Paul’s teaching about the Spirit in the letter to the Romans opens the boundaries of who is included in the people of God, so that Jew and Gentile might glorify God together. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of unity (15:5) and adoption (8:15) , that marks out the new covenant people of God. From chapter 1 through to the end of 16 “the burden of this letter....has to do with the Gentiles as full and equal recipients in the covenant promises made to Israel- and that without excluding Israel”(Fee, GEP). Paul opposes, on the one hand, Jews who falsely rely on the observance of Law and circumcision (2:17) , and on the other, Gentiles who boast over the Jews rejection by God.(10:18) Paul’s argues for a united people of God, Jew and Gentile, with one God(3:27-30), one Lord(10:12) , one family faith (4:11-12, 10:12-13), who “with one heart and mouth may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:6). In Paul’s argument, the Spirit, along with faith, replaces Law observance and circumcision(2:28-29) as the boundary markers of the new covenant people of God. The Spirit is the one who circumcises hearts to make true Jews, and it is the Spirit who empowers Paul’s gospel to sanctify the Gentiles (15:15-19). The Spirit unites believers to Christ , and those without the Spirit do not belong to Christ. In 8:12-30 Paul transfers terms of covenant status, based in the narratives of Israel’s exodus, from Israel to Jesus, and subsequently to describe those with the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit makes us share in Jesus prayer of sonship to the Father and confirms us as co-heirs with Christ sharing in his glory(8:15). “Those led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” chosen to be freed from slavery, waiting to inherit the entire world, as promised to Abraham in 4:13. While the language is from Roman adoption practices, “the idea of divine sonship links back into Israel’s sense of election as God’s son” (Dunn) The use of these terms for those with the Spirit is strong enough to generate the questions about the continuing role of Israel in chapters 9-11, to whom belong the adoption as sons, the law and the promises and the divine glory. Thompson, Tobin (and Paul ) are quick to point out that Jews are not therefore excluded, but welcomed on the same basis
“confession of God as Father highlights God’s mercy to Israel as well as to the Gentiles in adopting them into one family who, as descendants of Abraham, inherit together in Jesus Christ ”(M.M. Thompson)
Recognition of this unity in the Spirit, along with the death of Christ for both Jew and Gentile forms the basis for Paul’s exhortation to both weak and strong in chapter 14, so that each may welcome the other, to the praise of God.(15:7-9) As part of Paul’s goal of seeing Jew and Gentile united in praise of God through Jesus Christ, the Spirit replaces the Law as a boundary marker of the people of God.
I, II, III, IV
Between the testaments
6 days ago
13 comments:
Well written. It's hard for us to appreciate how earth-shattering this all was for first century Jews.
'The use of these terms for those with the Spirit is strong enough to generate the questions about the continuing role of Israel in 9-11, to whom belong the adoption as sons, the law and the promises and the divine glory.'
Not sure what you mean here, but I believe the transference of these things was all over and done with in the first century. Since that time there is no longer any Jew/Gentile division in God's economy. God would 'make a short work in the Land', quoting Isaiah referring to only a remnant being saved.
The adoption as sons, the law and the promises and the divine glory did belong to them, but now they belong to us. What do you think?
Not that their is anything wrong with Jewish Christians keeping retaining their Jewish identity and Jewish culture, as long as it is done in the name of Jesus.
What I was getting at was that the audacity of Pauls attributing the status of Israel to christians in the back end of Romans 8, forces him to defend God's righteousness and faithfulness to Israel in 9-11
Well, they belong to God, and then christ, and then us.
Yes, because Romans is about how to welcome Jewish Christians (who had been exiles out of Rome by Claudius) back into a gentile-dominated church.
hmm, I'm less inclined to say one thing is what it is all about, but yeah ok, that seems reasonable as one thing that's going on
It's not the only thing, but it's a major thing. Paul is keen to do mission in the Western Med, and wants to set up the Roman church as a support church. But he wants to amke sure their on the same page as him first. Really, he wants to make sure that they're not going to back-stab him like the Antioch church (over Jews and Gentiles eating together). He's heard about the Jews coming back into Rome, and wants to make sure that the Jewish Christians are welcomed into the church because he's heard rumours that Jewish Christians are being told that God has eternally condemned Israel for ever, and the only way know is to forsake their Jewishness and become Gentiles. this not only goes against Paul's theology, he's collecting money from the churches in Greece for the poor in Jerusalem - a highly symbolic act of Genitles supporting the Jews - and Paul knows that if this behavious in Rome continues and the church in Jerusalem hears about it, they will reject his collection out right.
That is why Paul is writing Romans.
Matt,
I agree. To an extent. Basically, I think anyone who approaches Romans is going to have a historical construct in their minds to fit the letter into into. Those who whinge about Wright having a historical construct are really just annoyed that it isn't the same as theirs. And your particular one is better than most that I hear. But I would just want to tone down the language and present it as a potentially fruitful historical key for reading Romans.
Hey Mr Bull,
What language would you want to tone down?
Although Wright agrees with this, I came to this conclusion before reading Wright on Romans.
Matt
That was a Wells post.
While I have my thoughts on Romans, I don't know enough about the historical circumstances to have an opinion on them. I thought your post was interesting even if it did sound a bit too 'definite.'
Sorry,
Mike, what language would you tone down?
yep, the definiteness. Although, that's a bit unfair given the tone of the essay was fairly definite (as essays generally are) I'm sure you did come to it before reading wright : )
But after listening to preaching?
:)
Post a Comment