The necessity of understanding the background behind the most important text in Scripture regarding sanctification is in order. Needham reminds us of the challenges the Old Testament believer would have had to embracing the New. His Appendix 2 is rather long so I have broken it up to span 3 days. Take your time, understand, and grow.
This is a review of Birthright by David Needham with study questions added to turn them into lessons. These lessons are part of a wider study on Sanctification by Faith which has as its goal the fulfillment of Gal 5:16
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
I’ve set these studies in a specific order so that all may easily build on the foundation of Christ with the finest materials - gold, silver, and precious stones (1 Cor 3:10-13). God has gifted the Church with amazing evangelists, pastors, and teachers to help us in this building project (Eph 4:11-16). I invite you to study along with me. You can see an overview of the complete Sanctification by Faith study here. To go to the start of the current lesson (Birthright) click here.
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess 5:23
Appendix 2: Suggestions Toward an Understanding of Romans 6–8
Fundamental to one’s understanding of any portion of Scripture is an appreciation of its historical setting. Because of this, though our goal will be to grasp the personal implications of Romans 6–8 for God’s people today, our first step must be to attempt to see it through Paul’s eyes and those of his original readers.
Of first importance is that both Paul and a significant portion of his audience had been nurtured in Old Covenant Jewish beliefs that centered on pleasing God through obedience to the Mosaic Law.[1] This nurturing had produced a variety of responses, two of which appear repeatedly in the Gospels. The first was seen in those who responded to both the Scriptures and the teachings of their rabbis with sincere, humble, obedient faith in the love and mercy of God. Theirs was the response expressed in Micah 6:8, “to do justice, to love kindness [more literally, “loyal devotion”], and to walk humbly with your God.” In Luke 1–2 we find Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary and Joseph, Simeon and Anna; later on, most of the disciples, the seventy sent out to preach the good news of the kingdom, and, at the end, Joseph of Arimathea, “a good and righteous man.” All these, when introduced to their Messiah, responded in deep gratitude and love.
We may assume prior to the resurrection, though they must have been baffled by the deity claims of Jesus,[2] they did not allow this paradox to override their simple trust.*
*Footnote Though the NT affirms that the OT made direct references to the deity of the Messiah (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5 [referring to Ps. 2]; Matt. 22:42–46; Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44; Acts 2:30–36 [referring to Ps. 110]), nevertheless there is no biblical reason to assume even the most devout Old Covenant Jewish believers understood the Messiah would also be God. Rather he would be a most special human descendant of David. |
Even after the resurrection, the perspective of the two men on the road to Emmaus illustrates that, though certainly “saved” individuals, having heard and believed much he had taught, they still viewed him as “a prophet mighty in deed and word before God” (Luke 24:19). Up to that point there was not even a glimmer of understanding of the substitutionary significance of Jesus’ death or the implications of his resurrection.*
*Footnote We may assume this was part of Jesus’ instruction to them as “he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.” Soon after, he shared the same with all the disciples (Luke 23:27, 44–47). We may be sure that Thomas was not alone in his response to Jesus—“my Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). As we see later in Acts 9:30–35, there was no confusion in Philip’s mind as to the relation between Jesus and Isa. 53. The substitutionary atonement was by that time truly appreciated. |
There was also a second type of response illustrated by the hypocritical, proud, wholly works-oriented Jews, as most vividly evident in the scribes and Pharisees Jesus condemned in Matthew 23.[3] Most of them, we may assume, never responded positively to Jesus, even in the years after his passion, resurrection, and the coming of the Spirit. (See Acts 22–23.)
Though we automatically tend to place the Apostle Paul in the latter group, there is some justification for his belonging to the first group, but as one who had not been introduced to Jesus until that day on the Damascus Road (see first part of chapter 7). One might go so far as to argue that in many ways Paul could be compared with an Old Testament Ezra or Amos, with one crucial difference: the fact that his zeal for God was misdirected due to his own admitted ignorance regarding Jesus (“not in accordance with knowledge,” Romans 10:2, NASB).*
*Footnote By the time of his writing of Romans (25+ years after the resurrection), Paul considered the individuals of Rom 10:2 as needing to be saved. Had the New Covenant age not yet arrived, perhaps God would have accepted many of them as “saved” as any other zealous believer within the Old Covenant. It is impossible for us to know with certainty the limits of God’s grace during this transitional Old Covenant/New Covenant period. (“Saved” certainly has a relative use in Acts 11:14.) |
Though Paul had both Jewish groups in mind as he wrote the Book of Romans (Romans 2:7–10), his prime audience was the first group, which needed to be grounded in New Covenant truth. (Romans 2:1–6, 17–24, initially describes the second group.) Since Paul’s primary purpose for his lengthy epistle was to expound the wonder of the gospel (Romans 1:16–17), were it not for this unique historical context, it would be hard to justify the large amount of space he gave to the gospel’s relation to the Mosaic Law.
It takes some tough thinking to set aside momentarily our modern context in order to imagine the radical adjustments that were required of believing Jews during this unique covenantal “crossover” period of history (from Old Covenant to New Covenant) in which the Book of Romans was written.
Their first adjustment (which his audience had already made) involved their being introduced to Jesus as their Messiah.*
*Footnote This parallels the adjustment level of at least some of the original readers of the Book of Hebrews. |
For the few who were part of that first circle of his disciples, this was not overly difficult. Jesus had provided them with a solid information base on which to build their trust—his words and his works. (Can we imagine what would have transpired if Paul had been among Jesus’ initial disciples? Certainly he would have been another “son of thunder”!) This jolting truth was the focus of Peter’s first two sermons in Acts. The one whom they had crucified was “both Lord and Christ [Messiah].”*
*Footnote Though Peter may have expounded on the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death during those early days, what is recorded gives us no hint that repentance and the promise of forgiveness of sins were viewed as different from the Old Covenant pattern of the call to repentance under John the Baptist, except that it involved acknowledging Jesus as Lord. See also notes 1 and 2. |
Closely related to this first adjustment was their discovery of their Messiah, Jesus, as God’s agent for their justification before him (deliverance from his wrath) and their reconciliation to him. The Messiah was their Passover Lamb!*
*Footnote Though “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” identity of Jesus had been introduced by John the Baptist (John 1:29, 36), there is no reason to assume that either he or Jesus’ disciples grasped the implications of this prophetic utterance until after the resurrection. John’s later question reveals his lack of comprehension (cf. Matt. 11:2–6). Note also the disciples’ repulsion regarding Jesus’ announcement to them of his impending death. Cf. Matt. 16:21, etc. According to 1 Pet. 1:10–12, prophets did not necessarily comprehend the messages they delivered. |
Although this truth was not foreign to the church at Rome, there must have been some measure of misunderstanding so as to require the detailed arguments regarding the doctrine of justification found in Romans 3–5.
But the external act of justification plus the resulting internal miracle of a heart change toward God and his law (reconciliation) were not ends in themselves. There was a third most wonderful adjustment to be made. It had to do with the second internal miracle, the infusion of Jesus’ life (regeneration) and the mechanics of that life now that they were in a right relationship with him. An initial clue to this is found in Romans 5:10. Having described their being saved from God’s wrath by being “justified by his blood,” he added, “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life” (italics mine).*
*Footnote It appears, then, the effect of Christ’s resurrection relates more to the truth of regeneration (newness of life) than to justification, although the fact he rose affirmed divine acceptance of Christ’s substitutionary death, enabling God to justify sinners. This issue indirectly relates to Rom 4:24 as to whether Christ was “raised for our justification” (NIV, NRSV), or “because of our justification” (NASB). Harrison provides a careful analysis of both the grammatical and theological issues involved, concluding with a belief that “because of” is the more probable rendering. “Justification, considered objectively and from the standpoint of God’s provision, was indeed accomplished in the death of Christ (5:9) and therefore did not require the resurrection to complete it. Paul does not mention the resurrection in his definitive statement on justification in Rom 3:21–26.” (Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976], 53–54.) |
Both for their present life of practical righteousness and their ultimate salvation, God was now saving them “by his life” through the Holy Spirit. It is this third issue that becomes central in Romans 6–8. Since regeneration is a divine begetting of a new kind of life, these chapters are actually Paul’s enlargement on the truth of John 3:3–8 and 1 John 3:1–9.*
*Footnote Though on one hand, Paul emphasized the degree to which his message was a product of divine revelation, passages such as 1 Cor. 7:10–12 demonstrate how fully he was aware of the specific truth Jesus had taught his disciples. During his several visits to Jerusalem, we can only imagine the eagerness with which Paul must have consumed every bit of information regarding the words and actions of his Lord. In Gal. 1:18; 2:9 he mentioned time spent with Peter, James, and John. Along with so much else, this undoubtedly would have included the crucial “you in me and I in you” truth of John 14–17. We may also surmise he had a good visit with his fellow Pharisee, Nicodemus (certainly among the true believers, cf. John 19:39). |
To put it another way, holiness of life (sanctification), in simplest terms, is the outgrowth of the new birth. A new life has come into being; this is how it grows.*
*Footnote In his comments on Rom 6, I agree with Showers’s repeated emphasis that the doctrine of regeneration underlies this text. (Renald Showers, The New Nature [Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1986], 65–67, cf. p. 11.) |
I suggest the following steps in Paul’s progression of thought:
(1) Romans 6:1–7:6* Newness of life results from one’s identification with Christ not only in his death, but most especially in his resurrection. (See also Colossians 3:1–4.)
*Footnote I believe it is more reasonable to understand Rom 7:1–6 as a clarification of the freedom spoken of in Rom 6:18 and Rom 6:22 in terms of the Old Covenant bondage to the law rather than as the beginning of a new section which includes the remainder of Rom 7. Another clue that 7:7 begins a new section is found in the expression “What shall we say then?” (NASB), which is identical with the beginning of chapter 6. Packer also appears to see 6:1–7:6 as a unit. (J. I Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit [Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 128.) |
(2) Romans 7:7–25 The crucial nature of this new life source (Romans 6:1–7:6) must be seen over against its absence under an Old Covenant mindset if Paul’s Jewish audience is to understand.
(3) Romans 8:1–17 The Holy Spirit is one’s enabler to fulfill God’s moral absolutes in life now while still in an unredeemed body. (See also Galatians 3:1–3; 5:16–25.)
(4) Romans 8:18–39 Future bodily resurrection is the ultimate life answer both to present suffering and to the necessity of putting “to death the deeds of the body.”
Romans 8:25–39 provides the closing doxology.
Without attempting a verse-by-verse analysis of these four sections, several issues must be considered if one is to appreciate Paul’s progression of thought and its relevance for us.
(Note: Though the NIV represents excellent scholarship and care in many areas, its perceived necessity of rendering “flesh” by “sin nature” or other similar terminology, plus its occasional unjustified efforts at clarifying the text—as seen, for example in Romans 8:5–9—cause me to recommend the NRSV, NASB, or NKJV as more faithfully expressing in English the meaning of the Greek text for these chapters in Romans.)
Questions & Notes
-
Of first importance is that both Paul and a significant portion of his audience had been nurtured in Old Covenant Jewish beliefs that centered on pleasing God through _________ to the Mosaic Law. ↑
-
We may assume prior to the resurrection, though the Old Testament believers must have been baffled by the _________ claims of Jesus. ↑
-
Describe the two common responses to the Gospel that set the background for Paul’s letter to the Romans. ↑
Click on the "Birthright" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.