Life for me the past 6 months has been a steady diet of brokenness and revelation. The situation I've found myself in is one that is possibly the result of building a beautiful house of cards, making sure every piece is in place, and decorating it in such a way that it looks secure without doing the hard work of building on a secure foundation. As I've analyzed every aspect of life one thing is apparent: I haven't been as strong or stable as I thought I was, and I've been that way for a long time. I'm not necessarily blaming myself for my current struggles, because I can't and shouldn't, but I can attribute a lot of this to the simple truth that faking is bound to produce failing. I've failed in many areas for a long time, at least personally, but have continued to project outwardly that everything is under control and that everything is exactly the way it should be...and what that has produced is a man that is forced to start over from the beginning. There is no short cuts to becoming who God wants you to be and that is a lesson I forgot a long time ago, possibly even as far back as my time at Central Bible College. The path that has led me now to being out of ministry and divorced is one that I wouldn't wish on anyone. What I have learned, and am still learning, is that I can't rely on anything but God's grace and I can't "make" myself into anything by taking easy shortcuts and pretending that everything is ok. What I can do now is take the time to do the hard work of recovery, both spiritual and mentally, and pray that God will indeed redeem the time.

This will be more of a rant than anything else. One of the biggest things I've learned during my first year of seminary is just how much I have been taking scripture out of context in order to fit theology, or whatever other agenda I needed it to serve. I have been forced to work through a logical and methodological approach to finding meaning without laying a theological framework on top of the scripture I am determined to understand. This approach allows the text to speak in context. I know how simple it may sound, and many of you might think that you already find meaning in context, but I would humbly pressure you to re-examine your approach to understanding scripture. How well do you understand the meaning cohesively within the text itself, ie. verse to verse and chapter to chapter? One thing that is easy to do, for instance, is to use the writings of Paul to "figure out" other writings of Paul, but while that may prove effective generally, it's dangerous to use that as the first step in understanding a certain passage. That is what I mean by laying theology on top of scripture to understand it! Paul's theology in Romans might not have anything to do with a certain scripture in 2 Corinthians! Determine the argument, follow the logic, and let the text speak. This is really the point of this post: I have discovered too many scriptures that can be used to "force" believers into a false sense of guilt, which borders on a legalistic works based religious system, and all in the name of sanctification. We apply Romans 12:1-2 to personal sanctification when it is, in context, talking about two distinct groups (Jew and Gentile believers) coming together in worship, and the command to not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind isn't talking about a private "thought-life" battle, but simply changing the mindset of disunity that was pervasive in that context that prohibited them to accept each other! Now, should we offer our lives to Christ as a living sacrifice...YES! Should we think holy thoughts....YES! But we should use the right scriptures to teach it and not manipulate the text to say something it isn't saying, even though it may be right theologically. What about the often quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 scripture that says, "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (or freedom)." That is a great scripture! But, I have always heard it used to say that we can freedom from sin, freedom from pain, freedom from this and that, and that we can overcome!!!! I would almost bet that you wouldn't agree, at least at first, that this scripture is intended to be an encouragement to boldly proclaim the gospel even in the midst of trails and persecutions. Show me in the context of chapters 2-5 where Paul is trying to develop an argument for triumphilism in this age, or that he's talking about sanctification. What you'll find is Paul defending his apostleship, and in doing so he has to prove that the ministry of the "new covenant" is one where afflictions, trials, and persecution are all part of it, and in the midst of it believers have confidence that God will prove faithful to give us glory in the next age...and because of that confidence we have the freedom to boldly proclaim the truth. It follows the logic. I wasn't even aware of how badly we abuse scripture until it was pointed out to me that, above anything else, I need to understand the text within itself as it relates in the first century, and I need to stop sytematizing scripture to death. Simple Application: Don't allow scripture to be used as your weapon to overwhelm people with a sense of guilt by applying sanctification to texts that don't have anything to do with sanctification!

...continued from part 2 and part 3

Hopefully it isn’t impossible to ascertain that the difficulty in developing a

singular unifying theme for the letter to the Romans proves that there 

are at least certain elements of truth to each of the competing theories. 

Paul definitely provides a heavy amount of theology throughout the book; 

no doubt the impending trip to Rome could have been fresh in Paul’s mind; 

certainly Paul would be seeking to at least make the Romans aware of an 

opportunity to help pioneer a work in Spain; perhaps Paul did think

it necessary to provide an apostolic foundation for the church in Rome; 

there was, more than likely, some tension between Gentile and Jewish 

Christians; but, are any of these theories worthy of being called the purpose 

of Romans? It would be too easy to simply combine them all and give the 

“all-purpose” purpose statement and consider the work in Romans complete; 

that is why there are always new theories and advancements in Romans 

as scholars search for consensus.

Attention must now be turned to provide support for the guiding purpose

statement of this paper in two parts: (Part 1) To show that "no distinction" 

exists in the "impartial" judicial administration of God-all believing ones, 

whether Jew or Gentile, are justified by faith through the Gospel (Romans 1-11). 

(Part 2) This lack of distinction should provoke in us an acceptance of one another, 

Jew and Gentile believers in the church (Romans 12-16). There are notable elements 

missing in the purpose statement that are presupposed (i.e. audience and occasion)15 

in order to focus primarily on proving the overall argument of Romans for 

“no distinction” between, and “unity” of, Jewish and Gentile believers.

In order to provide a defense of the statement (Part 1) that “no distinction” exists

in the “impartial” judicial administration of God (Romans 1-11), attention must be given

to the use of the word “all”16 throughout the book of Romans. The “all” theme is set on

backdrop of the “courtroom” language setting up the “impartial” judicial administration

of God, beginning in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible

attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood

through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”17 Here, Paul is

establishing the truth that at God’s court the unrighteous will have no defense. Romans

2:6 reveals that the righteous judgment of God will “render to each person according to

his deeds,”18 creating a dichotomy between those who persevere in doing good and those

who do not obey the truth, storing up their own judgments respectively.

In Romans 3:9, Paul shows that every man is held to the same standard, and is

even in the same condition, regardless of whether he is Jew or Gentile, “Both Jews and

Greeks are all under sin.”19 The “no defense” before the judgment bench of God

language continues in Romans 3:19-20, and condemns both Jews and Gentiles alike,

“every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God.”20 The

accountability before God’s judgment bench is something that cannot be manufactured

through rhetoric and clever defense and any attempt to be proven innocent through the

devices of man, whether through religion, good deeds, or even ignorance, will be

defeated.

The only defense God will hear is the defense of the believer (Jew or Gentile)

who is justified through Christ, as Paul demonstrates in 3:21-31.21 Just as “all” have

sinned and deserve penalty without distinction, the believer’s defense and subsequent

justification is free from distinction, depending solely on trusting the work of Jesus

Christ.  In Romans 5:12-2122, Paul extends the jurisdiction of the “impartial” judicial

administration of God into the realm of life and death, as it relates to the results of

justification. In these verses, sin is personified as ruling over all, entering through the

disobedience of one man, spreading to all men, and allowing death to enter the world to

join sin as co-ruler. The realm of death is therefore ruled by sin. Through the

righteous act of one, Jesus Christ, the free gift of grace abounds to many. The realm of

life is therefore ruled by grace. By personifying sin/death and grace/life as rulers, the

arguments for “no distinction” in the “impartial” judicial administration of God become

perfectly clear. Paul is able to depict the utter hopelessness of those trapped under the

reign of sin and death while contrasting the incomprehensible worth of justification by

faith in Christ into the reign of grace and life.

The high point of the argument, and even the book of Romans, rests in Romans

11:32, “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”23

Leander E. Keck writes concerning this verse, “God’s mercy (like God’s impartial

justice) treats Gentiles and Jews in the same way (all are “imprisoned” in disobedience),

but not at the same time. God’s mercy is treated here not as a timeless attribute or as an

undifferentiated disposition, but rather as a mode of activity that uses specific, historical

forms of human disobedience to achieve God’s goal.”24 Keck provides a table to

clarify:

Past ----------------------------------------Agency----------------------------------------- Now

As with Gentiles

Disobeyed--------------------------------Israel’s disobedience---------------------received mercy

So also with Israel

Disobeyed------------------------------- Gentiles’ (received) mercy -----------------received mercy25

Paul rightly celebrates the display of God’s “impartial” mercy to all who believe

in verses 11:32-36, for it is the depth of the mind of God to know how to save “all”

without distinction that stupefies the mind of man; it is impossible to sway the mind of

God with man’s counsel; man cannot purchase favor through deeds or bribes; and man

ultimately belongs to God.

The demonstration of God’s “impartial” mercy should (part 2) provoke in us an

acceptance of one another, Jew and Gentile believers in the church (Romans 12-16).

The “therefore” in Romans 12:1 is loaded with the power of the incredible “impartial”

mercy that was developed throughout Romans 1-11, and causes the audience to view the

text that follows it in the light of that undeserved and “impartial” mercy. In Romans

12:1 Paul urges the brethren to, “present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice,

acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.” The significant and

somewhat misunderstood element of the admonition to “present your bodies a living and

holy sacrifice” is that it has nothing to do with personal sanctification. Paul is not

urging a body of believers into corporate personal piety, where each member individually

is to present his own body as a living and holy sacrifice. Paul spent eleven chapters

developing God’s “impartial” mercy to all (both Jew and Gentile), in order to arrive at the

point in chapter twelve where he can begin stressing the importance for Jew and Gentile

believers accept one other. It is easy to see in the Greek that Paul uses “bodies” in the

plural and “sacrifice” in the singular. The point is that he is urging both Jew and Gentile

believers to come together and offer the most pleasing sacrifice to God: the unified

corporate worship of Jew and Gentile believers.

Paul urges the believers (Jew and Gentile) in Romans 12:2 to, “not be conformed

to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove

what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” The believers

need a renewing of the mind. They need to have the mind of Christ, specifically

concerning how they view each other, in order to be completely unified as a living

sacrifice to God, not thinking more highly about themselves than they ought. Paul

captures the essence of the purpose statement of Romans in chapter 15:5-7, “Now may

the God who give perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind

with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one

voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, accept one

another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.”

The purpose statement, “to show that "no distinction" exists in the "impartial"

judicial administration of God-all believing ones, whether Jew or Gentile, are justified by

faith through the Gospel (Romans 1-11). This lack of distinction should provoke in us an

acceptance of one another, Jew and Gentile believers in the church (Romans 12-16),” is

one that has tremendous implications for the church today. In the midst of the culture of

the church, where church-splits are commonplace, cliques wreak havoc in the life of the

church, and faith has become only a personal, isolated, and individual thing void of true

fellowship within a community of believers, it is obvious that the church desperately

needs to understand the “pulse” of Romans to glorify Christ for His gift of grace to “all”

who believe as a unified body of believers functioning in Biblical community with one

another.

Endnotes:

1 Karl P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977), x. 

(an enlarged and updated version was printed in 1991, with Donfried’s basic theological conclusions 

remaining mostly the same.

2 A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 9. (While I think

there has been some good discussion on Romans here, to say that one has solved the debate on Romans is

somewhat difficult to swallow)

3 Das, Solving, 26-52. The material in the section entitled The Occasion and Purpose of Romans provides

the catalyst for the bulk of the overview material provided here.

4 As an undergrad Bible College student, this was exactly the position taught to me. I, in turn, even

taught it as such.

5 Changwon Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004), 8. (Song

makes good use of the language in Romans, connecting it to that which reflects the style of the Greek

diatribe, but makes the case that Paul intended to use the whole of Romans in the genre of diatribe, which

goes a step further from Bultmann who asserted that Paul, at least, depended on the diatribe for style. He

lands securely on the side of those scholars who believe that Paul couldn’t have intended to address any

specific, concrete situation. He also believes that the letter to the Romans began as part of Paul’s general

theological teaching, and eventually took the form of a letter sent to the Romans. His hope is that Romans

will in turn become that much more powerful to us because it is has always been meant to be applied

universally.

6 Donfried, Romans Debate, 122. To see how Donfried deals with objections to what he perceived as the

founding principles for beginning a study on Romans, see pages 122-143.

7 Das, Solving, 29.

8 Das, Solving, 29. It would seem to only strengthen the possibility that Paul could have written his letter

to the Romans solely with the trip to Jerusalem to face opposition in mind had a request for prayer for the

gospel to be upheld against opposition in Jerusalem been offered. The fact that such a simple element is

missing might mean that the purpose is something else entirely.

9 Das, Solving, 32.

10 Donfried, Romans Debate, 37. (Gunter Klein’s essay Paul’s Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the

Romans)

11 Das provides a quality critique of this theory in Solving the Romans Debate, pages 34-36.

12 Donfried, Romans Debate, 49.

13 Das, Solving, 49.

14 Das, Solving, 51. Perhaps this provides some context for the tension: “The record of an Edict of

Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome because of a squabble over “Chrestus” has inspired perhaps the

most popular theory for the situation behind Romans. If “Chrestus” refers to Christ, then Christians were

present in Roman synagogues in the late 40’s. After Claudius’s harsh edict of expulsion, usually placed in

the year 49 CE, the Jews and Jewish Christians were forced to leave Rome. The gentiles, who had learned

of Christ from the Jewish communities, had to form their own assemblies. When Nero acceded to the

throne in 54, the expelled Jews and Jewish Christians were able to return to Rome only to find Christianity

thriving in gentile house churches. These gentile converts would not have had the same appreciation for

Judaism as the Christians from the synagogues would have had. The gentile “strong” found themselves in

conflict with the returning Jewish Christian “weak.”

15 The audience should be viewed as mixed, representing Gentile and Jewish Christians respectively, and

Romans should be viewed as dealing with a concrete issue.

16 1:5, 16, 18; 2:1,9,10; 3:4, 9, 12, 19, 20, 22; 4:11,16; 5:12, 18; 8:32; 10:4, 11-13; 11:32; 12:3; 14:10;

15:11, 33; 16:26

17 NASB, Zondervan

18 NASB, Zondervan

19 NASB, Zondervan

20 NASB, Zondervan

21 NASB, Zondervan. “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested,

being witnessed by the Law and even the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus

Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of

God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God

displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His

righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the

demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of

the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of

works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of

the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by faith is one. Do we

then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”

22 NASB, Zondervan. Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we (let us) have peace

with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

23 NASB, Zondervan. Understanding verses 30-31 provides clarity for verse 32

24 Leander E. Keck, Romans, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press,

2005), 283.

25 Keck, Romans, 284.

Bibliography

Das, A. Andrew. Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing

House, 1977.

Keck, Leander E. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: Romans. Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 2005.

Song, Changwon. Reading Romans as a Diatribe. New York: Peter Lang

Publishing, Inc., 2004.

....continued from part 2

Changwon Song quotes Donfried in his book, Reading Romans as a Diatribe,

“Donfried states that there are basically two major opposing viewpoints 

in the scholarship on Romans: ‘(1) those scholars who believe that Paul 

directed this letter to deal with a specific, concrete situation in Rome; 

and (2) those interpreters who hold that it is primarily directed to a situation 

other than Rome.’”5 For Donfried, the latter group is the intended target for 

correction in his essay False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans, 

as he overcomes objections to two methodological principles in the study of

Romans: (1) That Paul wrote the letter addressing a concrete situation, and 

(2) that Romans 16 is an integral part of the original letter.6

The first step away from the traditional understanding of 

Romans is M. Jack Suggs’s theory, in line with Bornkamm and Jervell, 

that Paul must be writing Romans with the opposition of non-Christian Jews

at Jerusalem in mind, and in order to diminish the effect of their 

opposition upon his arrival at Jerusalem, Paul sought to provide a

“letter to the strategic and powerful Roman church…which outlines a ‘partially’

moderated position…in advance of the delivery.”7 To Suggs, there can’t be any

concrete situation in Rome demanding an address from Paul, since the letter is 

essentially nothing more than a practice round before he faces his detractors. 

Any evidence of a specific situation as the impetus for Paul’s writing the 

letter dismantles Suggs argument.  Das provides another solid counter

to this position in that, “Paul never asks that the Romans pray that the 

truth of the gospel be upheld against opponents at Jerusalem.”8

Following in the same pattern as the theory for a Jerusalem trip being the 

purpose of Romans is the theory that Romans is nothing more than Paul’s 

way of introducing himself to the Romans in preparation for the 

Spanish mission. Dieter Zeller and Robert Jewett agreed that, 

“the entire letter to the Romans was Paul’s means of enlisting their

support for the Spanish project.”9 It seems difficult to propose that Paul 

would be writing such a lengthy letter to a church in Rome, with 

whom he had little, or no, previous contact solely with the purpose of 

securing support for missionary work, and while doing so, waiting until 

the very end of the letter to even allude to the work in Spain. In order 

for this theory to be validated it would be fitting to see some mention, 

even briefly, prior to the conclusion of the letter. It would also be 

obvious that the incredible theology and depth of spiritual truth Paul 

develops in Romans would be, as  Gunter Klein critiqued, “reduced 

to merely a means to an end…no matter how pure his motives, Paul 

would have to be viewed as having only ulterior motives.”10

Klein’s own essay on the topic provided the theory that Paul believed 

the Roman church needed a proper apostolic foundation.11 By considering the 

absence of the word ecclesia in Romans 1-15 proof that the Romans lacked a 

proper apostolic foundation as a church, Klein essentially believed that Paul’s 

desire to visit the believers in Rome was motivated by the perceived need 

to provide for the church a true apostolic foundation.  For Klein, 

“the primary content of Romans-the justification of the godless-also

constitutes the center of Pauline theology, and that this doctrine must be 

the exclusive topic wherever it becomes a matter of establishing the correct 

foundations for the church.”12 Klein and L. Ann Jervis believed that by 

providing a strong theological discourse, Paul would have been successful in 

proving himself not only able to offer the church its “necessary” 

apostolic foundation, but also in showing that he indeed possessed

a general apostolic authority over them.  The last of the competing theories 

as to the purpose of Romans (and one that flows nicely into the purpose 

statement provided by Dr. Tomlinson) that will receive attention in this general 

overview will be the theory of Francis Watson that seeks to prove

that Paul wished to compel separate Jewish Christian and gentile 

Christian assemblies to worship together. For Watson, “Paul is writing 

primarily to unite divided communities.

The Roman Jewish Christians are meeting for worship separately 

from the gentile Christians, and Paul wants both groups to come together.”13 

The separation is due to gentile arrogance toward the minority of Jewish 

believers and the insistence of the Jews that the observation of the law as a 

necessary  element in the church. Das writes, “Paul is therefore writing to 

resolve the tensions  between the gentile non-Law-observant strong and the 

Jewish, Law-observant weak.”14

Keep reading...part 4