesus the Christ, our Lord. That we
are reconciled to him and to one another!
It buttresses my other opinion that Paul could have used a couple
courses in writing. He wouldn't have made it past "composition 101"
Sally in GA
:-)
You know, another thought just now occurred to me, as I posted the
last post.
I wonder how long Paul spent composing his letters, or if he dashed
them off quickly? Maybe that's why his sentences ramble, and he
includes parenthetical statement (or statements that ought to be
parenthetical) (haha, get it?)...
We place such importance on his words- and rightly so. His is the
"news you can use" of the Gospel. Still, maybe he didn't express
himself entirely accurately??? Food for thought, anyway.
Oh, the blasphemy!!!! dodge them lightning bolts!
All those who landed on the beaches of Normandy sixty years ago were
willing to die for the righteous and unrighteous throughout the
world. Sadly, the world was not fully reconciled with each other by
their deaths, as we have been by the death of Jesus. Lest we forget
. . . on both counts!
Don in ON
