It may now be seen what relevance this orientation may have to the doctrine of original sin. By Paul's thinking, and by those of his contemporaries who accepted the Genesis account, we are all "embedded" in Adam, the etiological ancestor of humanity. We have (at least) inherited his faults and sins, and even if the "worst case" scenario (the one the skeptics loathe and complain about) is right, this is something that it is only we, as individualists, have a problem with. No one in antiquity would have complained that it was "not fair" that we were being to any extent punished for Adam's sin, or referred to it as "bizarre" or "unjust". Indeed it would have been expected that we would somehow pay for Adam's sin, since whoever was designated etiological ancestor, that is who we reap from, good or bad.

Therefore any objection against DOS is a matter of being out of tune with the time. But there does remain the question of how exactly Adam's sin affects us. Most of the phrases from Rom. 5:12-19 do not actually establish the bones of the cause-effect relationship; in fact it is only verse 12 that offers and such connection:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This verse is understood to be the keystone for the doctrine of original sin. The primary issue here is in that final phrase -- "for that all have sinned" -- and more narrowly, the prepositional word of the phrase. The "federal head" idea follows from the translation of Augustine, who read it in terms of in whom all sinned, and is often paralleled to the passage in Hebrews that says that Levi paid his tithe through his ancestor Abraham, and justified on the grounds that one man, Christ, also paid for all of those sins. Other suggested meanings have been for this reason, because, that, and because of the one by whom. Now before the McKinseys of the era wag their tongue about "why isn't it clear," let us make the points that a) any lack of clarity is more likely our fault for losing it, than for Paul or God to have not made it clear; b) the Greek phrase itself admits to many shades of meaning; "lexicographical enquiry comes to the conclusion that the meaning of the phrase may vary a good deal" [Dubarle, The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin, 149n].

So what is the answer? As we have delved more deeply into the background data, recovering that which we have lost, an answer has come into view which suggests that a more subtle point is in view, and that the "federal head" idea needs fine-tuning, and in a way that happens to render all skeptical complaints irrelevant. Henri Blocher, in Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle, draws upon the findings of Malina that Romans 5 is in a rabbinic style and uses legal terminology [76ff]. From this he concludes that Paul's meaning is that what Adam did was "make possible the imputation, the judicial treatment, of human sins." Note how this fits in with what Paul goes on to say:

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

In other words, Adam's sin, and the resultant punishment of spiritual and eventually physical death, was a pattern-connection that was established and set the legal precedent for death to be inflicted as the penalty for all sins. A loose parallel may be found in the incidence some years ago of the crime of carjacking. There was no specific definition of, or remedy for, this crime when it first became popular. When it became more popular, it was defined out as a specific crime (where before, prosecutors had to select from and cobble together charges from existing laws) and given a specific punishment. The analogy breaks down because there was no previous sin with the original sin, but the point to be drawn is that Adam's sin and punishment was an original example as well as a case of original sin. We pay for, and are punished because of, Adam's sin, only in the same sense that present-day carjackers experience their specific punishment because of a precedent set by their criminal forebears, which engendered a more specific legal reaction.

Of course none of this negates the doctinre of total depravity or in any way suggests that things are any easier for the human race in terms of a judgment basis. It merely means that one popular Skeptical complaint -- itself based on a popular, but not precisely correct, understanding of this passage -- is of no relevance. We are not paying for, and being punished for, Adam's sin, in a way that is unfair to us.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

6:1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

The above is "not a completely hypothetical objection" [Br.Rom, 127]; if anyone requires a particularly famous historical example, Bruce offers that of Rasputin, the twisted genius who encouraged sin for the sake of being able to repent; and it is not unlikely that Paul's opponents misrepresented his own views this way.

2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The metaphor of slavery makes it clear that it is not that we will never sin, but that sin will not be our master, that which controls our lives.

8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

How does this square with passages like Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled?" What is the role of the Law in the life of the Christian today? Do we need to trash our polyester? If we are true believers, do we need to execute witches? And finally, is the covenant still "good" with Israel today?

To answer these questions we need to establish some frameworks, and to do this I will draw from some previous and related essays. Our primary framework has to do with the categories of the law.

When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

One skeptic says, "One would be hard-pressed to find home builders" who follow this rule. But actually they do follow the modern equivalent. In ancient Israel, the flat roof of a house would be used for many purposes, such as sleeping, household chores, and entertaining. These chores included drying and storage of produce; even today the roof is used for such things in modern Arab nations. We don't use our roof the same way -- the modern equivalent is a balcony. Our builders certainly do make sure that they follow the point of this rule to the letter! At any rate, it would also be agreed that the universals behind these cultural applications should continue to be followed.

With these matters in mind, we may now address this Romans passage. The Semitic Totality Concept (see link reference above) means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111] And thus when Paul tells his readers that we "establish" (obey) the law by faith, he is saying no more than that it is our faith that prompts us to follow the law. And hence, a person who finds faith, but dies a moment later having done no works, is not condemned -- if such a theoretical possibility ever came to pass! Hence also Paul's admonition here in 5:15-16. A believer in Jesus will indeed follow the dictates of the law -- the universal morals, of course, not the cultural particulars -- because of obedience to Christ.

17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Edwards [175] notes that the word for "wages" means subsistence payments to soldiers, made in installments. If this metaphor is followed through, "death" means more than just a single act of physical death, but also "the shadow and consequences of death already in life."

7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Some critics regard Paul as being confused in his analogy here; we reply that they simply try to press the analogy to say more than it does -- which is noi more than that death brings an end to a contract.

7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Is Paul confused about himself here? No: What Paul is actually doing here is engaging in a typical Greco-Roman rhetorical practice (also found in Jewish literature, including the Qumran Psalms) in which the personal "I" and the present tense is used as a literary convention. Where the personal "I" is combined with the present tense, the author is utilizing a practice called "speech in character" to represent a universal experience. Here, Paul is bringing out the universal experience of those who do not know Christ (and that did include him, at one time) and their struggle with moral law and sin. He is not giving a biographical account of his present experience as our critics suppose. (Also possible and in line with our position is Witherington's [Wi.PLR, 188] suggestion that the "I" here is meant to be Adam; he notes that the "commandment" [v. 8] is in the singular, and Adam is the only person who never knew the Law [v. 9], and that the word used for "deceive" is the same one used of what happened to Adam in 2 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:14.)

Bruce [Br.Rom, 144] argues that what Paul describes has been "the real experience of many Christians" so that we cannot confidently say that Paul is not being present-autobiographical. We would reply that this may well be the experience of weak or immature Christians, who have not come to realize their position in Christ, but that no believer who has realized (or keeps their focus on) the solution to the "body of death" in Christ would have this sort of experience.

Mounce [Mo.Rom, 167] also maintains that this is a "present-experience" commentary on the grounds that Paul described himself as morally pure in Phil. 3:6. But this might be the same error as those who assume that Job or Mary and Joseph were considered to be sinless. Mounce also draws a parallel to the statement of the Roman poet Ovid: "I perceive what is better and approve of it, but I pursue what is worse." [169n]

In addition, is there an incongruity in Paul saying that no good thing "dwells" in him, though he has Christ in him (Gal. 2:20)? No -- Paul is using a Greco-Roman rhetorical technique, as noted above. Even so, the objection fails to distinguish between the Greek words involved. The Galatians word is, according to Strong's:

2198. zao, dzah'-o; a prim. verb; to live (lit. or fig.):--life (-time), (a-) live (-ly), quick.

While the Romans word is:

3611. oikeo, ay-keh'-o; from G3624; to occupy a house, i.e. reside (fig. inhabit, remain, inhere); by impl. to cohabit:--dwell.

The latter connotes physical occupation. The former connotes influence or substance. ("Man does not live (zao) by bread alone.").

8:1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Paul sets out the powerful dichotomy between the two lives -- in correspondence, again, with that if you truly bnelieve in Christ, you will act accordingly.

10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Likewise, those in whom the Spirit reside are capable of resisting sin, and so are not "in bondage" to (unable to control) their sin. We as Christians have a choice to resist that the unbeliever does not -- and this in turn foreshadows the final quickening of the resurrection and of our perfect bodies at that time.

17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

How is this reconciled with Ps. 145:15-16: The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing? How can God be satisfying desires when the whole creation is groaning in pain? This objection overlooks the poetic and therefore proverbial, non-absolute nature of the Psalms. That passage is said in the context of a hymn of praise.

23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Mormon apologists appeal to Romans 8:24-5: "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" This passage is taken as offering a linguistic parallel to Ephesians 2:8-9, and it is argued that "(t)aking Paul's words at face value, and in isolation from everything else he taught, one could make the case that hope is all a person needs to be saved." [Griffith, One Lord, 163] However, the argument is grammatically flawed: Romans 8:24 is a dative of reference, not a dative of means, so that it is best understood as saying that "we were saved, with hope as the ever present companion of this salvation," not that it is the way in which we are saved.) [Commentaries on Romans by Mounce, 186n; Moo, 522; Edwards, 215]

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

How does this intercession work? It may have included speaking in tongues as some maintain today [Br.Rom, 165] but also "covers those longings and aspirations which well up from the depths of the spirit and cannot be imprisoned within the confines of everyday words." Byrne [267] understands this as subconscious intercessory prayer driven by the Spirit, which fits with the Spirit's role as paraclete/intercessor, and links it [2701-1] to Jewish traditions of angels or notable humans of the past who made intercession for people before the throne of God. He adds that tongues may not be part of this, for tongues "involve praise rather than intercessory prayer" and are actually audible, while these groanings are not.

27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Though called the "Golden Chain of Salvation" by Calvinists, it should be noted that this offers nothing specific in terms of HOW predestination and calling operate. For more on this subject see http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/ulip.html

31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. 34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

A powerful encouragement in light of the seemingly disadvantageous position of Christianity, and the seeimingly unshakable Judaism of the day, represented by the still-standing, unjudged Temple.

Chapter 9 is analyzed here.

10:1Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

The questions of "who will ascend" and "who will descend" are like saying, "Who will do the impossible?" Paul is alluiding to Deut. 30:12-14, in which the point is that God's word is near and no one needs to cross seas or ascend to heaven to hear what God's word is. So likewise, Christ has been present on earth and there is no need to go chasing all over for the truth, which is accessible. [Mo.EpR, 654-5]

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

This provides interesting confirmation of the point that hell is a place of shame and disgrace as opposed (as the popular view says) to being a place of pain and torture. If it were otherwise, it would read, "Whoever believeth of him shall not be inflicted with pain."

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What about passages like Joel 2:32 and Matthew 7:21, in which those who call the Lord's name are not saved? For Joel, the preceding verses make it clear that what is in view is a specific time in Joel's eschatological future, the "day of the Lord" (2:31). Acts 2:21 and Rom. 10:13 are alluding to Joel and so are answered the same way. In contrast, Micah refers to a specific upcoming temporal judgment against the people, and the word "cry" (za'aq, to shreik out of anguish or danger) does not mean "call upon." Matthew 7:21 is not of any relevance to the OT verses and itself does not refer to the "Lord" in a titular sense as in Rom. 10:13. The word "Lord" here is kurios and is the normal title for any person in authority (like our "sir"). The people are recognizing Jesus' obvious authority but are not "calling on his name" -- they are, rather, calling out to him.

14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

How does one reconcile this with Num. 23:21, He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them? They refer to two different periods of time - Numbers to shortly after Israel left Egypt, the second (which is an allusion to Isaiah) after an extensive period of sin many years later.

Beyond this, how does this have relevance for the salvation of those who never hear the Gospel? The Bible makes two assertions which may be paired here for an application:

1. The evidence for God is clear, so that men are without excuse (Ps. 19, Rom. 1-2). The heavens aleady declare God's existence and majesty.
2. He who seeks, finds (Matt. 7:7//Luke 11:9).

My own answer to the question, "What about those who never hear the Gospel?" is, "Those who want to know it, will be given the knowledge needed for salvation. Those who seek God will have God sufficiently revealed to them." There is also anecdotal evidence from the missionary field that may support this point; but it is not lack of hearing the Gospel that causes condemnation; it is sin that causes condemnation, and it is not hard to arrive at a deduction that sin is offensive to whatever powers one may suppose to be at hand (indeed, the religious history of sacrifice and penance suggests a broad awareness of this!) and that there needs to be some connection or bridge in order to achieve a reconciliation. Even the Greeks knew that when Zeus said to jump, they were to ask how high if they didn't want to end up turned into a donut. Signs in the moon and such are completely unnecessary; indeed, one may somewhat suggest that hearing the Gospel message isn't strictly "necessary" -- the Gospel message certainly adds clarity and improves disciple functionality, but under this paradigm, lack of hearing it is not a valid excuse for not turning to the Creator. In this context an event limited by spatio-temporal constraints is not an argument against the significance of the event.

11:1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Paul's use of the OT here is a direct counter to what must have been current Jewish claims that the fact that so Jews became Christians was proof that Christianity was bogus. Paul provides a powerful response, citing the example of how a minority was also counted as true believers in YHWH in the time of Elijah. The "few believe it" argument simply doesn't hold water for the Jewish opponent Paul poses for. The "remnant" chosen we would identify with the 144,000 Jewish Christians of Revelation.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

This emphasizes once again the dichotomy between the works of the law (as the appeal of those in favor of ethnic-identity markers) and covenant obligation (grace).

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

Paul here appeals to OT texts as "probabilities" which foreshadow the point he has been making, that indeed, the lack of Israel's conversion to Christianity is made more probable by their prior blindness in history. In other words, there is nothing incredible about the idea that the bulk of Israel is wrong about what God has done in history: It has happened before.

11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Note that "jealousy" in this world was "a form of protectiveness that would ward off the envious and their machinations." Gentile conversions would prompt non-Christian Jews to "protect their turf" and re-assert their identity. In the process they end up unwittingly verifying the Christian message (for their specious reactions show that they cannot confront Christian truth claims head-on), and that in turn produces more Gentile converts.

13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Because he is working both ends against the middle, so to speak, Paul must "prevent" Gentile readers from finding any special honor in Jews not becoming Christians. Paul reminds them that they are subject to the same foibles and judgments; they are no more special just because they seemed to have displaced ethnic Jews as covenant members (a thought which would occur to them, under the understanding of honor as a limited good).

22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

How can Paul say "all Israel will be saved" when Jesus for example says that some Jews will not be saved? One alternative is to read it in the total context of Paul's argument: "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel..." (9:6) Paul's entire argument is based on the idea that the real "Israel" is a spiritual community, not a physical one. Bruce [209] and Byrne [354] do not agree and believe that based on 11:25, 11:26 can only mean "Israel" in the full ethnic sense; but Bruce adds (and Byrne and Cranfield [2/577] ideologically concur) that "all Israel" is "a recurring expression in Jewish literature" where it does not mean, "every Jew without exception" but "Israel as a whole". The Mishnah Sanhedrin (10.1) thus says "all Israel will have a portion in the age to come" but then proceeds to "immediately name certain Israelites who have no portion therein." (Moo [723] compares this to modern phrases like, "the whole nation was outraged by the incident".)

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. 29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

12:1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. 9Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 10Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; 11Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

12Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; 13Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. 14Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

Did Paul violate this in places like 2 Tim. 4:14, Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works and 1 Cor 16:22, where he declared people anethema? Did Paul preach forgiveness but seek the opposite for his detractors? One would observe that Paul hardly "cursed" Alexander here, unless asking for someone to receive their just reward is a "curse". Jesus uses the same Greek word to refer to those going to eternal damnation! -- Matt. 25:41. That isn't what Paul is asking for here, or in 1 Cor. 16;22, which is a religious ban or excommunication, not a curse to damnation.

15Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. 16Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. 17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Skeptic Ken Schei claims that "Paul advocates what he calls love in order to defeat one's enemies" and thereby "undoes Christ's work and returns us to the pre-Christ era." [41-2] As Klassen shows in his article "Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or Revenge?" (New Testament Studies 9, 1963, 337-50) the phrase in Proverbs is alluding to an Egyptian ritual of repentance in which the subject willingly carried embers in a bowl on their head as a public sign of repentance. It is unlikely that people in NT times were aware of this detail, but the Targum commentaries Paul would have been familiar with did still grasp that the person in Proverbs was a former enemy who had been turned into a friend.

13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

So what about Acts 5:29, "We ought to obey God rather then men"? Note well: in Acts, the "law" being set down countermanded God's requirements. The Jews told Peter and Co. to shut up and stop spreading the Gospel; that was opposite to Jesus' command to spread it. The other verses do not say, "unless they countermand God's commands" - but we are given credit for having the intelligence to realize that God's orders should not be overruled by any human intervention!

Indeed, the citation of the other verses as contradictory reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of when and why each was written -- truly enough, context is key, but here it is again a case of more than merely textual context. Consider the social context of the verses from Romans usually cited in this regard (Rom. 13: 1, 7). When Paul penned this letter, Nero was emperor, but he was still in the realm of sanity and was a fairly good ruler; Christians were not being persecuted by Rome. Paul is not here concerned with the hypothetical possibility which eventually became reality: That the government would turn against the Christian faith. Had these words been penned ten years later, the instructions would assuredly have been tempered quite differently, and be more along the lines of Acts 5:29, where a choice did indeed have to be made between obeying God and man -- because as of the time when this passage was written, there was no human law which was in contradiction to the will of God. Paul could truly say "obey the law" without qualification, because there was no law on the books at the time that was objectionable from a Christian perspective: Christians weren't being persecuted or told to give up or compromise their faith; they were under the protective classification of being a Jewish sect. (This also applies to Matthew 22:21, Titus 3:1 and 1 Pet. 2:13.) As is often the case, skeptics are taking a general principle with a specific historical context and turning it into a timeless universal in order to find contradiction.

Second, of alleged tension between Paul's advice on paying taxes (Rom. 13:6-7) and Jesus' (Matt. 17:25-27). The latter refers to the temple tax of the Jews, in support of their religious obligations to the temple -- Jesus indicates that his followers need not pay THIS tax (though he DOES make a way for Peter to do so!) because of their status with him; Paul is referring to taxes paid to the Roman state for things like roads and services.

8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

This verse cannot be read in terms of modern loans from banks or persons, but has to do with the nature of ongoing reciprocity in this society, within which leaving obligations for favor unfufilled was a grave honor offense.

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 14But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

"Put on" Christ has a secular parallel [Br.Rom, 229] in the work of Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who in his Roman Antiquites 11.5 said "to put on Tarquin" means to play the part of Tarquin.

14: 1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Trying to make Paul out to be Gnostic, Freke and Gandy say, "Like the Gnostics, Paul is extremely disparaging of the externals of religion -- ceremonies, holy days, rules, and regulations." [164] We are told that Gnostics preached this "same freedom from human legislation" -- but what is distinctively "Gnostic" about preaching freedom from legalism? Is this a requirement unique to Gnosticism? Of course not. By itself it is a doctrine that can be inserted in any religious context. The Gnostics did interpret themselves as the "strong" and others as weak, and felt themselves free to attend pagan festivals and eat dedicated meat. It is certainly understandable that they would use this passage to their own ends. But this is far from "disparaging" by Paul (he tells the "strong" to "receive," that is, admit with friendship and hospitality, the "weak", says not to "despise" the weak, and concludes by saying everyone ought be "fully persuaded in his own mind" -- hardly the language of a disparager!), and fits just as well, indeed better, in the paradigm of the doctrine of justification by faith.

6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Contextually Romans 14 refers to a situation in which a real problem for the ancients -- the eating of sacrificial meat -- caused discord in the consciousness of believers. Some believed the pagan gods were demonic and that to eat of meat sacrificed to them was to actually eat demonic meat, so to speak. Jews in particular were concerned about food prepared in a non-kosher manner, and wine that may have been used as a libation. Paul had two similar problems to deal with: one in Corinth where the "pagan problem" was prominent, the other in Rome where Jewish believers (or possibly Jews, if Nanos is correct in Mystery of Romans, though it makes no difference in this context) were concerned. To see this as merely a "food" issue is not the point. Old habits and fears were hard for some to break. So what to do? The first thing to notice is Paul gives instructions to both the strong and the weak. To the strong, he says, "Do not turn away your brother because of his weakness." But to the weak he also says (v. 3), do not judge the strong, because God receives them as well. Applied to the tagline situation, a "weak" brother or sister who came along judging is violating Paul's instructions.

Contextually, then, Paul outlines a situation in which the two sides are to dialogue and compromise -- not condemn and judge. Paul says that is God's domain (v. 4). In the next several verses Paul lays out the points of dispute among the Roman believers. But there is a practical example of how he implemented the rules, not in Romans, but in 1 Cor. 10:25-30:

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

Notice the following: The approach by the strong brother is essentially, "don't ask, don't tell." It is not until someone points out that the meat was offered in sacrifice that the strong believer is expected to react for the sake of the moral perception of the other person. This will come into play as we proceed.

After listing the points of dispute and reminding the Romans of God's prerogative, Paul continues (13-15) in a way that tells us something else about the situation. The word Paul uses, "destroy," is a powerful one. It is the same word used of those who are eternally lost, of what King Herod wished to do to the infant Jesus. In other words, the reaction of the weak Paul is concerned with is not merely, "You know, that sort of bothers me that you do that." What we are talking about here is a real and serious problem that leads to eternal destruction. "Grieved" is also a powerful word. It describes how Herod Antipas felt after caught in Herodias' Johnny B. trap; it describes how the king's servants felt when they saw the wicked servant whose large debt had been forgiven beating another with a tiny debt (Matt. 18:31); it describes Peter's reaction in John after Jesus asked him a third time whether Peter loved him; it describes those who mourn their dead (1 Th. 4:13).

The "anything" (v, 21) does not give reverse carte blanche to the weak to be rid of anything that bothered them. There are conditions set here: The action must be something that causes stumbling, offense, or weakness. The first word is used only 8 times in the NT and is also used by Satan of what Jesus would do if he fell from the Temple (Matt. 4:6) and of what floods and winds do to a house (Matt. 7:27). All other uses are moral and indicate a serious stumbling, to the point of grievous injury. The second word is not as weak as it sounds ("offended"). It is used to refer to what your right eye does that would cause you to pluck it out; it means to trap and entice into sin. Note in this context 1 Cor. 8:10: "For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols..." The last word, "weak," literally means sick or diseased and is used of physically sick people such as the one on the verge of death (Luke 7:10). These are not mere matters of the sort of politically correct offense we see today, but of someone whose loyalty is so weak that they are in danger of loss of eternity via apostasy! (This also relates to whether or not one can apostasize and forfeit salvation; Calvinists may simply take this as hyperbole, but either way we have a situation that is serious, not trivial.)

23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Skeptic Edmund Cohen interprets this as saying that "the Scriptures put in the category of sin everything that is not part of the religious program" -- including, he supposes, intellectual exercise. Romans 14, again, is concerned with the moral debate over whether or not Christians can eat idol meat sold in the market, and matters of conscience in your behavior before fellow believers --- moral, personal, interactional and theological issues that hardly commend themselves to detailed and straightforward intellectual analysis of the sort Cohen has in mind. True, some have "universalized" this advice from Paul in principle (Augustine was the first), but then again, the latter part of the verse has the structure of a maxim, not absolute advice. Whatever the case, the chapter has nothing to do with rejection or acceptance of the intellect at all. (And we are not even getting into the thorny problem of having "faith" in one's own God-given intellect, or the potential corruption, incapacity, or bypassing of the intellect -- nor, for that matter, the interrelation of intellect and will, especially as seen by the ancients.

15:1We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

What then of passages like Eph. 6:6, which tell us not to be "manpleasers"? Consider the Greek variations behind Eph. 6:6 -- "manpleasers" = anthropareskos, man-courting, i.e., fawning:--men-pleaser. This is a pejorative term; we might say, a "suck up".

3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. 4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

5Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: 6That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. 8Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. 12And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Paul affirms yet again -- using the Jewish texts against his own Jewish opponent -- that Gentiles will come to be believers in YHWH, and since Gentiles were far more numerous, this is also an implied argument against any claim that lack of Jewish belief in Christianity means Christianity must be bogus.

13Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. 14And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. 15Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

17I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 18For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation: 21But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

To not horn in on another missionary's territory would have been an honorable thing for Paul to do. It is also honorable for him to refuse to speak of what he has accomplished in detail; though the constraints of rhetoric require him to at least allude to what he has done, and thereby provide his ethos.

22For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. 23But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you;

In other words, Paul did not honor the Roman church with a visit because he felt to do so would be dishonorably horning in on someone else's territory. This is the agonistic tightrope again.

24Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. 25But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto