哈巴谷书注释

「哈巴谷书按马索拉经文或希腊文圣经的排序，是十二小先知书中的第八卷，它在那鸿书之后，西番雅书之前。一般认为这三位先知是同时期的先知，而他们的信息都有共同的信念：耶和华在人的事上有主权，衪审判恶人、拯救义人。」¹

I. 先知

除了这位先知的名字，我们对他一无所知，他的名字并未在别的经文出现。 哈巴谷这名字从希伯来文「拥抱」这字而来，可能是「耶和华所拥抱的」（Habakkukiah）的简称。 ²

II. 时期

经文并没有提及日期，而用语大多是一般性质，能套用于许多时代，但书中提及迦勒底人（1:6），故此推算书卷的日期约在公元前七世纪末期。 迦勒底人在公元前614年攻打亚述，并在公元前612年攻打尼尼微，并追赶他们至哈兰的西面，公元前605年亚述被彻底打败了，从此不再被记录。因此，这书的写作日期应该是在公元前625和605之间。

III. 哈巴谷书

昆兰的文士对哈巴谷书非常感兴趣。在1950米勒伯勒斯（Millar Burroughs）出版了哈巴谷书的注释，该注释仅涉及前两章。从宗教史的角度来看，该注释是非常有趣的，但从诠释角度来说，则没有甚么价值。 ³

IV. 哈巴谷书的结构

先知发问了两个问题（1:2-4和1:12 - 2:1），在第二个问题后有附加语（2:1）。神回答了这两个问题（1:5-11和2:2-20），在祂开始回答第二个问题时，祂劝诫哈巴谷和信徒要信祂 (2:2-4)，接着，下半部份是给恶人的五祸。书卷的结束部份很特别，是一篇标题为「先知哈巴谷的祷告诗、调用流离歌」的诗，并在结语写上「这歌交与伶长、用丝弦的乐器」。 ⁴

V. 注释

A. 第一个问题： 为什么神不惩罚恶人 （1:1-4）

这预言被称为一个重担 (מֶשָּׂא Massah)，这是用来形容一个沉重的信息，它的含义是一个负面的后果将会来临，并经常用于列国（1:1）。

哈巴谷的哀歌和耶利米书（12:1-4）与及诗篇的诗人（诗篇73）类同：神不公允，恶人得志而义人受苦。先知要求神介入，但什么也没有发生。哈巴谷用了大量的词语：强暴、罪孽、毁灭、掠夺、争端和相斗，并责备神让他看见公义被颠覆，而正义却没有干预。

这导致律法没有效力。哈巴谷视妥拉（律法）是神纠正人生命的工具，但现在律法无力改变任何事情。公义没有把自己清楚显明出来，恶人围困义人。颠倒的公义取代了真正的公义。

B. 神的回应 (1:5-11)

神告诉哈巴谷祂要做一件使人震惊的事情，祂要兴起迦勒底人，他们是说亚兰语的人，经过数个世纪的渗透接管巴比伦；神的回应是：犹大犯罪，毁灭性的军队入侵犹大惩罚她。

接着是对迦勒底人很长的描述 ⁵。神使用了豹、狼和鹰作明喻来传达祂的观点 – 迦勒底人无所畏惧。第11节把他们描述作「像风猛然扫过」。 ⁶

C. 哈巴谷的第二个问题 (1:12-2:1) ⁷

哈巴谷对神给他第一个问题的回答并不满意，他的第二个问题难以确定谁是主体，是以色列还是巴比伦？ 因在1:17出现「列国」，故建议主体是后者。在这情况，哈巴谷现在要捍卫他的人民，反对透过巴比伦人带来严酷审判。 ⁸ 他坦承神的主权与公义。事实上，神已指出谁将被审判，祂将以残酷的迦勒底人来审判犹大。哈巴谷哀叹神袖手旁观（容忍它）。

哈巴谷书继续发展出令人惊叹的比喻。神创造了人类，要像海中群龙无首的鱼。「他们」（迦勒底人）撒渔网和捕获大量的人。接着他们敬拜他们的网。哈巴谷问神祂允许这情况延续多久（1:17)。

最后，先知暴躁地说要站立在楼上观看，直至神给他答复(2:1).

D. 神的第二次回应 (2:2-20)

神的回答带有轻微的责备。「我已告诉你，我将透过迦勒底人审判犹大，你对此不高兴。现在我再次告诉你，你必须接受，事情要按我所定的时间发生，不是按你的，但它们会发生！再者，你必须要信我和清楚明白以色列的义人，不管迦勒底人怎样不公平地对待他们，他们都必须凭着信心，信实地生活。」(2:2-4) ⁹

这回答的后半部份成为使徒保罗在罗马书1:17的救恩声明的基础。虽然两段经文按上下文有不同的背景，但它们却有相同的前提。按哈巴谷所说：义人必须凭着信而行，那是因为他们看不见神的计划怎样实行出来。同样，人必须按神救赎的应许凭着信而行，而非凭眼所能看到的或所能触及的 – 自己的工作。

透过一系列的「祸」，神表达祂会审判迦勒底人（参以赛亚书10:15-19，这经文是亚述被神使用来惩罚犹大，亚述因傲慢而被斥责）。

祸 #1 – 给醉酒的和掠夺的 (2:5-8)

在这里，这些祸都是针对巴比伦，原因是迦勒底人骄傲、 贪婪、 和吞噬许多国家和人民，犹如醉汉寻求酒，好像死亡寻找尸体，迦勒底人则追求国度的扩张。哈巴谷书1:5描述迦勒底人刚冒起，而2:5-19则显示这民族已前进并攻取许多的民，日期应是公元前605年以后，尼布甲尼撒彻底击溃了亚述人和接管他们的霸权。

「聚集万国、堆积万民、都归自己」是指征服了很多国家。被征服的会说：「你亏欠我们的。」并且稍后抢夺她。

祸 #2 – 给觊觎邪恶得益的人 (2:9-11)

迦勒底人希望创造足够的财富作为保障（在高处搭窝，用灾难性的手段）。她建议她的人民做违反律法的事情（邪恶的建议）从他人得益。但神却使她用欺诈手段所得的，成为她的攻击。

祸 #3 – 给流人血建城的人(2:12-14)

迦勒底人流人血来建城，但神所建的却是永恒的 — 如以赛亚（第11章）哈巴谷先知预见地上所有的人将会认识主，祂的荣光不单充满圣殿，还会覆盖全地。

祸 #4 – 给那些使邻舍醉酒的人(2:15-17)

旧约常常使用把酒递给列国使她们醉酒作比喻（愤怒的象征，参耶利米书25:15-19）。因迦勒底人使列国醉酒，神也要使她醉酒。使她赤身露体（不能在神前站立），以羞耻取代荣耀。迦勒底人的暴行会返回他们的头上。

祸 #5 – 虚空的偶像敬拜(2:18-20)

对于生活在现今世代的我们，难以理解古代偶像充斥各处的情况，也许前往印度游览，看看印度教的情况，就较容易理解这经文。巴比伦人和古代近东人同样敬拜偶像（在1:16他们敬拜用来捕鱼的网）。

在旧约，先知常常痛斥偶像敬拜是没有益处的。拜偶像的人敬拜不能言、人手所造的偶像；而耶和华却是圣殿里永活的神 – 全地都被命令在祂面前肃敬静默。第20节是神透过哈巴谷作的总结：我是拥有主权的神，我会实行我的神圣计划。

E. 哈巴谷先知透过祷告彰显神 (3:1-19)

这祷告的风格和诗篇里许多篇诗相似。整体而言是祈求神为祂子民的缘故应验应许。

1. 显现 （3:3-7） ¹⁰

这经文含有古老的概念和用语来表达神为子民前来对抗仇敌（参以赛亚书63:1-6；出埃及记15章），这里也隐含神在西乃山的显然。

2. 争战 （3:8-15）

哈巴谷使用图象和象征性语言提醒神与敌人那场宇宙的争战。江河、山岭、 深渊和天上的灵体都被人物化，全部起来与耶和华争战，但他们败下阵来。

3. 哈巴谷信心的响应（ 3:16-19 ）

哈巴谷预计迦勒底人会攻击他的人民。他承认这是从神而来，并且是必须的审判。无论面临怎样的灾难，他会在主里得安息；神的力量会给他能力取得胜利。

歌颂吧 ！

¹ Ralph L. Smith, “Micah-Malachi” in Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1984, p. 93.

² But see Smith,同上，Smith 认为它是一个外来词。

³ Millar Burrows, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. 1, New Haven: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950, plates LV-LXI.例如，当哈巴谷书提到迦勒底人，昆兰文士说它的解释是Kitim。我们从别处知道Kitim 是指罗马。

⁴ Smith, Ibid, p 95作者说：「哈巴谷书最后一章是一首祈祷诗。哈巴谷作为一位如上文所提的先知，以及调用流离歌（Shigionoth），哈巴谷先知可能是一位狂热的或圣殿的先知。」

⁵ Smith, Ibid., p. 94,这里说「大部份的旧约学者都同意哈巴谷书的大部份内容是公元前612至587的作品，或许有小部份在较后期曾加以编辑。」

⁶ Ibid., p. 100. NIV “Then they sweep past like the wind and go on.

⁷ Smith, Ibid., p. 905,认为应该是较后的时期 –公元前597当尼布甲尼撒向耶路撒冷施压。

⁸ See Chisholm, pp. 187-188.

⁹ Chisholm, p. 191

¹⁰ See Smith, Ibid, p. 115,讨论西乃山的神圣显现。

Introduction

One of the deepest longings of mankind has always been to have communion with a higher being.  The priests of ancient cults were held in awe by the common people; Greek cities created their own gods; mystery religions promised communion with a deity through secret rites in a way strikingly similar to the Masons and Mormons.

Modern man is a bit more sophisticated, but he still yearns for intimacy with a higher being.  Our "gods" nowadays are usually celebrities.  We jump at the opportunity to get chummy with baseball players and beauty queens, movie stars and presidents (which, sometimes, are one and the same). 

But our gods are feeble.  Our heroes are turning out to be villains: football players are beating their wives; and when they're not beating them, they're cheating on them.  Presidents, congressmen and TV evangelists are hopping from bed to bed.  Our heroes disappoint us; the super beings have feet of clay.

Christianity, however, holds forth the promise of fellowship with a perfect, immutable, omnipotent God.  The Scriptures are clear that there is but one God--the sovereign of the universe, the creator of all that is.  He is incomprehensible, yet knowable; transcendent, yet immanent. 

But with the possibility of fellowship with such a God, we are faced with a dilemma: How can sinful human beings have fellowship with a holy God?  Indeed, the Greek word for "fellowship," κοινωνία, means "having something in common."  And what could sinful man possibly have in common with a holy God? 

This tension is a very real one.  There is a tendency, on the part of all of us, to either suppress the degree of our sinfulness, or to tone down God's majesty and brilliance. 

How can sinful man have anything in common with a holy God?  By one means and one means only: the blood-stained cross of Christ.  Because of the substitutionary death of the God-man, we have the audacity--the right even--to call the God of the Universe "Father"!

One of the most remarkable things about Christianity is this fellowship with God.  We don't read of fellowship with God even in the Old Testament.  The difference is not a lowering of God's standard, but an elevation of the believer: we are hoisted up to heaven on the cross of Christ.

The cross provides access to the Father: it gives us a new birth so that we are indeed the children of God.  Yet, Christians still sin.  We are still depraved.  Even though we are God's children, we often don't walk with God as we ought.  And it is our ongoing sinfulness, after we are saved, which causes us to suppress the moral differences between God and ourselves.

Some have been Christians for several years, even decades.  And yet you still struggle with sin.  What do you do with that sin?  What do you do when you sin?

The apostle John speaks to this issue.  In his first epistle, he lays out the basic prerequisite for ongoing fellowship with God, in 1 John 1:5-10.

Body

The first prerequisite for ongoing fellowship with God is an admission of our condition.  John makes this very clear in this text.

A.  Denial of Darkness in God (1:5)

First, he establishes the ground rules: the One with whom we have fellowship is light and in him there is no darkness at all. 

There are two opinions as to what light means in this text.  Are we talking about moral light or about self-revelation?  That is, when John says that God is light does he mean that God is a holy God or that he reveals himself?  Is John addressing God's essence or his disclosure? 

Both uses of light are found in scripture.  Theophanies in the OT were accompanied by great light.  Paul says that God dwells in unapproachable light.  Texts such as these speak of God's holiness.  But the Bible also uses light as an idiom for God's self-revelation.  Jesus Christ is called "the effulgence of the glory of God" in Hebrews 1:3.  In other words, he is the revelation of God incarnate.  This is not to deny God's holiness, of course, but it is to principally address the disclosure of himself to mere mortals. 

Many scholars are persuaded that in 1 John 1:5 the author puts the accent on God's moral attributes when he uses the term "light."  Thus: If we want to have fellowship with God, we must first of all recognize that God's view of sin has not changed between the Testaments.  He is still a holy God: there is no speck of darkness, no hint of moral fuzziness in the Almighty.  To be in the light, then, means to be holy. 

The other view is that God's light refers to his self-revelation.  In other words, God sheds light on who he is and, as we step into that light, on who we are.  "Walking in the light" in this case means being honest with God.  It means not trying to hide our sin--either from him or from ourselves.

The problem with the first view is just one little thing: it doesn't fit the context.¹  First of all, if God's holiness were primarily in view, we would expect some discussion of various kinds of sin--gluttony, adultery, drunkenness, gossip, envy, etc.  None of this is mentioned.  Instead, the focus is on truth vs. lying.  And lying is fundamentally covering up the truth in darkness.  The one thing that is urged here, in fact, is not something like "Be holy, for I am holy," but "confess your sins."  In other words, "be honest about your lack of holiness, because you can't hide from me anyway."

Second, the overarching theme of 1 John has to do with fellowship.  And fellowship, κοινωνία, means "having something in common."  What could we possibly have in common with a holy God?  If we are to have anything in common with God, it must first be an agreement with him about who we are and who he is.  The first prerequisite to fellowship with God is honesty. 

Third, the metaphor of light works well with this view.  The relationship of light to dirt is twofold: first, light reveals the dirt.  But second, light cannot be contaminated by dirt.  When God shines on us, this exposes our sin, but it does not defile God.  When we agree with him about that sin, we are walking in the light.

Illustration: My wife and I have a very open relationship.  I am honest with her about my struggles as a man.  We can have marvelous fellowship in spite of me.  But when I hide from her who and what I am, our fellowship is diminished.  We've been married twenty-two years.  And the thing I love about her--really love about her--is that she continues to fully accept me, even though she knows me better and better every year.  I am convinced that The basis of a good marriage is not two absolutely holy people, but two deeply honest people.

B.  Admission of Depravity by Men (1:6-10)

After establishing who God is, John turns to us and how we relate to God.  John will not permit us to rationalize about our sin.  To be in God's light means to be exposed to the truth about himself and ourselves. 

Yet, there is a pernicious problem we face.  In vv. 6-10, John mimics three errant views that his opponents held and then shows how they miss the mark.  All have to do with the depravity of men; all have to do with hiding from the light.

1.  Walking in Darkness (1:6-7)

First, in v. 6 John says: "And if we say that we have fellowship with him and yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."

John continues the imagery he began in v. 5, that of light and darkness. 

The first prerequisite to fellowship: walk in the light.  Be honest with God about who and what you are! 

But this raises a problem.  To have fellowship with God, to be in the light, don't we have to live a sinless life?  That would seem to be the case if light meant holiness.

The implications about this are vast: if "light" means holiness, then to walk in the light would seem to mean absolute holiness.  It is precisely because some folks have understood light this way that they view fellowship with God as something we can be in one moment and out of the next.  I think this approach produces a schizophrenic Christian who ends up thinking he's spiritual one moment and carnal the next.  Worse, he begins to focus on his performance more than on his relationship to God.  Never does habit or character enter into this picture of spirituality. 

And, quite frankly, such a view of spirituality actually promotes sin.  Because this view allows me to take fleshly detours all I want: as long as I just confess my sins afterward, I'm spiritual again. 

Further, you really can't base this view of spirituality on 1 John 1.  Notice what John says in verse 7: "but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

To walk in the light is not to live without sin: otherwise, the blood of Jesus would not be needed to cleanse us while we are walking in the light.  All the verbs in this verse are present tense.  The force seems to be that while we are walking in the light the blood of Jesus is cleansing us from our sins. 

This text is not, therefore, speaking of being "in fellowship" and "out of fellowship" on a moment-by-moment basis.  If "light" means "exposure," this would mean that one second we're admitting that we're sinners, and denying it the next.  Such a view is neither true to life nor to the scriptures.

But if "light" means honesty and integrity and transparency, then to walk in the light is not absolute holiness.  But it is the necessary prerequisite to holiness.

2.  Confessing our Sins and our Sin (1:8-10)

In vv. 8-10, John switches from his metaphor and gets down to the nitty-gritty. 

Verse 8: "If we say that we have no sin, we lie and the truth is not in us."  The man who claims to have no sin is the one who claims to have no guilt.  In effect, he is saying that his sins don't matter to God, that not only does God not care about his sin, but that he is not responsible for his actions. 

Verse 9 contrasts the attitude of verse 8: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  "

John is speaking here not of the confession which leads to salvation, but of the ongoing, repeated confession of the Christian.   He is not addressing justification, but sanctification. 

There is much confusion about what confession of sins involves. 

In general, confession moves in two directions in scripture: confession about God and confession about ourselves.  Both such confessions involve belief, not merely acknowledgment.  Fundamentally, it is a recognition that God is in control and we are not.

Some have argued that the word used here for "confess," ὁμολογέω, means "only to name your sins to God."²  "It does not mean to renounce your sins."³  It is further asserted that confession in this context is merely a judicial term, as if we are standing before God as our judge and simply agreeing with him about our sin.  One author put it this way:

Before the Supreme Court of heaven, how you feel about your sin is of no consequence.

Confession that compels self-reproach or penance is blasphemy and rejects the grace of God.  Never insult God by adding an emotional plea for forgiveness.  1 John 1:9 does not say, If we ask or beg for forgiveness.  Just acknowledge your sins.⁴

There is much that is true in this statement--and much that is false.  And that's the problem.  Too many Christians view the text just this way--and they end up sinning more and more and enjoying God less and less.  A proper understanding of confession in 1 John 1:9 involves several points.

First, confession involves belief.  It is to agree with God about our sin.  Such acknowledgment is not merely on a cognitive level, however.  Notice the context: v. 8--"if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves."  Now, obviously, if someone merely says that he has no sin, he doesn't deceive himself.  What is spoken must be believed.  I could say to you, "There is no God."  But that statement doesn't make me an atheist unless I believe it.  It is the same for confession of sin.  If we confess our sins, without even trying to enter into an understanding of the depths of our sin, we deceive ourselves. 

This is one of the problems I have with formulaic Christianity, or "connect the dot theology."  We tend to push God away by all the formulas we create.  Every Christian knows how to "1 John 1:9" it!  You go get drunk and afterward "1 John 1:9" it.  You pick up a Playboy for the "intellectual stimulus" it provides.  So, you get a little carried away and you start reading as if by Braille!  Well, you can just "1 John 1:9 it" and get back on track .  Right?  Friends, that's not spirituality.  And that's not confession. 

The very fact that "1 John 1:9" has become a part of our religious idiom indicates that we too often view this text mechanically--and therefore our relationship with God mechanically, too.  Quite frankly, we have come to use this text in such a way that trivializes sin and builds callousness toward God as our Father. 

First and foremost, then, confession of sins is an admission of guilt--an admission which we affirm both in word and heart.  Thus, confession always involves belief.

Second, confession of sin involves a recognition of our inadequacy and our need.  When I confess, "Dear Lord, I confess my sins.  And I promise, I'll never do that again!" I am being totally dishonest with God.  In the same breath we tell God we screwed up and that we have the ability to keep from blowing it again!  But didn't Jesus say, "Apart from me you can do nothing"?  And didn't Paul tell us that "no one does good, not even one"--and that even believers constantly "fall short of the glory of God"? 

On the one hand, it is good to express shock and horror over our sin before God.  But when we express disbelief ("How could I have ever done that?") then we are dangerously close to thinking that we have the ability apart from the Holy Spirit to get back on track.  Fundamentally, confession is being honest with God about who we are.

Third, the context for the confession is not just judicial: it is also relational. On the one hand, confession is before God as the one who passes judgment.  And he passes no judgment on those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ.  There is a precious truth here: because Christ has paid the full price of sin, it would be unjust of God to dole out a penalty on any who are in Christ.  Therefore, it is not necessary, nor is it even right to plead with God to forgive us.  Such pleading would be a slap in the face of Jesus--he paid the full price!  That is why it is just for God to forgive us our sins: Jesus already paid the price.

So I can quite agree with those who see a judicial context for the confession here.  But there is more--much more.  If this were merely a judicial context, we would expect to see only legal terms used.  We would not expect to see any family terminology. 

But notice:

vv. 2-3--"Father" is used twice; "fellowship" is mentioned (we can't have fellowship with a Judge)

vv. 6-7 (again, we don't have fellowship with a Judge)

2:1 (Jesus Christ is our advocate, yes!  But with the Father!  John mixes his metaphors here.  It is a marvelous picture of the twofold way we should relate to God.)

I believe that the Westminster Shorter Catechism is quite correct when it says: "What is the chief end of man?  To glorify God and enjoy him forever."  Until we come to grips with seeing God as Father we not only can't enjoy him; we also will not understand what it truly means to confess our sins to him.

God is not just a place where we dump our sins.  God is a person; he is our Father.  Understanding this relationship helps us to understand the next point.

Fourth, confession of sin always involves repentance.  The scriptures are very clear that one cannot come into a relationship with God without repentance; and they are equally clear that one cannot sustain fellowship with God without repentance.

When Luke speaks about salvation he uses terms such as "repent, believe," and "turn away from sins."  All of these terms are used frequently in the book of Acts.  Sometimes only "believe" is mentioned as that which saves a person.  We're all familiar with Acts 16:31-- "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."  Some folks like to think that the whole gospel is summed up in those words.  In many respects, that is true.  But notice what is missing: not one word about what to believe is mentioned.  Who is this Jesus Christ that the Philippian jailer was to believe in?  Could he believe anything about him that he wanted--and still get saved?  Obviously not.  He couldn't deny his resurrection, for example.  What is going on here happens very frequently in the NT--something of a theological shorthand.  Paul must have communicated the contents of the gospel to the jailer ahead of time.  When the time was right, he simply said, "believe."

Elsewhere in Acts "believe" is not even mentioned, yet it is obvious that faith is required.  Notice Acts 3:18--"Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out."  Is Luke saying that one's sins can be forgiven apart from faith?  Or is he saying there are two different ways to get saved: one is by faith and the other is by repentance?  No way!  He is simply using this theological shorthand, focusing on one aspect in this text.

In some texts Luke combines both faith and repentance.  Notice Acts 20:21.  This is the heart of Paul's gospel message.  The construction in Greek suggests the closest possible connection between repentance and faith.  In fact, one might say that all genuine faith includes repentance.

What I am getting at is this: just as belief or faith does not always need to be mentioned in the text for us to know that it is there, so also repentance does not always need to be mentioned. 

Back to 1 John 1:9: Now, you might say: "But the word 'repentance' is not even in the text.  How can that be part of confession?"  Because interpreting the scriptures is not just doing a bunch of unconnected Greek word studies and etymologies.  It is examining the words that a particular author uses in their contexts.

Every seminary student knows that the books of the Bible need to be interpreted in light of the author's usage of terms and expressions.  Some writers prefer the word "repent" to speak of how we, as Christians, should relate to God.  Some use "trust"; still others use "obey" or "confess."  All of this is to say that we are both depraved and deprived--we need both God's mercy and his power to face sin.  In order to understand the words in a given context, you must understand how that author uses the terms.  Let me illustrate:

Say, my mother writes a letter.  In it, she says: "Dad's just a bit depressed these days."  I would regard that as alarming news!  My father is a rock, dependable, never down.

But suppose someone else's mother wrote a letter with exactly the same words.  The child receiving the letter might think this was indeed good news!  "just a bit depressed" means he's doing great.  Why? Because this dad is always depressed.

Remember, reading the NT letters is like listening to half a phone conversation . . .  Unless you know the party on the other end, it's difficult to tell what is being said.

Let me illustrate this further with scripture. 

Gospel of John: called the "Gospel of Belief."  Yet the noun "belief" or "faith" never occurs in this Gospel (I'm referring to the Greek text).  Would we have to say then that the idea of faith is absent in John because the term is never used?  Of course not.  We understand what an author means not just by his words, but by how he uses his words.

This really is a very important concept to grasp.  It's easy for us to get so caught up in the words of the text that we forget their meaning.  So let me illustrate further: "My mother used to like climbing vines."  What do I mean by that?  (There are two options here.  Either my mother used to like vines that climb, or else she used to climb to climb vines.  How can you tell what I mean by these words unless you know me or my mother?) 

Now, back to 1 John 1:9 (again!): even though John does not use the word "repent," he certainly implies it.  "Repent" is a term, in fact, that John never uses--either in the Gospel of John, or in 1 John, or 2 John, or 3 John.  But that doesn't mean that John is opposed to repentance any more than he's opposed to faith.  Because when he gets to Revelation, when he quotes the resurrected and glorified Lord Jesus in his instructions to the seven churches, all of a sudden repentance shows up in John's writings.  And eight times the Lord tells these churches to repent.  At one point, he even says, "Those whom I love, I chasten and reprove.  Be zealous, therefore, and repent" [3:19].  Repentance, then, is a part of how Christians continually relate to God.

I fail to see much of a difference between "repentance" in one place and "confession" in another.  If forgiveness is promised for those Christians who repent in one place, and to those Christians who confess in another, does this make either action unnecessary?  Of course not.  It simply means that the terms used are different.⁵  And it just so happens that John preferred to use the term confess while Jesus preferred to use the term repent. 

Unless we want to say that John disagreed with Jesus, I think it's best to see confession as including repentance.

Why is this so important?  Precisely because how you view confession indicates how you view God.  Is he merely the Chief Justice who dispenses grace whenever we "name our sins," or is he is our Father?

[Illustration:] I have a friend who loves golf. In fact, he's got a whole room dedicated to the sport.  Now suppose his son one day goofs around in the man's special room.  And the boy starts swinging a club . . . accidentally slices into Byron Nelson's autographed picture.  Later, he confesses his sin to his father.  And the conversation goes something like this:

"Dad, I sliced off Byron's neck.  Sorry about that!"  And he walks out of the room to go play.  Is that true confession?  I don't think so.  Why?  Because he's not concerned about the relationship.  He's just using his dad. 

But if he comes to his father and says, "Dad, there's something I need to confess.  Today, I was goofing around in your study.  And I did a terrible thing.  I wrecked your picture of Byron Nelson.  I know how important that was to you.  It was foolish of me to be messing around in your study.  I am truly sorry."

That would be true confession.

In neither scenario would the young man think that his father would not forgive him.  But only in the second one does he truly confess.  Confession before a judge might not involve repentance--heck, you'll never see that judge again; but confession before a Father always does, because you live with the man.

Fifth, confession involves acknowledging our sins and our sin.  We are to confess not just what we have done, but also what we are (v. 8).  We are not honest to God if we simply admit the symptoms, or feel sorry only for the consequences.

Most Christians have an incredibly naive and simplistic view of sin.  Typically, we view sin in terms of action and consequences, not in terms of attitude and causes.  But sinful acts are merely the end result of a process. 

Illustration: If you see a newborn baby with its mother, you know that that didn't just happen.  It was the end result of a process that started several months ago, and, most likely, involved someone else.

James says when lust is tempted, it conceives sin and sin brings forth death [Jas 1:14-15].  In other words, there is movement from lust to temptation to overt sin to death.  When we bandage up the overt sin, we're not dealing with the whole problem.  We're really lying to ourselves about the root causes of such sins.

This kind of approach to sin is like fleeing temptation, but leaving a forwarding address!

3.  Admitting Past Sinfulness (1:10)

When we rationalize about what we have already done, it is as if we are calling God "the devil." The Greek text should probably be translated, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him [God] to be the liar, and the truth is not in us."  To deny our sin is to turn heaven into hell and hell into heaven.  We need to be honest with God about who we are and who we were.

Conclusion

I am more and more convinced that the basics of what God expects of us can be laid out very simply.  The Christian life is not difficult to understand; it's just impossible to accomplish--that is, apart from the work of the Spirit in our lives.  At bottom, God wants us to be honest with him about what we are and who he is.  We must both admit our condition and accept God's provision.  We must live in constant dependence on him.  The Christian life cannot be lived without faith.  Nor can it be lived if we deny our sinfulness.

We have bought into a great myth about holiness.  We think that the longer we are Christians, the holier we become--and the holier we feel.  That just ain't the case.  Spiritual growth does not mean that we feel holy.  Just the opposite: it means that we feel sinful--and we know that God has forgiven our sin.  It means that as we step more and more into God's light, the cobwebs and dirt and grime in the dark corners of our soul get exposed.  Just when we thought we had our house in order, God shines his floodlight on a neglected spot.  It's a spot that's been there for so long, we thought it was part of the floor pattern.  But God says it's dirt, and we come to agree.  You can't argue with a floodlight.  But we can't get that spot out.  Only the Holy Spirit can.  And when we admit to God that that's dirt and we can't clean it up, but HE CAN, then we're being honest with God!

At bottom, confession involves honesty in a relationship to our Father.  That's one reason I don't personally care for the expression, "Rebound and keep moving."  Because to many Christians that means:

make a pit stop at the Calvary filling station and dump all your trash there

then, quickly fill up the tank with high octane Holy Spirit fuel.

And pay at the pump  with your Father's Visa card. 

Then, get out of there as fast as you can, and get on down the road where we can drive like the devil.

If this is what "rebound and keep moving" is all about, I want nothing to do with it.  We are to embrace God's forgiveness--yes!  But we are also to embrace God as our Father!  He is not the means to an end, or a temporary pit stop along the way.  He is the end, he is the goal. 

The Westminster Shorter Catechism nailed spirituality on the head: "What is the chief end of man?  To glorify God and enjoy him forever."

¹See Robert Law, The Tests of Life, 57-59.

²R. B. Thieme, Jr. Rebound and Keep Moving (Houston: n.p., 1993), 20.

³R. B. Thieme, Jr. Spirituality By Grace (Houston, 1971) 16.

⁴Rebound, 20.

⁵Incidentally, only Jesus is said to "confess" anything in Revelation.  This again illustrates the fallacy of associating words with concepts.

Opening Remarks

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the presence of God and this company to join (Groom ___________ and (Bride) ___________ in the holy bonds of matrimony. Marriage is an institution ordained of God when man's estate was that of innocence and supreme happiness. God prepared a perfect home for Adam and placed him in the midst of a beautiful garden rich in earth's choicest fruits. He gave him blessed employment, free from anxiety and toil, in caring for the garden. At first man was alone, having no human associate and helper. Birds and beasts and all the living creatures of earth could not bring him satisfaction. God is pictured as noting man's incompleteness and lack of perfect happiness apart from woman. Now follows the beautiful story of the forming of woman from the side of man. Let us not forget the great lessons God would teach by this story. Let us look at the proper relation between husband and wife, "that she was not made out of his head to rule over him; nor out of his feet to be trampled on by him; but out of his side to be equal with him; under his arm to be protected; and near his heart to be beloved." When God made woman He made her to be man's helper and companion. "I will make for him a help, as his counter-part," said God. What nobler mission could woman desire than this? God's thought about marriage is the union of one man and one woman in perpetual wedlock. We would naturally infer from our Savior's presence and the part He played at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, that he considered the act of matrimony well worth His own recognition; but when He selected the tie that binds husband an wife as a fit emblem of His relationship to His own ransomed church He broadened and deepened its significance until there is no tie on earth so binding and none so sacred, as that which binds men and women in the holy bonds of matrimony. Such a relationship then, should not be entered into thoughtlessly, insincerely or indiscreetly, but advisedly, thoughtfully, and in fear of God.

Presentation

Will the parents of the Bride and Groom please stand?

Pastor to Bride's Parents -- Who is bringing (Bride) ___________ to be joined in holy matrimony to (Groom) ___________ ?

Brides Parents -- We are.

Pastor to Groom's Parents -- Who is bringing (Groom) ___________ to be joined in holy matrimony to (Bride) ___________?

Groom's Parents -- We are.

Pastor to Parents -- Are you willing now and always to support and strengthen this marriage by upholding both (Bride) ___________ (Groom) ___________ with your love, your concern, your counsel, and your prayers?

Both Sets of Parents -- We are.

Pastor -- Thank you, you may be seated.

Wedding Vows

If therefore, it be your desire to be united in this holy bond, will you signify that fact by joining your right hands.

Pastor to Groom -- Do you ___________, take this woman whose hand you now hold, to be your true and wedded wife; and do you solemnly promise before God and these witnesses to LOVE, CHERISH, HONOR AND PROTECT HER: to forsake all others for her sake; to cleave unto her, and her only, until death shall part you?

Groom -- I do.

Pastor to Bride -- Do you ___________, take this man who now holds your hand, to be your true and wedded husband; and do you solemnly promise before God and these witnesses to LOVE, CHERISH, HONOR AND PROTECT HIM, to forsake all others for his sake; to cleave unto him and him only, and him forever until death shall part you?

Bride -- I do.

Pastor to Groom -- ___________, REPEAT AFTER ME: I, ___________ , take thee, (Bride) __________ be my wedded wife . . . to have and to hold...from this day forward . . . for better or worse . . . for richer, for poorer.. in sickness and in health . . . till death do us part . . . and thereto I plight my troth. (or pledge my faithfulness)

Pastor to Bride -- ___________ REPEAT AFTER ME: I, ___________, take thee, (groom) __________ to be my wedded husband . . to have and to hold.. from this day forward . . . for better, for worse . . . or richer, for poorer . . . in sickness and in health . . . till death do us part . . . and thereto I plight you my troth. (or pledge my faithfulness)

Solo

Prayer

Dear ones, may I invite you to kneel as you commit your lives to God in prayer. (Bride and groom may pray)

Pastor Prays

Ring Vows

Pastor to Groom -- ___________ what pledge do you give to (Bride) ___________

Groom -- A ring.

Pastor to Groom -- And this Ring, do you give to (Bride) _______ as a sign and seal of the endless affection with which you will cherish her, and the unbroken fidelity with which you will perform to her the vows of a husband? Do you?

Groom -- I do.

Pastor to Groom -- _____________, As you place this ring on (Bride's) ___________ please repeat after me. WITH THIS RING I THEE WED; AND WITH ALL MY WORLDLY GOODS, I THEE ENDOW . . .

Pastor to Bride -- ___________, what pledge to you give (Groom) ___________?

Bride -- A ring.

Pastor to Bride -- And this ring, do you give to him as a sign and seal of the endless affection with which you will cherish him, and the unbroken fidelity with which you will perform to him the vows of a wife? Do you?

Bride answers -- I do.

Pastor to Bride -- ___________, as you place this ring on (Groom's) _________ finger, please repeat after me, WITH THIS RING I THEE WED: AND WITH ALL MY WORLDLY GOODS, I THEE ENDOW . . .

Prayer sealing the Rings

Pronouncement

In consideration of these solemn and sacred pledges, I am authorized by the laws of the state of __________ in your marriage license and by the laws of God in His Holy Word, to pronounce you husband and wife. As I do this, let me remind you that henceforth you are one; one in interest, one in reputation and above all else one in affection. What God HATH JOINED TOGETHER, LET NO MAN PART ASUNDER.

Prayer (Kneeling)

Benediction

Embrace

Presentation

May I present to you, Mr. and Mrs. ___________

Recessional

A. Introduction

The apostle Paul was unreservedly committed to Christ and to the ministry of the gospel. He regarded himself as called to both his master’s side and to the promulgation of the good news—news inextricably bound up with the death, resurrection, and exaltation of his Lord and God’s richest blessing upon sinful, erring human beings. In short, his self-construal was—and always will be—since the Damascus road anyway, one who was a free and willing slave of the Lord Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly, he could think of no higher calling and privilege.

Dedicated athletes illustrate similar allegiance, trust, and responsiveness to their admired coaches. They often provide examples of belief in another. Indeed, they willingly promote their coach’s agenda in their own lives and in the lives of other players. His goals become their goals. A university basketball player, for example, who believes in his coach because his coach knows what it takes to win (after all, he’s a former NBA champion), will do whatever that coach says. He believes the coach is right. If the coach tells the player to change this or that technique, he will do it even if it feels awkward and initially causes him to shoot poorly. If the coach says to run four miles a day or lift weights thirty minutes a day, the dedicated athlete will do it even though it hurts.

Now, of course, there can be downsides to strong, negative coaching influences, but where the relationship is positive and healthy, why does it happen? Because the athlete believes the coach knows better than he/she does what it takes to play at peak performance and to win under pressure. When you truly believe in a person in authority, you follow that person, gratefully responding to their every direction. Our obedience to Christ is of a similar nature.¹⁶

• He who serves two masters must lie to one!
• True freedom is found in bondage to Jesus Christ.

B. Translation of Passage in NET

1:1 From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God 1:2 that he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with respect to the flesh, 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. 1:5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. 1:6 You also are among them, called to belong to Jesus Christ. 1:7 To all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

C. Full Exegetical Outline

I. The nature of Paul’s Christian vocation was that he was a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God—that is, the promised good news concerning Jesus Christ (his humanity and divine nature)—and that through him Paul received, for the sake of Christ’s name of “Lord,” grace and apostleship in order to lead Gentiles to trust Christ (1:1-5).

A. The nature of Paul’s vocation was that he was a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God (1:1).

1. Paul was a servant of Christ Jesus.

2. Paul was called as an apostle.

3. Paul was set apart for the gospel of God.

B. The gospel of God was promised beforehand through the prophets in holy scripture and concerns Jesus as the son of God—a descendent of David according to the flesh, and the one declared the son-of-God-in-power, according to the Holy Spirit, and by his resurrection from the dead (1:2-4).

1. The gospel of God was promised by the prophets in the holy scriptures of the Old Testament (1:2).

2. The gospel of God concerns Jesus, God’s son, who was a descendent of David according to the flesh (i.e., according to his human lineage; 1:3).

3. The gospel of God concerns Jesus Christ who was appointed the son-of-God- in-power according to the Spirit and by his resurrection from the dead (1:4).

C. Through Christ, Paul received grace and apostleship in order to lead Gentiles to trust Christ for the sake of the name of Jesus, i.e., Lord (1:5).

II. The Roman Christians, to whom Paul gives his customary greeting of “grace and peace,”  were called to belong to Christ Jesus, loved by God, and called as saints (1:6-7).

A. The Roman Christians were called to belong to Jesus Christ (1:6).

B. The Roman Christians are loved by God (1:7).

C. The Roman Christians are called as saints (1:7).

D. Paul greets the Roman Christians with his typical greeting of “grace and peace to you from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:7).

D. Simple Point Outline

I. Paul: His Vocation, The Nature of the Gospel, and the Purpose for His Apostleship (1:1-5)

A. Paul’s Vocation (1:1)

1. He Was A Servant of Jesus Christ.

2. He Was Called As An Apostle.

3. He Was Set Apart for the Gospel of God.

B. The Nature of the Gospel of God (1:2-4)

1. It Was Promised in the Holy Scriptures.

2. It Concerns Jesus God’s Son.

3. It Concerns Jesus as a Descendent of David.

4. It Concerns Jesus as the Son-of-God-in-Power.

C. The Purpose of Paul’s Apostleship (1:5)

II. Paul’s Greeting to the Roman Christians: Their Calling, Love from God, Status as Saints, Greeting Proper (1:6-7)

A. They Were Called to Belong Jesus Christ.

B. They Are Loved by God.

C. They Were Called To Be Saints.

D. They Have Grace and Peace from God.

E. Exposition Proper

Before we actually look at the details of Romans 1:1-7, a few things need to be pointed out. First, the actual introduction to Romans begins in 1:1 and ends in 1:17. This unit itself, however, can be broken down into three distinct, yet related sections. The first section is the salutation proper in 1:1-7. It concerns Paul’s apostolic calling and mission, along with his heartfelt, yet semi-typical greeting given to a church. The second section is 1:8-15 and concerns Paul’s desires and plans to visit the church in Rome. The third section, namely 1:16-17, concerns the power of the gospel. It serves as a thematic outline for the entire book. More will be said on these points, their inter-relation and contribution to the book as a whole, as we move through the commentary.

The second point we want to make relates to the nature of the salutation in 1:1-7. The typical format in the Greco-Roman world in Paul’s day was to include the name of the sender, the recipients, and a brief greeting (“From A to B, Greetings”). All of this Paul has done, following the standard formula. He has, however, greatly lengthened the salutation in comparison with other examples from the culture. The lengthening of this section demonstrates the emphasis Paul placed on the gospel and his relationship to it. Thus the salutation has a distinctive theological and christological orientation, something obviously unheard of in the wider pagan world.

Third, the introduction in 1:1-17 is similar in many respects to the ending of the letter in 15:14-16:27 (esp. 15:14-33; 16:25-27). Together they form a kind of inclusio (i.e., book ends) with great stress laid on Paul’s mission to Gentiles, the gospel, and obedience (= faith).

1:1 Paul refers to himself by his Latin (Roman citizen) name Paul (perhaps his cognomen), rather than his Jewish name, Saul—a change which is recorded in Acts 13:9, 13.¹⁷ What is most amazing about Paul the author or Romans is not that he didn’t have the rhetorical skill or intellectual prowess to write well, but that justification by faith through grace should be the subject discoursed upon by this one time persecutor of the church, legalist, and Christ hater. Paul, the converted Pharisee, was the God-ordained, Spirit led author of this marvelous epistle in which he unfolds the gospel of God’s mercy and righteousness. The fact that God used such a man reflects the stunning freedom of His grace and the transformation He brings through the gospel. In short, Paul was a living example of the things about which he spoke (and still speaks) in Romans. 

Further, Paul’s name appears alone in the salutation, whereas in his other letters, except Ephesians and the pastorals, he always includes his coworkers with him, if not by name (e.g., 1, 2 Cor) then at least generally speaking (Gal 1:1-2). There is good evidence that he wrote the letter from Corinth and that Timothy was with him (cf. Rom 16:21), so why does he not include him and possibly others in his opening greeting? After all, this appears to have been his habit. First, it must be noted that since Timothy is portrayed in a positive light in 16:21 it does not seem likely that Paul refused to mention him because he had fallen into disrepute with the Roman church. Yet again, Paul does not mention him. The most likely suggestion is that since Romans is Paul’s exposition of his gospel, and since he sought financial assistance from the Romans to preach his gospel into Spain, he mentions only himself in order to take ownership for his doctrine. The letter to the Romans explains the pure gospel he preaches and teaches and this is the gospel the Roman church can be sure he will carry to the west! Mentioning Tertius as the amanuensis need not count against this thesis (16:22). Also, the fact that Paul goes on to label himself “a servant of Christ Jesus, an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God…to call people from among all the Gentiles” seems to stress his personal and profound commitment to the preaching of the gospel, a fact further highlighted by the conspicuous absence of any mention of his co-laboring friends.

In Romans 1:1 he gives himself three designations: “slave,” “apostle,” and “set apart.” First, Paul considered himself a slave of Christ Jesus (δούλος Χριστοῦ  ᾿Ιησοῦ, doulos christou Iēsou). While it was unthinkable to a cultured Greek that a relationship with a divine being would involve slavery, it was not at all uncommon for the Jew. Undoubtedly the background for the expression “a servant of the Lord, etc.” is to be found in the Jewish Old Testament scriptures so that it does not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of Israel at times; she was referred to as the “servant of the Lord” (cf. Isa 43:10). But it was especially associated with famous OT personalities including such great men as Moses (Joshua 1:1; 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kings 10:10). All these men were servants of the Lord. Yet, while the expression evokes a tremendous sense of honor, for it was an extreme privilege to serve YHWH, it is not Paul’s desire in this context to simply place himself among venerated OT saints. Neither is it his goal to simply express his gratitude to be a servant of Christ Jesus (though both are true). His aim, rather, is to communicate in plain terms his commitment and devotion to the Messiah Jesus. Though there are several reasons for his allegiance to Christ, it is ultimately due to his recognition of who Jesus is; Paul’s insertion of “Christ Jesus” into the OT formula “a servant of YHWH” shows the high view of Jesus that he maintained. He considered Jesus worthy of the same heartfelt obedience and zealous devotion as YHWH.

Second, the particular nature of Paul’s servanthood or slavery to Christ is further clarified with the designation apostle (ἀπόστολος, apostolos). Apostleship was not something he usurped for himself, as did the false apostles, but he was indeed called (κλητὸς, klētos) by the risen Lord himself (Gal 1:1; Acts 9). While Paul refers to Epaphroditus as an apostle he does so only in the general sense of one who is a messenger (cf. Phil 2:25 and the Net Bible note; see also Rom 16:7). When he refers to himself as an apostle, on the other hand, he is thinking in particular of being one of the select group of people chosen by God and gifted (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11) as an authoritative spokesperson for him. There were certain necessary qualifications (1 Cor 9:1ff) and together the apostles, as recipients of divine revelation, formed the foundation of the church with Christ himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). Paul had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) and was specifically commissioned by God to carry the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom 1:5). On numerous occasions God confirmed both his choice of Paul and the teaching that the apostle advanced in the church universal (Acts 9:22; 14:3; Romans 15: 18-19; 2 Cor 12:12; Gal 2:1-10; 3:5). To the Romans, Paul was an authoritative spokesman for God. They will want to keep this in mind when he covers certain serious issues such as sin and Jew-Gentile relations in the church (cf. Rom 6:17).

Finally, Paul says that he had been set apart (ἀφωρισμένος, aphōrismenos) for the gospel of God. The Greek term translated “set apart” means to “mark off with boundaries.” It is used in Matt 25:32 in reference to setting apart the sheep from the goats in the judgment (cf. Matt 13:49). Paul says that he had been set apart, marked out, as it were, for the gospel—a divine choice not altogether different from God’s call to Jeremiah (Jer 1:5). Though he says that this occurred at his birth (Gal 1:15), the historical outworking of that divine decision came to expression on the Damascus road, some thirty or so years later (cf. Acts 9). Further details regarding the precise nature of this call were concretized in Acts 13:2 when the church at Antioch recognized the Spirit’s timing and choice of Paul for the mission to the Gentiles. 

The gospel of God (εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, euaggelion theou) is the good news of God’s plan of salvation, including justification, redemption, reconciliation, sanctification, and in the eschaton, vindication. All this comes to realization through the person and work of his son, Jesus Christ. But, as Cranfield points out, the term “gospel” was also used in Greek culture to refer to the birth of an heir to the emperor, or his coming of age and accession to the throne.¹⁸ But, while that may have been good news to some people (and to some not so good news), the gospel of God is good news for all men, Jew and Gentile, the wise and the foolish alike. Paul says that God’s good news is the gospel about his Son whom we find out later in Romans is the true sovereign and savior of all men (cf. 10:9-10).

1:2 Paul makes it doubly clear that the gospel of God, which includes the salvation of the Gentiles, is deeply rooted in OT promise. He is not preaching some foreign idea with no connection to the prophetic scriptures. On the contrary, God had long ago promised the gospel through his prophets in the holy scriptures (διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, dia tōn prophētōn autou en graphais hagiais). The coming of Christ is the prophesied culmination to a long history of OT expectation. Jesus Christ is not an afterthought, but the very realization of God’s plan for the world, Jew and Gentile. With his coming, comes the dawn of the much looked for messianic age, when the powers of the future invade the present! Indeed, Jesus himself is the gospel, the heart therefore of the kerygma!

Later on, in chapter four, we will see Paul’s use of OT scripture to flesh out his argument here and that the proper interpretation and fulfillment of OT hope is in Christ. Thus Paul’s new understanding and use of the OT will be critical in his synthesis of Law and gospel throughout Romans and will factor greatly in his extended argument concerning the place of Israel in God’s present administering of the gospel (cf. 9-11).

1:3-4 The “gospel of God” concerns his Son (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, tou huiou autou). While there are some difficulties in the interpretation of vv. 3-4, the important thing to keep in mind is that the idea of Jesus Christ being God’s eternal son precedes any thought of his role in salvation history and the incarnation. He is first of all, the very son of God, before he assumed human nature. Thus the following material in vv. 3-4, which was probably a creed in the early church, relates to his incarnation, work of salvation according to promise, and his subsequent exaltation.

The reference to Jesus as a descendent of David according to the flesh functions on two levels. First, it makes plain that the eternal son of God took on full and complete humanity (John 1:1, 14; Phil 2:6-11) without which there can be no good news for the sons of Adam. Second, the explicit link with David is not just to suggest his humanity, but also to make clear his special relationship to the line of promise. Jesus met the qualifications of one to whom the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 could be made (cf. also Pss 72; 89). This theme of Jesus’ Davidic lineage will surface again in passages like 15:12.

The promise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 is extremely important in the New Testament and the connection to it here is apparent (e.g., Matt 1:1; Acts 13:34; 2 Cor 6:18). Nathan tells David, among other things, that he will never lack a “son” to sit on his throne. Jesus, by virtue of his obedience and subsequent resurrection, has been appointed (τοῦ ὁρισθέντος, tou horisthentos; i.e., in keeping with the language of the appointment of Davidic kings) the “son-of-God-in-power” for eternity (that is, the new and final Davidic ruler). In short, the resurrected messiah (note the stress on Christ Jesus in 1:1) fulfills the promise that one of David’s descendants would sit on David’s throne eternally and rule over the nations. It is likely that OT passages such as Psalm 2:7 stand behind Romans 1:3-4.¹⁹

Thus the use of word “appointed” is a functional comment about Christ’s new role in God’s government of the world and not a statement about his essence before or after the resurrection. There is no adoptionist Christology here! Jesus was, is, and always will be the son of God from eternity to eternity. He entered into, however, the new salvation-historical role of the universal Davidic king (“son”) at his resurrection/exaltation (cf. Luke 2:36). From this vantage point he is the Davidic Son who reigns in-power (ἐν δυνάμει, en dunamei).

At the close of 1:4, Paul refers to Jesus as Jesus Christ our Lord (᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, Iēsou Christou tou kuriou hēmōn). The idea of Jesus’ universal Lordship is often connected in the New Testament to his resurrection and exaltation to a place of power and authority (cf. Matt 28:18; Acts 2:36; Phil 2:11). And so it is here, not surprisingly (cf. Rom 10:13). 

1:5 Paul says that through Christ we received grace and apostleship. The “we” is probably editorial, that is, it refers to Paul alone. He mentions only himself in 1:1, and the following phrase “for the obedience of the faith among all the Gentiles” seems to corroborate this idea since it was particularly Paul who was called to the Gentiles. Thus Timothy, though a stalwart companion of Paul and minister to the Gentiles (Rom 16:21), is probably not included in this comment.

The expression grace and apostleship is probably intended as a hendiadys meaning “grace for apostleship.” In other words, the nature of the grace (χάριν, carin) to which Paul refers here is linked closely with apostleship (ἀποστολὴν, apostolēn) and must be viewed as that divine enablement which worked itself out in the context of Paul’s apostolic calling and vocation (cf. Gal 2:8-10).

The direction of Paul’s apostolic efforts was to win obedience to the gospel—an obedience which comes about by faith—and this he hopes to achieve among all the Gentiles (ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, en pasin tois ethnesin). Here we have one of the many universalistic statements of Paul concerning the scope of the offer of salvation in Christ (cf. e.g., 1:16). Though Jesus came as the fulfillment of OT promise he is not for the Jew only (cf. 3:27-31), but indeed for all the Gentiles as well (i.e., not just the God-fearers). His name (ὀνόματος αὐτου`, onomatos autou) is that of YHWH and he is Lord over the entire world (10:9-10).

Further, his call as an apostle was to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. The expression obedience of faith (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, hupakoēn pisteōs) has been variously interpreted. Some likely suggestions include: (1) “obedience which springs from faith”; (2) “obedience in the faith where faith refers to the doctrinal commitments of Christianity (cf. Jude 3); (3) “obedience which is faith.” Since the epistle begins with “obedience of faith” (1:5) and ends with the same expression in 16:26, we may well conclude that what comes in between—in chapters 1:18-15:13—is directly related by way of elaboration and clarification. That is, the intervening chapters, chalked full as they are with ideas of sin, justification, and practical holiness “unpack” for us what the expression “obedience of faith” means. Therefore, we ought not to separate “obedience” too far from “faith,” (option #1) nor “personal faith” from “doctrinal commitments” (option #2). Undoubtedly, the vagueness of the expression is meant to capture the breadth of our Christian experience in terms of coming to faith in Christ initially, the nature of true faith as obedience, as well as doctrinal committments believed for those in the faith and living obedient lives. All this is covered in Romans 1:18-15:13 and alluded to in this “short-hand” expression.

Paul makes it clear that the particular sphere of ministry assigned to him by the Lord was the Gentiles. His mission in life was to reach all the Gentiles with the gospel, a task he had been given for the sake of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, for Jesus’ glory and honor. His mission initiatives can be studied in Acts 13-28.

1:6 The Roman Christians should rejoice because they are among those Gentiles who have been called (κλητοὶ, klētoi) by God to belong to Jesus Christ (᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Iēsou Christou).

1:7 Further, the Roman Christians, as is the case with every Christian, are loved by God (ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, agapētois theou)—a love which he expressed explicitly in the cross. As Paul will say in chapter 5: “But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). It is that same love that he has also poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (5:5).

The Roman Christians are also called to be saints (κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, klētois hagiois). The term “saints” means to be “set apart.” In this case it is not something that the Roman Christians did by attempting to grow in holiness, but something God did for them when he saved them. He set them apart to himself and his purposes. Thus the term refers more to a positional idea than a practical, ethical idea, though the two are related and must not be separated too far (cf. Romans 6:19). God called them to be set apart for himself; this leads to the logical conclusion that a changed life is in order. Generally speaking, that’s what Romans 5-8 and 12-16 are all about.

The two designations, “loved by God” and “called to be saints,” recall God’s commitment toward and relationship with Israel in the Old Testament. Once again Paul has drawn an organic connection between the OT and the present work of Christ; this time it is not in terms of the promised Son, but in terms of the promised people who will come into being as a result of the work of the Son.

Paul’s greeting of grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ may have been common for him (in one form or another it appears in all his letters), but it was non-existent in the non-Christian world of his day. It is connected uniquely to the person of God the Father and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (8:14-17, 32). The grace of God for those who stand in it (5:1) leads to peace with God, objectively, as well as the subjective apprehension of that peace. 

F. Homiletical Idea and Outline

Homiletical Idea: Understand Biblical Authority and Our Mission to the World

I. Respect Apostolic Authority (1:1)

A. Textual Details

1. Paul was a servant of Christ Jesus

2. Paul was an apostle

3. Paul was set apart for the Gospel

B. Application: We are to submit to his teachings as one sent from the Lord

1. Pursue consistent study and application of biblical truth

2. Give serious thought to the issues of our day in light of that truth

C. Illustration and Transition Sentence

II. Understand Apostolic Teaching: Jesus Christ—The Gospel of God and the Fulfillment of OT Promise (1:2-4)

A. Textual Details

1. The gospel of God was promised beforehand in the OT

a. Genesis 12:1-3

b. 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (Isaiah 53, etc.)

2. The gospel of God is centered on a Person and His Work: the incarnation, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus Christ.

3. The gospel of God concerns the recognition of Jesus as Lord.

B. Application:

1. Keep Christ central in the interpretation and application of scripture.

2. Do we grasp the singularity of God’s plan and purpose in both the Old and New Testament and in the world today? See Ephesians 1:10-11.

3. Do we realize the implications of the Lordship of Christ for our own lives?

C. Illustration and Transition Sentence

III. Follow Paul’s Apostolic Example: Taking the Gospel to the World (1:5)

A. Textual Details

1. Paul was called as an apostle to bring Gentiles to the “obedience of faith”

B. Application

1. We are not apostles with the level of authority that Paul had; we no longer write scripture and speak directly from God.

2. But, we have all received the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20.

3. It isn’t that we haven’t been sent, but that we are not the originators of the message, God is, and he made it known to Paul. We are to stick to Paul’s message and preach that to non-Christians.

C. Illustration and Transition Sentence to Conclusion

G. Contribution of the Passage to Systematic Theology

1. The Relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament—Romans 1:2-4

There is no little discussion today among Christian scholars and lay people regarding the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. The current setting often involves two different approaches to the synthesis of scripture, namely, the approach of Covenant theology and that of Dispensational theology, with various differences within each “camp.” We may frame the question as follows: How much continuity and discontinuity exists between God’s promises in the OT and the realization of those promises in the church of the NT? Though both theologies recognize at least some fulfillment of the OT in the NT, they differ on precisely what the nature of that fulfillment is and to what extent the church should be related to OT promise.

In any case, both sides must remember that Christ is the central issue in the realization of OT hope. He is the organic connection between the testaments. Paul makes this clear in Romans 1:2-4. Since he now functions as the universal Lord and particular head of the church—in fulfillment of promises like 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (as we saw in our commentary on 1:2-5)—we must be careful not to pull the testaments apart to the point where there is little or no unity between them, especially on the sole basis of a Israel-church distinction. On the other hand, who would argue that his Lordship has been totally realized? Thus it seems that the church as a present and wonderful manifestation of OT promise (though certain aspects of the church cannot rightly have been understood in the OT), cannot exhaust the hope envisioned by the prophets of Israel. There is a structural discontinuity between Israel and the church (Eph 2:11-22²⁰; and thus the testaments) and a soteriological continuity (Rom 4).

The point being made here is not an argument for one view over the other per se, but that Romans 1:2-4 should be examined in the course of one’s thinking on this issue.

2. The “Obedience of Faith” and Lordship vs. Free Grace Salvation

There is a controversy today in Evangelical circles regarding the biblical response to the gospel. Two general camps have emerged with strong supporters in each. On the one hand, there are those who insist that salvation is by faith where faith does not include such ideas as repentance (unless “repentance” simply means “to change one’s mind”) or the need to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord in one’s life. The other camp, those who have been unfortunately dubbed “lordship salvationists,” generally argue that faith involves repentance where repentance includes a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a turning (repentance) from sin, and a personal trust (involving understanding, assent, and embracing) in Christ to save. No informed writer in either camp believes that faith is merely of human origin—it is a gift of God—and no informed writer in the Lordship camp believes that repentance thus understood is a merely human phenomenon.

Whatever camp a person may find themselves in, (s)he needs to consider, despite the exegetical problems, Romans 1:5 and the expression “obedience of faith.” It’s structural role in the letter to the Romans—a letter dedicated to Paul’s exposition of his gospel—demonstrates that this text should be given careful study in light of the “lordship” debate. The expression “obedience of faith” seems to be integral to Paul’s perception of the kerygma. Again, perhaps, there are more exegetically fruitful texts to consider, but Romans 1:5 needs to be kept in mind when we discuss the proper human response to the preaching of the gospel.

H. Contribution of the Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission

The passage contributes to discipleship and church mission in at least two ways. First, it clearly teaches us as God’s people that the apostolic witness expressed in Scripture is the primary authority for the faith and life of the church. Paul was an apostle and his teaching is authoritative and primary for the church today—just as it was 2000 years ago. Second, the mission of the church, following the example of Paul, is to carry the gospel to the world so that more and more people may enter into the sphere of God’s blessing in the gospel and live under the Lordship of Christ.

¹⁶ Craig Brian Larson, Choice Contemporary Stories & Illustrations for Preachers, Teachers, and Writers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 22.

¹⁷ See Cranfield, Romans, ICC, 1:48. There have been numerous suggestions as to why Saul of Tarsus “changed” his name to Paul. Some argue that it was changed at the time of his conversion, along similar lines to Peter when Jesus called him into the ministry of the gospel (cf. Mark 3:16). Others, including Jerome and Augustine, maintained, at one time or another, that he changed it to honor his most famous convert, i.e., Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus (see Acts 13:4-12). Cranfield is correct to dismiss these in favor of the probability that as a Roman citizen Paul simply wanted to use one of his (three) Roman names, i.e., his cognomen, because it was distinctive. Thus he really never changed any of his names, but simply wanted to be known and recognized by Paul instead of Saul in his Gentile work.

¹⁸ Cranfield, Romans, 55.

¹⁹ See also the connection Paul makes in Acts 13:33 and 34 between Psalm 2:7 and the democratization of the Davidic covenant through the use of Isaiah 55:3.

²⁰ Israel was a nation; the church is composed of individuals from every nation.