The Potter’s House: Romans 10:2-5
Romans 10:2-5
We return now to our verse by verse study of the book of Romans. We primarily left off with Romans 10:1, and now resume at verse 2. We looked in-depth into what Paul meant by all of Israel being saved in verse one. That idea begins as a prayer and desire in verse one and ends with the declaration that it will come about by God’s sovereign will in Romans 11:26. We want to keep in mind that chapters 10 and 11 comprise the particular subject of Israel and their role in the justification of God’s people throughout the ages. We saw how all of Israel will be saved in the Millennial Kingdom. We saw how the Millennial Kingdom will be a fulfillment of what God wanted at Mt. Sinai after He led Israel out of Egyptian captivity.
Christ initially came to the Jews only, and offering the good news of the kingdom. I firmly believe that this was specifically the good news of the Millennial Kingdom and ultimately the new heavens and new earth with God dwelling among men in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is the city built by God that Abraham looked for from the very beginning. This is also what Christians as a whole ultimately look for (2PET 2:13) according to “his promise” [singular] (Ibid).
Righteousness. Its dwelling place will be the new heavens and new earth. Only the righteous will live there for eternity. Therefore, we seek to be righteous citizens in the here and now. The first thing we find out is that people can have zeal for bad knowledge:
Romans 10:2 – For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
The word “knowledge” is the antonym of “ignorant” which also carries the idea of ignoring righteousness. It doesn’t mean a lack of intelligence or stupidity, it means to not know or accept. Instead, they sought to establish their own righteousness based on bad knowledge. Also note: whatever knowledge we follow, we are subordinating ourselves to it. When we follow lust, we often perceive that as engaging in something that delights us, but throughout Romans, it is framed as “obeying” sinful desires.
Can we therefore say that choices always involve a subordination to some form of knowledge? Perhaps. But be sure of this, “If it feels good, do it” is subordinating ourselves to desire. God’s knowledge should be the first consideration for what we obey.
Also note, Paul is speaking of a past event and a specific people: “they,” and “did not.” This speaks of the nation of Israel, the obvious subject in context, and their response to a specific point in time; namely, Mt. Sinai. We don’t want to make the same mistake many make in regard to Romans, chapter one. That chapter speaks of mankind as the “they,” and the time is in the very beginning when man began to multiply. God was visibly manifest and man knew him, but they chose to deliberately ignore him and seek a knowledge of their own. The “they” here is national Israel, and the time is Mt. Sinai.
So, no wonder then that Paul follows with this:
Romans 10:5 – For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
That’s part of the Mount Sinai event, and apparently, “For” …. gar ; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation….) points back to verse 4:
Romans 10:4 – For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Verse 4 has the same transition that points back to verse 3; so, Christ is the “end” of the law (remember this?) ….for righteousness. “Righteousness” is really a Biblical word that is a synonym for justification:
dikaiosynē; from 1342; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:— righteousness. AV (92)- righteousness 92; in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God.
For all practical purposes, verse 4 states that Christ is the end of the law for justification. Does that mean the law was ever a means of righteousness? No, “end” means the following:
telos; from a primary τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i. e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination (literally, figuratively or indefinitely), result (immediate, ultimate or prophetic), purpose);
Christ was the end result of the law for justification. In other passages, the word is translated “fully,” most often, “outcome,” and “aim.” Christ was the aim of the law for righteousness. Christ was the outcome of the law for righteousness. The law pointed to Christ. This is the same thing stated in Galatians:
Galatians 3:21 – Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
The law pointed to Christ and served as our guardian until Christ came. All of our sin was in escrow according to the will:
Hebrews 9:15 – Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Let’s back up a little and look at something else. Note again Romans 10:3;
For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
This is important because salvation is Trinitarian. It is God the Father’s righteousness that has been imputed to us and not Christ’s righteousness. Christ’s death enabled the righteousness of God to be imputed to us. Christ’s death was the fulfillment of the Old Testament law/will that was inaugurated with blood. When He died, all of our sin that were covered with blood by the Old Testament will died with the testator of the will.
Curiously, the ESV, a contemporary translation by New Calvinists, renders verse 3 as stated above. But in a later version of the ESV, verse 3 is rendered as follows:
For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God e.a. [versus “of God”], and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
In manuscript study, there is absolutely NO merit or reason to add these words. Reformed theology relies heavily on the idea that the righteousness imputed to us was primarily from Christ as opposed to the Father. I believe this adoration is to posit that idea. Because the Reformed gospel relies on law as the standard of justification, it is important that righteousness comes from Christ because He lived as a man and kept the law perfectly. That way, verse 4 can be interpreted as Christ being the end of the law because He fulfilled it for our justification. The Reformed Achilles’ heel is the idea that the law requires perfect obedience rather than a declaration based on all of our sins being forgiven. Reformed teachers such as RC Sproul argue that such only leaves us acquitted of sin, but not practically and personally righteous which is impossible because we are not perfect in practice.
Hence, a perfect righteousness must be perpetually imputed to our present lives so that the declaration of righteousness is not “legal fiction.” This requires a perfect practical righteousness being imputed to us, and the only option is Christ because He came and lived on the earth as a man. This is why the imputation of God’s righteousness must be replaced with Christ’s. That is also why the law must be the standard that defines righteousness. Problem is, this is the very assertion that the apostle Paul spent most of his Christian life contending against. And besides, Christ didn’t end the law or fulfill it, He was the outcome of what it pointed toward. He came to fulfill the law through us who cannot be found guilty of any sin because we are under grace and not under law:
Romans 8:3,4 – By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
We can do acts that please God, that’s the proof of our righteousness:
Romans 8:7 – For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
And….
Romans 8:9 – You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
We are righteous because our mortal bodies that cause us to sin are condemned with Christ, and we are made alive by the Spirit who raised Christ from the dead. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Our willing spirit is what makes us practically righteous. Our imperfection has already been condemned and put to death with Christ. God justified us, Christ died for us, and the Spirit raised us. God declared us righteous in the name of Christ and the Holy Spirit because we died with Christ and were raised by the Holy Spirit:
1Corintians 6:11 – And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
When it gets right down to it, we are born again believers walking around in dead bodies. In regard to justification, it is no longer us who lives but Christ who lives in us:
Galatians 2:15 – We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
This is a major theme throughout Romans; why would you obey the lusts of a dead body? It is dead, and has no power over you:
Romans 6:12 – Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 8:10 – But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
This viewpoint gives us much more confidence that we can overcome sin knowing that we are no longer enslaved to sin, but rather enslaved to righteousness. A perfect keeping of the law is not the standard for being declared righteous; we are practically righteous because slavery and freedom have been reversed. We were once enslaved to sin and free to do righteousness. We are now enslaved to righteousness and free to sin As much as we allow our dead bodies to convince us that we have to obey its passions;
Romans 6:17 – But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Now, with all of that said, here is what it all boils down to:
Romans 10:5 – For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
Stop right there. Paul has pulled out one of his commentaries to further explain his point. Who wrote the commentary? But what does Moses say? Righteousness is NOT BASED on the law! Believe it or not, we are going to look into this deeper by following Paul in his Old Testament commentaries. Next week, we will examine the Old Testament authors that he cites to gain more understanding.
A Good Friend Remembered, and Awkward Situations Created by New Calvinist Sectarians
“Rick was different; there are things about him that I will never forget.”
There is a link immediately following this post that is my story of what brought about PPT and TANC. In that story is a pastor named Rick Wilson. Just two days ago, he died suddenly at age 52. Rick’s role in the drama was mostly positive I think, but I also think he stopped short of what should have been done. Nevertheless, the reality of our 20-plus- year friendship remains. That friendship was a deep one fueled by the fact that Rick was a goodhearted man. The world is not a better place without him.
Rick and I were involved in ministries together that helped people. Some of the ministries we started still exist today; for example, Iron Sharpeners at Clearcreek Chapel. Rick and I were the beginning, meeting every Friday morning at 6:30 am for prayer and Bible study more than 20 years ago. Rick was different; there are things about him that I will never forget.
I will never forget the time that I was helping out at a NANC conference and little ole’ me walked past Rick while he was talking with someone important. Actually, if I remember correctly, it was either Jay Adams or Bill Goode. When Rick saw me walk past, he immediately interrupted the conversation and excitedly stated, “Hey, hey, I gotta talk to this guy, I will catch up to you later.” Need I expound on that any further? Rick not only perceived all people as equal, but that mindset seemed to come naturally to him.
My journey separated Rick and I, but that was probably more to do with me than Rick as I am not sure anybody knows what it would have taken for him to hold a grudge against someone. But after all he was a Reformed guy, and I am not sure how our conversations about Luther and Calvin would have gone. He adored Luther. Yuck.
So, when word of his death came, I immediately assumed that I would not go to the funeral. The place will be swarming with New Calvinists that know who I am and do not send me Christmas cards. But for two days now, memories of our meals together (he always paid), and rich conversations fill my mind. And one memory in particular. His father, a professing Christian, and faithful church member, did something that ended the life of his mother and father both. Rick spoke at the funeral. After talking mostly about his mother, he stated that his father’s action would not wipe away all that his father had done for the Lord in his mind. Rick refused to judge his father by the one action alone and honored his father’s life as a whole. That was Rick. Not charismatic, far from it, but always doing something subtle that built an immovable mountain in the minds of others. Like that day, I never saw him cry once in more than 20 years, but his tears of compassion could always be heard in his words and seen in his eyes.
“Sectarian,” “sect,” “heretic,” and “fractious” are all Bible words used interchangeably to communicate the idea of dividing relationships with false doctrine. Truth unites, untruth divides. Only the one mind of Christ and agreeing in Christ unites. New Calvinism, a return to authentic Reformed doctrine, is a super-sect. Since it sprang forth from the Australian Forum in 1970, it has divided innumerable churches, friendships, families, and marriages. The awkward situations that are created by these divisions are massive. Awkward funerals, awkward graduations, awkward memories, awkward birthday parties, etc.
But you know what? I didn’t do anything wrong—they did. It shouldn’t be awkward for me, it should be awkward for them. What Rick did for me far outweighs how the situation turned out—I will honor his memory and our friendship. And you know what else? I am going to dig up all of those family pictures that are tainted with the memory of what happened and I am going to frame them. Why should those memories be taken from me because of what they did? I didn’t do anything wrong—they did. And don’t give me that load that they aren’t responsible because nobody was perfect in the situation. God doesn’t operate on legal loopholes.
So I will frame the pictures and enjoy them, and Rick is even impacting my life from the grave. No surprise. I suppose a Reformed guy will be doing his funeral and will therefore be reluctant to call Rick a “good man.”
A pity, because he was the best of them.
paul
https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2011/10/19/how-pauls-passing-thoughts-came-about/
“Pastor” Steve McCoy’s Tweet Begs the Question: Whatever Happened to the Bible?
Many American Protestants understand Calvinism is wrong, but they really don’t understand why. It’s hard for Protestants to figure out why Protestantism is wrong because the source of their information is Protestant orthodoxy and not the Bible.
Baptists are Protestants, and some don’t like Calvin. Really? If you would note, the name refers to those who protested something. That would be Luther and Calvin et al. And here we go again; a New Calvinist pastor has tweeted something that other Protestants think is outrageous:
Outrageous? That is merely Protestant theology to a “T.” Americans are ignorant in regard to church history other than the Protestant propaganda taught to all of our pastors in the seminaries, but let’s talk Bible.
Protestant theology is antithetical to Scripture in the extreme. McCoy’s tweet is just one example of that. The Achilles’ heel of Protestantism is its anti-biblical view of law. Few Christians understand the Pauline theology of under law versus under grace.
But let’s talk about total depravity; the “T” in the TULIP acrostic. Some 500 years later, Christians still don’t know, most Calvinists in particular, that this also pertains to the saints. Hence, McCoy’s tweet.
But if Christians knew Pauline theology like they should, they would know that unbelievers are not even totally depraved, much less believers.
First of all, everyone born into the world has the works of the law written on their hearts with a conscience that either accuses them or excuses them. Unbelievers are able to listen to their consciences and often do (ROM 2:12-16).
Secondly, the difference between the lost and the saved is the position of two dynamics: slavery and freedom. This denotes a life direction, not perfection. The lost are enslaved to sin, but free to do righteousness. That’s why lost people do righteous things; they are free to do such. But the overall direction of their life is enslavement to sin. On the other hand, Christians are enslaved to righteousness, but are free to sin. That’s why Christians still sin. So, the Christian is not perfectly righteous, and the sinner is not perfectly sinful; in both cases, it’s the direction and not the perfection. The apostle John calls it, “practice.”
Now, how this all results in Christians being truly righteous in the here and now takes an understanding of Pauline law/gospel; ie., under law versus under grace.
A. There is no room to get into all of that here.
B. Start studying your own Bible and stop listening to men.
paul
Why Does Appreciation of God’s Grace Always Have to be About Sin?
Someone shared a Facebook conversation with me today that resulted in a major lightbulb moment.
Per the usual, some “Christian” was spouting about how knowing who we are as Christians is directly connected to appreciating God’s grace and mercy. First of all, the Bible never posits appreciation for God’s mercy as a primary goal for the Christian life. Folks have taken something that is assumed and made a whole theology of it. Obviously, we should appreciate God no matter who we are. The Bible focuses on THANKFULNESS for ALL the things that God is. A singular focus on our identity as a Segway to appreciating God is NOT biblical.
The person who shared the conversation with me responded to the comment by stating what that biblical identity is: born again righteous believers who glorify God with their lives. That quickly brought a clarifying rebuttal. The commenter, without even addressing the fact that the Bible does describe us that way, proceeded to explain that he was speaking of a deeper and deeper realization of the Christian’s sinfulness. That gives us a deeper appreciation of God’s holiness and mercy. Hence, all works that come out of that appreciation are properly motivated and not dutiful.
Therefore, focusing on our sinfulness purifies all that we do by excluding duty. Supposedly, when we see how wretched we are as opposed to God’s holiness, we are motivated to good works by the appreciation that is invoked. However, this is not only completely absent in Scripture, it assumes that a totally depraved Christian is able to possess equitable appreciation!
But it also begs the money question: why can’t the appreciation come from a changed life as compared to our old life? Why can’t the appreciation come through CHANGE? “Because it will lead to boasting.” No, the Scriptures say to make sure it leads to THANFULNESS towards God instead. A deeper and deeper focus on sin promises to supply many, many, more stumbling blocks than a propensity towards boasting. Besides, wouldn’t the improved person be less and less prone to boasting and more inclined to humbleness? Why does the cause of humbleness have to be a deeper and deeper realization of our inability to be humble? Since when does the Bible state that sinners are able to be humble?
Why aren’t people being saved? Because the world is not endeared to stupidity. That’s why New Calvinists have to plunder what has already been built. That’s why they have to be covert. Only Christians who think that faith is a license to turn off our thinking would ever fall for such reasoning.
Susan and I appreciate God’s mercy more and more because of how He has changed our lives, not because we take joy in an inability to change.
paul



2 comments