Rm 1:28-2:24

Claiming to have fresh light to shed on Romans is like our planet claiming to have fresh light to shed on the sun.  May the Lord's Word shed its light more fully on you and me!

In his descriptions of sin, Paul was not bound by Victorian taste, but by explicit candor, as we have just seen.  Beginning in 1:28 Paul begins summarizing what he has been explaining concerning "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (1:18).  Cause-and-effect dominates the previous section: "... and their foolish heart was darkened .... (1:21), "and receiving in their own persons ... (1:27)."  But the cause-and-effect was governed and presided over by the judicial actions by God: "God gave them over ... (1:24, 1:26, 1:28)."  So the old proverb that evil brings its own punishment has to be modified: in specific ways, God gives them over to it.

So the summary Paul gives in 1:28 of the course of evil is that the behaviors of 1:29ff are the effects of "a depraved mind," (1:28), to which God gave them in response to their not seeing fit to have God in knowledge "any longer" (1:28).  Any longer?  Paul's critique of sin needs to be looked at more carefully here!  We can't just skip to the lists!  Sin is not analyzed completely simply by reading lists!   Paul's explanation is that the behavior is caused by the depraved mind that God gave them over to.  "Just as they did not see fit to have God in knowledge any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind" (1:28).  The theme of a decline from original knowledge started back in 1:18, in the indictment of "men who suppress the truth." 

The chapter indeed ends without Paul changing from his explanation, that the behavior and their minds are related as effect and cause, and the actions of God are involved in the explanation.  This has something to say toward atheism, which we flatteringly and often take as a valid starting point by  atheists, starting our apologetics toward them from there, as if atheism is merely a starting point.   What might Paul say instead?  He would talk as here, that an atheist "did not see fit to have God in knowledge."  That's not ignorance.  That's expulsion of knowledge.  At the least we should be aware of possible signs of the expulsion of prior knowledge.

It is because we are well acquainted with sin, we tend to gloss over this idea of decline from a previous better condition, and of the idea of expulsion of knowledge.  Plus, armed with psychological stories and experiences of how people do this all the time, we are numbed by familiarity: familiarity with the idea that people can push knowledge out of their minds.  But have you ever thought about what kind of thing it is to "not see fit to have" an item of knowledge?  It is not just to ignore something.  It is to shove it out of your existence, with pride!  To "not see fit to have" is to consider it unworthy of having.  To promulgate this to others, you'd have to write a chapter in the sinner's how-to manual, on getting rid of God from your mind because He doesn't deserve to be in it ... and approving -- i.e., putting right in the middle of your mind (!), a set of those people who are approved -- which is those who practice sin (1:32)!  Hearty approval of these replacements is the item of knowledge that replaces having God in your mind.

Does Paul conclude simply that the depraved mind approves of all those who "practice such things" that "are worthy of death" (1:32)?  No.  Sinners approve of other sinners, but not of every other sinner.  Murderers approve of some other murderers, but murder others as well.  The approval is extremely vacuous.  And that's how Paul goes on, supplying the conclusion from the implied question, "well then, are we just a big happy self-congratulating group of people who all deserve death but are patting each other on the back all the way to it?"  No.

The fact that men "did not see fit to ..." that Paul mentioned earlier, that attitude they had toward God, also becomes a judgment used against other men.  There are plenty of other men that they did not see as fit.  Paul goes on to describe the implications of that.  There are implications of the fact that you, who "do the same," (1:32), "you judge another" (2:1): namely,  how not seeing fit to have God in knowledge leads you to judging another.

In chapter 2, Paul in speaking about the judgment and justice of God is likely to be misunderstood because of two presuppositions that dog us: first, our comparative standards by which we judge others as pretty bad, and second, those same comparisons by which we judge some, and often ourselves, as pretty good.  Paul addresses the first idea in 2:1-8.

Is Paul using an ad hominem argument here in 2:1ff, something like "you have no business judging, being who you are?"  If that were true, it  would take the force away from the words "the same things," and turn it into "similar things."  No.  This is not an ad hominem argument.  Rather, Paul is talking about the self-reflexive nature of judging others, that it is ipso facto judging yourself for the same thing.  Not that your judgment of others is invalid, but that its fingers point to you, doer of the same.  Paul is not making an ad hominem that they have no right to judge, but extends the judgment they make about others, to apply also to themselves.  Justice has to be blind toward, i.e. impartial toward,  who it is that's it's judging.  2:1 is about having no excuse, which includes no excuse of the kind "I stole, but I didn't commit adultery."  In speaking precisely here, Paul is rather saying that God's judgment is meted out precisely "according to the truth" (2:2 lit.), that is, according to the existence of the offense wherever it is.  "There is no partiality with God" (2:12).   Therefore since you "practice the same things" as an individual whom you are judging for a sin or sins, you ipso facto are judging yourself for practicing the same things.

This is further elaborated upon in 2:3.  Not only do you condemn yourself, but the judgment of God is against you.  Both you and God cannot be inconsistent.  God isn't inconsistent  But in 2:1, you are inconsistent without excuse: you cannot have justice fall another and not on "you, who judge" when it's the same thing.  If you stole, but didn't commit adultery, it's "the same things."

The stubbornness and unrepentant heart of this judge, Paul takes as a given in 2:4.  Why?  Because the judge has discovered how to righteously  judge others for sins that he or she does not do?  No.  The dividing up of sins of judge and those judged has not worked!  God looks at those sins as "the same things!"  What's stubborn is rather, to judge others for "the same things" (2:1) that you the judge actually do.  It is the sameness of the sins that makes the judge stubborn (as if the justice won't be going to his own self for them as well as others), and the sameness of the sins that makes the judge unrepentant, because of ongoing doing of them himself.

So what then of the argument that the judge doesn't do those sins?  The judge's imagined distinction vanishes, because Paul says they are "the same things."  This is Paul's way of saying what James says in Jm 2:8-11, and the Lord in Matthew 5:21ff, especially Mt 5:21-26.  They are "the same things."

In the contemporary Christian world, we have denied Romans 2 in at least the following way.

We think of ourselves as having a partial God, who has partiality toward us; when we judge another, not believing that God's judgment is according to truth against "those who practice such things" (2:2) without qualification.  The surprise in Paul's words are that "you who judge practice the same things"  (2:1).  "You who judge," when you fancy that you practice other, or lesser things, or don't practice any sins at all!  In effect, the judge substitutes a  "some" into 2:6, as if Paul had said God will render to _some_ men according to their deeds, but not to you who judge ... or a "some" into 2:6, as if Paul had said God will render to every man according to _some_ of his deeds ....  but not to all of yours the judge. When we judge, Paul exposes us as being practicers of "the same things," in that in which we judge another, so that argument's out. Every man is one of the "some" who practice such things, without excuse whenever he passes judgment upon another. 

It's very odd, isn't it, how often the non-Christian under judgment by someone notices the air of the judge toward them, as one of having a God, but misrepresenting Him as having partiality.  The standard "step 2" of evangelism, trying to show that "you are a sinner," has got to go back to a "we," and a genuine belief in Romans 2:6.  Let's not be afraid to look at Romans together.  Even if we discover that we have not lately genuinely believed Romans 2:6, or even ever really believed it. 

1 Peter 1:22-2:10

Peter (and the New Testament in general) often go from what is true, to what our obligations are.  Even when what is true about believers turns out to be things "into which angels long to look" (1:12), Peter goes on to teach what we should be doing (1:13ff), all the while couching it not just in what is already true, but what will be true (1:13).

In this passage (1:22ff.), Peter is going further, based on a marker along the way of doing what we should be doing.  He says "you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren .... (1:22).  Since you've done A for B, go ahead and do B! ... "fervently love one another from the heart."  It certainly would make sense to go on.  The added reason he gives for doing this, 1:23-25, doesn't sound like an added reason.  Perhaps, unless you've been in a ministry.

All that training about what is true often goes into someone in the ministry.  And all kinds of purification of soul.  Often, the train slows down at that point, or stops.  What use is my theology here or now?  My fightings with self and sin?  Peter gives something of an answer here.

1.  Something has happened to you.  The past is not a collection of your stuff alone.  Everything talked about in 1:23 is something that has happened to you, and comes to you from the world of what is "living and abiding," not the things in 1:24, which go through the cycle of death.  So, behind your stuff, is what was done to you, and it is from what is "living and abiding."

2.  The past can't be changed.  Today's love for the brethren isn't necessarily the same as tomorrow's.  But "the word which was preached to you" endures forever, and it was already preached to you.  It's too late! Love one another from the heart, because it's too late to do anything about the foundation for it, which has already happened!

Going on to 1 Peter 2, Peter is continuing this argument about why to go forward.

3.  In 2:1-3 the argument is stated conclusion-first.  But first, let's mention a possible background assumption of the writer about what he could be addressing in his readers.  What often happens among Christian workers, and Christians in general?  They pause, because they wish that things were the case over here, over there.  Peter is taking this into his sights, and about to tell them ... wish for ... this!  But not out of the clear blue sky, because those who are tired often need something to get them to wish for this.  They know what to wish for, but from what starting point to do so, they don't see.

"Like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word."  So it's back to the foundation of 1:23, that they have been born of an "imperishable."  Back to a factual foundation outside of us.

Peter is bringing them to two things they may have not kept in mind.  To God, they're not old and gray, grizzled, harried, old troupers that have been around the block umpteen times.  They're newborns!  So, like newborns, they get to have the basics!  Lots of experienced people feel guilty for wanting the basics!  Simple things in the Bible, speaking theologically.  Or physically, like sleep!  Just because you're an "older" Christian, doesn't mean you can't be like a newborn babe right now! Being like a newborn babe is correct to be.

The second thing is that you get to tend to yourself too.  The common refrain nowadays, that "it's not about me," is not a universal.  Peter says it's OK, to do something for you yourself, "that by it you may grow in respect to salvation" (2:2).  It's OK for a big tree to grow.

But why should I do the growth routine?  Because God is growing you already, simultaneously as you are even considering it!  "You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood ..." (2:5).

The words give a twin picture of you.  One picture is a person inside a house.  The other picture is the house, which is being built.  You are similtaneously the one in the house, AND the house being built up!  Look, the third floor just went up!  Wait till you see the next one, and the goal of this amazing spiritual house!  So, the architect is waiting to talk to you! He, Christ, also has that quality about Him: He is both "a living stone" and the Person "rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God" (2:4).

Finally, there may be a weariness about having to invent things that will work.  The Christian is, luckily ( ;) ), often called to do things without knowing that they will work, or how!  Have you ever thought about the OT priesthood that way?  All that work, why?  What good was it?  How did it get it done?  They had no idea, they were just told that God wanted it done that way.  Priesthood!  Freedom from having to know why everything works!

Do we know what the "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (2:5) will be?  No.  W'ere gonna be like priests have always been!

But we won't be disappointed, and "those who disbelieve" (2:7) will be appointed to a stumbling by the same stone.  It is an instance of something that goes on apart from us.  The work of the stone is both toward us, and toward those who disbelieve, but it is the work of the stone.  That's how Peter ends this section, by teaching about how the things that are true of us are because of what has been done to us: you "have received mercy" though previously you hadn't.  "You are the people of God,"  but once were "not a people."  Someone could wonder whether it's reversible, but Peter says that the direction it took, had a purpose, "so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (2:9).  How does that help?  Well, let's think about that for a second.  Was the reason you became the second, from the first, in order to get something excellent out of you?  No, the very reason you became the second, from being the first, was a purpose connected with the excellence of God who did this to you.  As stated here, God didn't do it, to gain some excellence from you, but, as Peter describes it, actions regarding His excellence would occur.   Even in football, the plays are done, in order to bring glory to the game, not the game done, in order to bring glory to the plays. Peter says those who called, are called in order to proclaim the excellence of "Him who has called you."  So of course, in that case, it is Multiple Excellence.  "Excellencies." 

Jn 1:24-42

This whole section is problematic for those who wish to assign John's gospel a second-class, non-primary-source status because of its advanced theological discourse.  Here, in this section, it puts down some new information about John the Baptist's ministry, giving us a complementary view of John the Baptist to that of the Synoptics (Mt, Mk, Lk).

In the next section, 1:35ff., there is an earlier incident about the meeting of Jesus, Andrew, and Peter than anything the Synoptics have.  It makes sense of what the Synoptics have put down in their gospels, tying up the loose ends of why these two brothers dropped their nets and followed Jesus there.  It was because of what heppened prior, which ... John records!

Now as to content.  the whole dialog between John the Baptist and those who had been sent from the Pharisees is extremely poignant and full of implications.  "The Prophet" (1:21) refers to the individual in Dt 18:15.  "Elijah" refers to Malachi 4:5.

We already know something about John the Baptist, from the gospel writer John's depiction in 1:6-8.  In this section, John titles this depiction "the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem ...." (1:19).  The irony here should not be missed.

1.  The "testimony of John" is going to be to Jesus.  What do the priests and Levites ask him about?  About himself.  They want John the Baptist to testify about himself.  In view of later discussions about such a thing, Jn 5:30-47 and 8:12-20, we are getting a preview of what is to come in much more detail later, about the kinds of disputes the "priests and Levites" had with Jesus as well.  Here we see what kind of argument was being angled for.

2.  John the Baptist's answer to their initial question deflated it.  To our ears, we say "whoaaa?" to their question "are you Elijah?"  but because of Malachi 4:5, the Pharisees are asking the question in shorthand form.  In longer form, the kind we would need, it is something like this: given that Malachi predicted someone coming very much like Elijah in the future, and that John the Baptist was very much like Elijah, is John the Baptist claiming he is the immediate precursor to "the great and terrible day of the Lord" (Mal 4:5)? In the last third of the 20th Century, evangelicalism was often accused of being the realm of "date setters!"  Similarly here.  Is John the Baptist doing some date setting?

The truth is very close to this, isn't it?  If we gather up all the descriptions of John the Baptist, he is very like Elijah.  If we only take one of his sentences, "repent, for the kingdom of God has come near" (Mt 3:2), it sounds like a kind of date setting.  And what about Mt 11:14, which will come later, which is Jesus' assessment of the question?  So why does John the Baptist answer "no?"  We already know from the prologue that the Light "was in the world" (1:10).

Number 1 reason for his answer "no," in 1:21 is they asked the question too soon!  The Light "was in the world" (1:10), but John hadn't identified Him yet!  The person whom God Himself "sent" (1:6), had not gotten to the point yet of fully understanding about himself.  This is the irony of John's answer to the Pharisees.  They assumed that someone doing religious things is doing so out of a foundation based upon their own self.  But John's whole purpose, which we already know from reading it in 1:8, was to testify to someone else.  When you're not about yourself, then critiques that assume you are, will miss the mark.

Mk 1:14-34

(We began this sequence with Mark in the Jan 1, 2015 blog)

The extraordinary time-stamp of 1:14 for Jesus coming into Galilee needs to be more noticed.  Was there a reason Mark places this note, that John was taken into custody, here?

Certainly, John announced that "One is coming" (1:7) before he was taken into custody.  And now, Jesus "came into Galilee" (1:14).  The Lord was coming _from_ Nazareth in Galilee (1:9) when he was baptized by John.  Now, he comes into Galilee, from "the wilderness" (1:12).  We're prepared by Mark for dramatic activity, but we're not prepared for "the kingdom of God has come near" (lit. 1:15).  That fact is just as much a fact as "John the baptist appeared " in 1:4.  Mark is a gospel of action, many have said.  They all ought to say therefore that the Lord enters into Galilee deliberately and actively, and urgently.  So has the kingdom.   "The kingdom of God has come near" -- not cyclically, or as it always seem to wanna do, or giving you the option of getting close to it or not -- none of that stuff! -- But the kingdom of God has come near already!

But we skipped a phrase: "the time is fulfilled" (1:14).  Jesus, not Mark, saying this, takes the reader right back to 1:2, where John had talked about God's way being prepared; that is, God's way of entrance!  That's the time that is fulfilled.  It all ties together.  John exalting Jesus as baptizing with the Holy Spirit.  After Mark had introduced him as someone who said "make ready the way of the Lord," in Isaiah 40:3, "clear the way for [the Lord's name here] in the wilderness," and then John is now in custody, what's the next expected thing?  What John prepared for, to arrive.  When Jesus says "the kingdom of God has arrived" we conclude that John prepared the way of the Lord, had made His paths straight, and now Jesus says the kingdom of God has arrived.

So what we have is Mark, writing to his readers after the Resurrection of Jesus, about Jesus's arrival, saying in the very first thing he records to us that Jesus said, that the kingdom of God has arrived.  OK, we got that.  Is it information only!  FYI?  Far from it!  "Repent, and believe in the gospel."  Repent, and believe in the good news.

Just as was said Jan 1 about 1:4, not to read our own definitions into Mark's words, we should do the same with 1:14.  Not "cut that stuff out and believe the gospel" -- that's the way we moderns hear the word "repent" -- but, putting ourselves into the situation back then -- urgently go into a change-up of heart about everything concerning the arrival of the kingdom of God, indeed, of God Himself ... and ... (which we'll get to in a moment).

Get the cobwebs out of your heads and get to really hearing that God's kingdom has arrived, whatever that implies, most all of which you could not know!   AND, believe the gospel -- the good news!

The surprise is "believe the good news."  Jesus doesn't say "good news for some."  He's not saying "sleeper cells of the righteous, you know who you are, it's time to come forth" -- the Lord isn't saying "here's your expected news, sleepers, and your codes" -- but telling those who He is preaching to, indiscrminately, to "believe the good news," and it is good news that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has arrived.  He's not calling sleeper cells; the Good News is for everyone hearing Him.

So the follow-on from John's ministry and from the prophecy is unmistakable.  Let's go on.  Was it a preaching-only ministry?  No.  In the next section (1:16-20) Jesus sees two fishermen, and, as if He know everything about their future from the beginning, says "follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men" (1:17).    In our day, knowing the subsequent Christian movement, we read into this our own conception of entry into the movement, but to Andrew and Simon, they had "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent, and believe in the gospel" and this personal invitation.  (By the way, in the spirit of clearing our own cobwebs, let's not turn the Lord's summons to Peter and Andrew into a popular 21st century "follow Me forever" category.  He didn't say that!  Besides, that would contradict what Jesus actually said: if they had to follow Him forever, in order to become fishers of men, then the condition would never be fulfilled in time.  It is to those days with them that Jesus refers.)

Two things would stick out to Andrew and Simon.  Jesus preaching the arrival of the kingdom of God, and the summons to follow ... God?  That's not how the Lord stated it, is it?  How is it that the one who announces that the kingdom of God has arrived and the time is fulfilled, is saying to individuals, "follow Me"?  That would be a very pronounced surprise.   The second, "and I will make you become fishers of men" is a promise.  It is a promise to two brothers.  It is a promise by Jesus.  It addresses not only what they would be doing in the future, but who they would be in the future.

Everything in the rest of our section points to the huge significance of the Lord's activity.  The story of the man with an "unclean spirit" turns out to be like something out of a movie, with the "unclean spirit" speaking to Jesus in the middle of the event.  The rest of the healings are unaccompanied by purpose-clauses.  The Lord healed, but not as a man amassing a name for Himself might do.  In fact, "who He was" was to be kept back, not because they said what was false about Him, but "because they knew who He was" (1:34).  This is a very famous central issue for Mark, and has been discussed by thousands of essays and periodicals and books.  Who Jesus was, became for many authors talking about Mark's appreach ... "the Messianic Secret."

The reaction of the crowds at the time is not just to Jesus' actions, because they reacted to His teaching as something very different, from what they were used to (1:22; 1:27).  Their reaction was not as full as that of the unclean spirit, who had fuller knowledge (1:24), but no right to speak!  That kind of evil has one response from Jesus: rebuke, and out!

Acts 2:1-21

The make-up of the apostles having been Peter's concern, we would have expected an extrapolation from that, in this chapter.  But no: Luke looks at the beginning group of all of Christianity, gathered together then, in one place.  But it's now the "not many days from now" of 1:5, and it happens to be in the morning (1:15).  In something reminiscent of the difference between the loaves and fish, versus the feeding of the thousands, something similar is about to happen in Acts.  Did the disciples anticipate the change in the magnitude of the scope?  Did they think that they alone were going to be recipients of the Holy Spirit, or that the time coming would be a similar time to the last few years, spreading out as a small group, teaching two by two, with power?

Jesus had said they would receive power (1:8); He had said "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (1:5).  But He didn't say it was going to be only them.  To spread twelve "to the remotest part of the earth" would be to have a very isolated group, if it were going to be twelve.

But at Pentecost, the world of "Jews and proselytes" (2:10) was represented.  The remotest known part of the earth was within earshot of them.  God had arranged it for the world to hear the witnesses to His Son, but how were they actually going to hear?  Were they polled beforehand, to see if they had extra time for another meeting?  What the disciples might have found daunting, God, having concern for the uttermost parts the world, ministered to the world's representatives, as only God could have done.

These gathered could not have known the various languages, at least a dozen, in a dozen years, but in the space of one day, representatives of the world who speak these languages, heard Christ's witnesses speaking them, saying things about "the mighty deeds of God" (2:11).

Here, before there were church councils, disputes about the gospel, imposters within the church, things eventually that all would come about -- God started the witnesses to Christ on the right track, speaking of the mighty deeds of God in the hearing of representatives of the world.  And Peter preached how it was prophesied in "what was spoken through the prophet" (2:16).  They were prophesying.  And it was prophesied, that they would.

Gal 1:1-17

Paul could very well introduce a category of explanation that we very often ignore, in the first verse of this letter: "not through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father."  Christ, and God, doing things -- on their own.  Not just placeholding explanations for what humans do.

This certainly is a difference between God and idols.  Idols are described as bringing victories to armies, or the cause of prosperity of a city -- "great is Artemis of the Ephesians" -- but it is an ascription.  Christianity, and Paul here, assert that God does things: He's not just the invisible explanation for what human beings credit him with.

"Jesus Christ and God the Father" did something, with the result that Paul is something ... an apostle.  What Jesus Christ and God the Father did, was send Paul, and the result is both that he is an apostle, but also ... that he got sent!  If that is already done, certainly the Galatians can take 1:3 as more than well-wishing.

It all comes from this category of explanation!  A God who can do things, can actually send "grace to you and peace from God."  Our "best wishes" may not come into existence, but with Paul calling them down from God upon the Galatians it is one and the same, the wishing of it, and the pronouncement of it to be the case.

It comes from the same kind of thinking that prompts Paul in another letter to tell the Philippians, "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Ph 1:6). There we notice its certainty because it is stated so, in the indicative, but here, as a blessing Paul calls down ... do we have the temerity to say it is only a casual well-wishing on the level of "good luck" or "stay well!"?  I hope not.

To punctuate the connection between God having done things and God as doing things in the future, as we read, we hear that "the Lord Jesus Christ" did something -- gave Himself for our sins, in order to do something else for us -- rescue us from this present evil age."

OK, Christ gave Himself for our sins.  What was the purpose of that?  Is He done now, and the ensuing outcome just completely our doing?  No, the next thing was "so that He might rescue us from this present evil age"  -- whether we conceive of this as Christ doing so by one and the same act, or whether the rescue from "this present evil age" is subsequent -- it is still Christ doing it, not something that is ours to complete.  And Paul sees and assigns glory to God for ever, for this.

We have to go on to 1:6ff in order to understand better why Paul began this way, about God being the One who sent him, and his being sent through Jesus Christ.  He will explain that part of his argument, but what is the problem?  The problem is the quick desertion going on, by the Galatians, of God!

In all the arguments about the nature of salvation we've heard, it is good to realize that so many of them define the severity of the consequences of deserting God, but do not say what deserting God is!  Isn't Galatians, to the extent that it explains what the Galatian churches were doing, an answer to that question?  It must be, since Paul says they "are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ" (1:6). At the least, what the Galatians were doing is truly deserting God, however more other kinds of desertion of Him there are.  Therefore it should very much grab our attention.

To desert  for "a different gospel" is to desert God. Paul has already reminded them of something we know he considers "of first importance" in the gospel, that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor 15:1ff).  He mentions it here as "Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for our sins," and we might be correct to  guess that the sentence might have a hint at Paul's corrective, that he couldn't wait to apply to their reading: "so that He might rescue us from this present evil age."  This "so that" part -- could Paul be emphasizing it so early in his letter, so urgently, because it is such an important part of the cure to the desertion?  I think so.  This phrase suggests that the desertion to the different gospel was to the idea that Christ gave Himself for our sins, so that _something else_ would go on and rescue us from this present evil age, and Paul is saying that's a different gospel.  The true gospel, which they were "so quickly deserting" (1:6), would be that "Christ gave Himself for our sins, so that _He_ might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father (1:4)."

So far this must just be a guess, because Paul does not come out here and say what the distortion (1:7) is.  But we can see if the guess has support by reading the rest of the letter.  It fits the idea of deserting God, because they are deserting God's will for the purpose of Christ giving Himself. 

The Galatians are being disturbed by some who "want to distort the gospel of Christ" (1:7).  That's another whole category than the making of a mistake.  To want to distort the gospel of Christ is not the same at all as making a mistake. 

Mt 1:1-2:6

For a book to start like this -- the geneology, I'm referring to -- is the bane of the  interested child in many, many homes.  I still have the Bible which was in my home when I was learning to read, and still remember the times where I just couldn't get past the geneologies.  If nothing else, we should draw from this that I did not have much stamina so long ago; so as to better put up with blogs that are not complete sets, I hereby request.  I'm leaning on, not blaming, the geneologies here.

But what a geneology for the initiated!  The geneology of the Messiah!  And you can't get more official than an inspired document!  Neither is the geneology boring whatsoever.  The grand switch away from Joseph in 1:16, from the lists of those who fathered, to that phrase "the husband of Mary," is there in the Greek too, with that female pronoun for "by whom" Jesus was born.

But it is a geneology of the humbling of the reader too, the reader of Israel who knows about the Tamar story (1:3; Gen 38), the Ruth story, the Jesse story, the Bathsheba story, the Jeconiah story, the deportation story.  All these ancestors, but not a list of heroes, not like the king lists children used to memorize in England, in order to say something proud about each one.  True son of David and Abraham, yes.  But not a crescendo, of the kind we're used to, at least, of human glory to human glory.  And even if it was, the human fathering stops at Joseph.

So much then is the humiliation in the reader, then, a fitting preparatory humbling, to prefigure what ensues: the King of the people is born in a place where the current king of the people was going to be troubled to hear it, along with the people (2:3).  The current king was made king by an outside nation, Rome.  Aptly, Jesus will be honored by representatives of an outside nation, the oddest kind -- the among-Daniel wisemen kind, the kind that the then-king wanted to murder, but Daniel saved them -- Jesus will be honored from that same area as Daniel saved their perhaps-ancestors and guild, from that area that Matthew had mentioned in the geneology just previous, Babylon!  Jesus, with a name meaning God saves, will save people, but from their sins (1:21)!  And these astrologers, uncharacteristically actually were correctly guided by a star ... from God, at least part of the way, in the story so far. The nation was not just unprepared under Herod, but Herod himself was prepared against,  we will see ... he was anti-prepared, after he became knowledgeable about the possibility of the Messiah born (2:5).  Nevertheless, Christ was honored as God's born king by those God chose to honor Him with.

1 Tim 1:1-17

The idealist in us wants to have it that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, dealt with the biggest and most significant issues and problems, like a CEO, among the churches.  We read here that Paul was not so, and dealt with details and the messies.  But first, look at the interesting salutation of this letter.

"According to the command of God our Savior" sticks out as somewhat unique; of all Paul's letters, only Titus has something similar.  If there is any difference between a phrase like that, and something from the other salutations like "by the will of God," it adds sequence to the job.  Paul, regarding his apostleship, was apostle, by being "called" (Rm, 1Cor); by "the will of God" (2 Cor, Eph, Col, 2Tim); "through Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Gal); Titus expands (1:3), saying "entrusted."

But "according to" allows for a sequence of things, not just a one-time event.  The gospels describe a narrative, a sequence of events, not just one.  The sequence is "according to" their respective writers.  Possibly one of the greatest "according to" sequences is in Romans 8:4, that we walk not "according to" the flesh, but according to the Spirit.  Neither God's gifts, nor God's jobs, are given by someone who runs off.

Here in this supposedly doctrinally paucous letter, we have, in a phrase, an answer to everyone who has started a job could well ask: does God give us jobs and then it's all on us?  No, the job is a sequence of events, not just an event.  Paul, in the other words that he used about his apostleship, didn't give out that aspect that comes out here.

No paucity in this chapter!  Not only is he dealing with people who have really veered off (1:4) into "strange doctrines," but he deals with them while giving us interesting plus-insights to one of his biggest themes in other letters.  He had said, way back, in Romans 7, that we died to the Law.   Here, he goes bazookas and says "the Law is good ... but ... law is not made for a righteous person" (1:8)!  In the same way that the Christian is, by definition, someone who has  Spirit of Christ (Rm 8:9), the Christian is, by definition, someone whom the Law is not "made for."  Christians -- don't mistake this, we use rules all the time, but ... -- we weren't made for rules.

For some reason, this makes Paul think of the example of himself, toward our understanding of God's patience.  Our natural tendency is to draw for ourselves a god who is unconcerned about the small sins, but gets really madder and madder, the "bigger" the sins.  Paul excels himself in 1:9-10 by writing down the "big" sins.  Lots of people truncate 1:10 that way, only thinking of some of the big sins there, and don't realize that the Law, and Paul here, goes down from all those sins to "whatever else is contrary to sound teaching."  James and the Lord all make a similar point (Jm 2:10; Mt 5:22).  One of the great things about a country is to see it set down small things in law. Unbelievers constantly and repeatedly misunderstand Christianity here, disputing with what it says the Law covers, thinking that a particular thing is covered, and if it weren't, they would have their righteousness restored.  But God's Law reflects His perfection, and covers all that is contrary to sound teaching, even the small stuff.

Paul makes a statement about "the administration of God which is by faith" (1:4).  Did you know that?  That the _administration of God_ is by faith?  Wow!  This so-called pseudo-Pauline letter is sure good at completing what Paul was saying about Law in Romans 4: "the Law brings about wrath" (4:15).  We glory that it does so, and glory even more (2 Cor 3:9-11) that the administration of God is by faith.

Lk 1:1-38

This rich beginning to the gospel of Luke begins with a fine historian's introduction (1:1-4) and goes right into the fact that the Lord's birth had tremendous preceding events leading up to it.  Luke is the most expansive of the family events before the birth of Christ into a human family.  Since John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth, and Jesus's mother Mary were relatives (1:36), Luke shows how the angel (and thus the Lord) uses family relationships for encouragement (1:36-37).

The same angel Gabriel, who tells Mary about Elizabeth's pregnancy, omits Zechariah's unbelief (1:20).  Fear had gripped Zechariah (1:12), but the angel began with both Mary and Zechariah by saying "Do not be afraid" (1:13, 30).  There is an implicit comparison in the two responses, due to their similarity of subject and even the questions of the two (1:18, 34), but does Luke resolve the question about why one did not believe the angel's words (1:20), and one did, at least later?  This is  according to Elizabeth, who says so later in 1:45.  What Mary actually told the angel was "may it be done to me according to your word" (1:38).

There is possibly a lesson about faith here.

Is the response of Mary, "may it be done to me," the antithesis of what Zechariah said, "how will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advance in years?"  Thinking about his age and his wife's age made Zechariah ask "how will I know this?"  So he was making a syllogism: because of my age, and my wife's age, I do not know this for certain.  Know what?  What the angel had announced would happen, from 1:13-17.  He "knew" that he was an old man; he "knew" that his wife is advanced in days.  He heard, but did not believe (1:20), more things, the things in 1:13-17.  Mary, on the other hand, heard things of greater significance, undeniably things that could only apply to the Messiah (1:33).  And she heard things about her part in it (1:31).  Did she "know" that she was a virgin?  Of course.  She brought the problem up, thinking that the angel was talking about her conception  as very imminent (1:31).  And the angel explains why indeed it is.

There may be a difference in the "how will I know this?" (1:18) of Zechariah and the "how will this be?" (1:34) of Mary.  If as Zechariah's we want inward certainty, how much data does it take to give it to us, and who is it that gets to say that there is enough data for certainty?  But if as Mary's we want merely to understand how a promise will get around an obstacle, that is not a request for certainty, nor is it disbelief.

 
 

Rm 1:1-27

We'll be trying always to look with "new eyes" at the passages, and this is equally important everywhere, since most sincere theological errors come from presuppositions brought to the text.

Here, in the most famous epistle in the Bible, the presupposition is so easy to adopt -- that it's not an epistle!  How does that pan out?  Paul, writing a letter, using the customary "from:" and "concerning" and "to" of the headings then, puts ... for "concerning" ... "His Son"!!!!  Paul, writing a letter, and the subject is God's Son.  That's pretty non-letter-like, and pretty bold if you ask me.  Come on, Paul!  You expect us to believe that "God's Son" is the reason for your letter, not something about us, about you, about our stuff, about your stuff?  Yup!

And he proves it, doesn't he, going right into details!?  Before the "ink" was dry on the first word "Paul," with only one intervening word in Greek (doulos), names the one whom the letter is "concerning."  Before he says "concerning" (1:3) he's already mentioned who his letter is concerning!

But not to toy with the Romans, he gives them plenty of information about himself: he was sent by the One whom this letter is concerning, and he is a bond-slave of Him.  His particular task, a specialized one, is "the gospel of God," the good news from God, "which He promised beforehand."  It's one thing for something to be good news.  It's another thing entirely that it was known about beforehand, and the hardest to add to a piece of good news is the last fact: God promised the good news long ago.  Not too much good news gets promised beforehand, and that, by God, and written down.

1 Peter 1:1-21

Before we go ahead and say that Peter is so much like Paul -- talking about predestination (1:1), God causing us to be born again (1:3), things reserved in heaven for us (1:4), etc -- let's also point out that Peter is very quick in this letter to mix in application along with it.  There are more than a few people who would be afraid to always be mixing in application so quickly, if they are weaned on Romans!  So this is good for some, including me!

What a surprise, to see in its bluntness and succinctness, the goal for being "chosen ... by the sanctifying work of the Spirit" here in the second verse: the goal is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1:2, lit.)  Peter, who once told the Lord "go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man," comes back here to say something about sanctification that we forget: the very choice of us by God is by His sanctifying work.  Here we have also the basic meaning of sanctification showing itself, that it is to set something aside for special-case use.

What is this special-case use of being chosen?  Peter tells us three things about the choice: that it is a choice by the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work; that it is "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"; and that it is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."  Notice the activity of God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Christ.  And Christ's work, as the targeted goal for the rest.

That's worth unpacking a little bit.  Normally we think that our Christian life starts with a relationship to Christ, and that He ushers us into the presence of the Father, and that God the Holy Spirit is with us in our day-to-day goals.  But here, our far past is the province of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the future explicitly deals with Christ.  We can't put such boxes and categories about who does what when, and Peter serves to remind us of that.

Is it true, then, that theological disputes about faith and works, whether good works are inevitable, for example, can be settled by 1:2?  If Peter has an ordo salutis here, a sequence, then what he says that  we are chosen "unto," these two things, "obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," don't give themselves over to the demand for immediate good works as inevitable.  In fact, in all the discussions in Scripture, including of Paul's "apart from works" and James's discussion of Abraham's justification "by works," the works do not appear immediately, however inevitable they may indeed eventually be.  See Jn 14:12!  So Peter is dovetailing with their inevitability here, but not with the demand for seeing them immediately or constantly present, by saying that we are chosen "unto obedience."  And being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ is just as much what we are chosen "unto," as obedience.  To be thus sprinkled is not just an initiation thing.  

John 1:1-23

If you know how bewildering it can be to listen to someone else's details without being given a context to understand them, then the gospel of John is for you.  At least here "in the beginning."

By the end of our passage, in Jn 1:23, we're exactly at the same place with the details as Mark brings us to start his gospel, with the particulars of John the Baptist.  But how we got there is amazing.  And practicality?  You can learn enough about yourself as a Christian from one sentence here (1:8) to guard you through the course of this world.

In verses 1ff. John writes what some call "densely"; that is, everything is very precisely stated, and there is a reason for every detail.  For example, the Word "was" in 1:1.  In English we say "was there," for example, "I was there at my son's birth," when we want to express the / time when / place where / I already was.  Here, before the world's time and place had yet come about, the Word "was."

Then comes the dovetailing of what John is saying with Genesis 1:1, about there being only God at the beginning, and God being the one creating.  The Word was God.  So, there was still only God at the beginning.  The Word was with God.  So, the Word, being with God, and God.  What else?  Not an impersonal word, but a  "He" (1:2), was not only at the beginning, but at the beginning all things were made through Him.  Since then as well: all individual things have been made through Him; things have a "made-ness" to them.  All of them (1:3).  One mark of being "made" is that the materials are of similar nature across the board.  Atoms, for example.  DNA, in the case of life. 

Speaking of life, John goes on.  The very next assertions about "Him" are that in Him was life.  The Word is not an inanimate "it."

But nothing prepares us for the addition John makes next.  The life in the Word is, has all along been, "the light of men" ... the light of even Adam and Eve.  The light of men.  That life was there to be that, as we would expand in English.  Whenever "men" -- mankind -- have been in relatively little light, it was not because there wasn't any, shining in the darkness.

How do we know that John isn't talking directly about physical light?  Because the light is the light of the life "in Him" (1:4), and because of that interesting phrase, "shines in the darkness."  Physical light is not the life that always was in the Word, but this light is that life, in Him who was there before physical light, that shines in the darkness whether physical light does so there or not.

Having looked into John's first time-marker, "the beginning," we can also notice his hint of a second one, that this life was, at a point in time, not comprehended by "the darkness."  John is giving us the start of a story about the Light, and a theme in the ensuing story. But John got this from the Light Himself, which we can see from the profound conclusions the Light makes about Himself in Jn 12:35-36.

But back to why does nothing prepare us for the reference in 1:4b, "light of men"? Because nothing to that point in the text forced us to think of men as being in the picture.  People often say that God need not have created the world.  Even more so, the life that was in the Word: what necessity there for that life to be the light of men?  "What is man that You take thought of him?" Psalm 8:4 asks.  The stars and moon made the Psalmist ask that question.  How much less did what is in man compel the life that was in the Word at the beginning to be the light of men, including you or me.  The Word was not compelled by anything in men, to be their light.

But John is not yet finished talking about the significance to all men of the Light.  Even though he begins to talk about particulars in 1:6, he refers the coming of John the Baptist back to the Light that he was just talking about (1:7-8).  Did we expect John to say that the witness was going to testify about the "life" in 1:7?  That's not how the Baptist came.  Even though "the life was the Light of men," John the Baptist did not come saying it doesn't matter what came, as long as it has life ... NO! Light, the Light, matters.  Comprehension matters.  The life in the Word was the light of men, not a way to skip the light of men.  Light and life are not opposed.  Light is not skippable, on the way to life.  So John came to "testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him."  There is an ordering relationship here, which John echoes even at the end of the Gospel.  In this chapter, the ordering is Word, Light, testimony about the light, to believing.  In John 20 is the same thing: "these [words] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (20:31).  Believing is means to life.

Next comes a part that saddens even a small child who hears it.  In 1:09, everything is as it should be, but the situation in the world that the Light came into and continued in was a lack of knowledge of Him: "the world did not know Him."  Furthermore, "His own did not receive Him," referring to "His own" in the broadest terms, not necessarily in terms of just a nation or race.  One of the points of the prologue is the universality of what "His own" is, in the universe: everything that has been made!  And ... as a general description, His own did not receive Him, but that was not without exceptions: "as many as received Him" -- as many individuals as did -- the Word gave the right to become children of God!  Tying the previous together, John explains: "to those who believe in His name." (1:12).

John gets ahead of himself to describe this exception to the rule that "His own did not receive Him.  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God ...."  He further says, "who were born" -- BOMBSHELL!  The Word did NOT JUST give the right to become children of God to those who received Him ... they were BORN!  Those who received Him were born of God! (1:13).

Next, he summarizes what he's been saying, 1:14.  The rest of what is commonly called the "Prologue," 1:14-18, recapulates and supplies more particulars, and even lets John tie himself into the story ("we saw His glory ..." (1:14)).

 "We all received" (1:16) refers to something specific, as does "grace for grace."  What was part of the glory, a fullness of grace and truth that the author saw in 1:14, is described as something specific, shared, here.  Something "of His fullness," i.e. some part of it, we all received. Not only that! (the "and" here is forceful ....)  It wasn't something skimpy.  "Grace for grace" means repetition of it over time, solely because of the previous.

And no, Paul didn't write 1:17 and insert it in.  It's Johannine language, which we recognize by the "came to be" literal.  Grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ.  Another one of those forceful, emphatic "and" words.  Grace AND truth came to be through Jesus Christ.  Came to be right here among us, existing.  Incarnate.  How blessed to be those to whom this event, this Incarnation, has explained ... God!  And, finally, we are ready to hear what John the Baptist had been saying, as the other evangelists do as well: all four gospel writers agree that Isaiah 40:3 refers to John the Baptist.

Mk 1:1-13

To read Mark with some attempts at reading him afresh is good.  He will be done with his story before you know it, and there are many things a cursory reading might miss.  For example, his quotation gets critical attention, for essentially not having our footnote style.  If "Isaiah the prophet" is a scroll, containing all the prophets, then Malachi will be on that scroll.  Or perhaps he wanted to highlight verse 3 by direct mention of the source, and the other, Malachi quote, being from a "Minor Prophet," uncited for reasons of space.

But more important things than that are in this passage.  Let's not read church history into this baptism of John's, or even something current into the word "baptism," for that matter.  When the readers read "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" they were not compelled, as we tend to, think of ceremonies that forgive people.  The phrase is completely capable of being heard as "a complete immersion in a change of heart, looking to forgiveness of sins."  One hint of this is that the text says that John was "preaching" something, which emphasizes the content.  The common presupposition that the baptized were doing an act to get a result: that's reading into it.  Especially when the Lord comes and is baptized! We should realize that the Lord didn't come to a ceremony to get forgiveness of sins; but well might He attend and participate among those immersed in repentance, having a change of heart, regarding the forgiveness of sins.  No need to look for tit-for-tat magical ceremonies here.

Why then the confession of sin?  If you're dealing with forgiveness of sins, it will be no avail to not agree that they are there.  Admitting one's sins publicly is so foreign to the "modern world" that we don't even have a day in America for dealing with our sins, speaking socially.  We have days of sad remembrance, of wars fought, and other sad days for famous people's deaths, but isn't the closest thing in America something around Christmas time, "you better watch out ..." because of "Santa," or some kind of New Year's resolution tradition?  At least resolutions imply changes from the previous.  Nothing like the days of sackcloth and ashes in Nineveh, or the confessing of sins by those there in our text.

John however (John the Baptist) is making points from the details of the circumstance: now there's water, but the mightier One who is coming will "baptize you with the Holy Spirit."  One of the reasons this remark is so hugely impactful is precisely because the contrast he is making between what water can do and what God will be doing.  It is not "modalism" to identify "the Holy Spirit" as God.  Someone is coming who will be utilizing, employing someone ... God! (whom John characteristically named in the standard deferential Jewish way, by the way, not "directly," but with more impact!).  This mightier One will employ the Holy God in his ministry, just as the Baptist used water!  He will very-much-so immerse you with Him.  Fire emphasizes the holiness being present.  Water is quite weak, compared to fire.

Mark characteristically ends this section with a note of urgency and drama.  The Lord didn't come to hang with, and relax with.  The most serious of serious work was being done.

Acts 1

Since we might have difficulty because of different questions than the apostles have in Acts 1, we need to imagine what it was like to have been given orders by the resurrected Son of God, as Luke starts here by describing (Acts 1:2).  As we read.

They wouldn't be asking about the relationship of the Lord's divine and human nature, or what was the best form of church government.  What they did ask and learn was very much of-the-moment: they received "many convincing proofs" that the Lord was alive, for one thing.  Also, they received orders to wait for "what the Father had promised" -- this, an amazing confirmation of what He had said the day He ate the fish with them (Lk 24:49).

As we continue to read in Acts 1, the whole series of events comes upon us so fast!  "Forty days" is not a long time to be around "the first and the last, and the Living One," as He will explain later to John and us (Rev 1:18), that  He "was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore" with these "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3). 

It would not be unfair to wonder why He was to go after He said those things in Acts 1:8.  And thus we are not far off from needing what the angels said to the apostles at the very time they could have been distressed: "why do you stand looking into the sky," they ask (1:11).  But their exhortation wasn't something like "get to work!" but, as per the way things are done under the aegis of the new era, a promise was given them: the Lord "will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go" (1:11).   A good question we can ask is "why was that told to them? What would that have added to their step, knowing what we do, two thousand years later?"  Or is it, really, a good question?  Lots of those "knowing what we do" assumptions should be revisited!

The disciples could not have but understood this as encouraging to them, that the Lord would come in just the same way as they watched Him go.  To the theological mind, this might need "rephrasing," but don't dare do so.  Keep the verse, lose the philosophy that prevents the significance of the verse from hitting you!

The rest of chapter 1 takes the form of a procedural issue that would seem to be a secondary matter to us, compared to other issues, but there it is.  Another corrective of our common practice of reading what happened, but putting its significance as low for us.

One way to see why it was so significant to Peter, to replace the place of Judas among the apostles, is to remember what Jesus had been doing.  He "presented Himself alive" ... "to them."  Jesus was not presenting Himself to everyone, "not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead" (Acts 10:41).  That's the background of the importance of the selection of Matthias (Acts 1:22ff).  We want arm-chair discussions of why Judas, and Peter wants to make sure he synchronizes the actions of the apostles with the fact that the witnesses were "chosen beforehand by God."

Acts 18

Acts 18 has a very action-oriented pace and pragmatic aspect to it. In one case, people want an extended teaching time with Paul, but even he himself postpones the opportunity with them (18:21).  In another case, he curtails his teaching to a group that "resisted and blasphemed" (18:6).

A good question, with all his traveling, is just how Paul was "strengthening all the disciples" during such a whirlwind trip "through the Galatian region and Phyrigia."  (18:23).  The outsider in Corinth heard little but "words and names and your own law (18:15)," which theological discussions sound like to an outsider, often nowadays as well.

Paul worked.  He worked alongside "a Jew named Aquila" in the same trade (tent-makers, 18:3).  All very pragmatic.  But what did Paul do "in his spare time," as we say nowadays?  "He was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."  (18:4).      

In our day, "reasoning" and "trying to pursuade" is almost ridiculed.  A current popular movie unconsciously testifies to the attempt to segregate a time of choice and deliberation to a very narrow time of life and a narrow set of choice points.    One of the points of this movie (Divergent) is the fallacy of restricting the time and scope of human choice and deliberation.  

"Trying to persuade Jews and Greeks" goes also against many theological systems which say in effect, that the attempt to pursuade is of very little use.  That idea should be scuttled, since Paul did that kind of things for "a year and six months" (18:11), and did not leave due either to conflict (18:12) or to being forced to (18:18).

A detail we might overlook is that in "trying to persuade Jews and Greeks (18:4)," Paul very likely doubled his persuasion efforts, because of the separation normally likely to be the case, between groups of Jews and groups of Greeks in their social and religious gatherings.

Lk 3 Studies, Pt 2

Continuing the discussion of Lk 3.

Lk 3:8

Q1.  Can the presupposition that he was preaching to fake repenters in this verse be sustained?

No.  That would be mistaking strong language for accusatory language in this verse.  It starts with the big "therefore" to the answer to his previous question.  "Therefore" ... in fleeing from the wrath to come, by coming out to be baptized by him, their obligation now (cf. 3:10-14) is to bear fruits.  It is not the obligation of those who have not repented, to bear fruits in keeping with repentance, but those who have.

Q2.  Is it irrelevant to true religion to have Abraham as father?

No.  Paul doesn't think so in Rm 4:13-17a.  Neither Jesus Himself, in Jn 8:39.  John the Baptist's argument is more complicated than that.  What is to be avoided, while bearing fruits in keeping with repentance?  Saying to oneselves, "we have Abraham for our father."  In the Greek, it's more of a categorical, using the accusative: "a father we have, namely, that Abraham."  John the Baptist is telling them not to make that argument about themselves, which is a "standing pat"-type argument.  Not that it's false.  But they are not to use it in lieu of bearing fruits in keeping with repentance.  They are to go with the repentance, over that fact.

Why?  Because "from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." This is often taken as, therefore it is of no consquence, to be Abraham's descendant.   But God's ability to do this from stones  ... that is not the ability to do something that's unimportant.  To have repented, however, is a compelling fact, greater than to be Abraham's descendant, a fact to be taken as compelling action, no matter even that they are Abraham's descendants.

So to bear fruit worthy of repentance is far to be preferred to -- even -- being the great Abraham's descendants, because, though God is able to raise up children to Abraham from stones, in repenting and bearing fruit in keeping with it, they distinguish themselves from passivity.  It's an activist argument.  Act!  Don't stand pat!

It also closes the argument started in 3:7.  God has brought you to repentance.  That's a great thing.  What does God do?  Since God can even make stones into grown up children of Abraham, let this repentance be for you a source of action such that God can even do with stones, turning them from their passivity.  God can not only create children of Abraham from stones, but raise them up.  God brought you to repentance.  Go on in keeping with that! in keeping with how God can even do with stones!

Luke 3 studies Pt. 1

Something of a detour into the gospels will sometimes be shown, my having started a year-long study of them back on April 27.

Today, in looking at Lk 3:7-9, there are many questions for a person interested in the gospels and what they say on salvation to possibly consider; at least I think so.

Lk 3:7

Q1.  Are the crowds addressed by John the Baptist as "you brood of vipers" all Pharisees?

The crowds addressed by John the Baptist here are not specifically Pharisees!  These crowds were, therefore, broods of vipers, and not necessarily because they were Pharisees!  What we know about this collection is that there were many instances of them: many instances of these crowds, since John "came into" many places: he "came into all the district around the Jordan."  That refers to many instances of preaching.  Secondly, they "were going out to be baptized by him."  That refers to the same instances of the crowds, ones that were in all the district around.  Not just one.    The attribute "brood of vipers," therefore, cannot be restricted to the Pharisees.

Q2.  What is the implied answer to John the Baptist's question in this verse?

That God Himself has warned them!  John the Baptist uses this as the premise of what he says to them that follows.  If God Himself warned them to flee from the wrath to come, then what John the Baptist says next makes sense.  Since they fled, they must do what is in keeping with that flight.    Otherwise, if they were not fleeing from the wrath to come, or if it was not God impelling them to, then there was no repentance to be in keeping with.

This answer gains support also from the way the topic starts: "You brood of vipers!"  They are as he says they are.  Do vipers know to avoid God's wrath to come?  No.  But they are a brood of vipers, so who but God could possibly have caused this unexpected event to have be happening at this present moment? If broods of vipers are fleeing from the wrath to come, by going out to be baptized by John the Baptist, they must have been warned to do so by God.  And since they are coming out to a baptism of repentance, their repentance is something from which John also argues the ethical implications of: "therefore bear fruits ...." (cf. 3:7, RV/ASV mg, "worthy of your repentance" ... your repentance: John is arguing from its existence in them.)

Something had already happened in Philippi before 2:12

Philippians 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for [His] good pleasure.

If God hadn't worked in the Philippians before (2:13 says He is at work in them), Paul could be telling them to work out many things, but how could he be telling them to work out their salvation? "Your salvation," that is, "your own salvation" (RV et al), is  την εαυτων σωτηριαν.  Let's recognize the plurals, including  "your (pl) salvation."  "Ye have always obeyed," says the AV/RV/ASV/YLT, which keeps the "ye" form, reflecting the plural address.  So they were being told by Paul to work out their salvation.  All those other translations, plus the RSV/ESV, from our times, shows the emphatically placed εαυτων adjective as present, by translating "your own salvation."  Poetically sounding English, reflecting even more the Greek would say "the you-folks'-own salvation," the salvation that is you-folks' own!

What does this rule out?  Acquisition!  If their salvation is their own, it is not something they are to acquire.  This simple Greek word εαυτων here has a Protestantism built right into it, we could say! ... at least, a Protestantism as it had started, which Trent remonstrated against back in 1546, against which the natural man rails, saying, how dare God presume to give me that great sine qua non, which I cannot say I must do some one good thing to obtain (Mt 19:16), or even possibly many things, to inherit (Mk 10:17; Lk 18:18) and establish (Rm 10:3)? How dare Paul tell them that something, salvation no less, is already their own.

Forest and trees in Philippians 2:12ff.

What if Philippians 2:12-13 weren't there?  What would be lost?

Likely nothing, if the meaning is being shoved into the verses from some other presupposition.  The presupposition would likely show up, as an affliction upon other verses that are called upon to bear it.

If Philippians 2:12-13 were not there, where would there be as sweet an example-from-success, that would help us understand the Christian life as these two verses do, which build upon the success of "just as you have always obeyed..."?

We're not as familiar with success-driven tasks, as problem-driven ones.  Think of the beginning of Romans, the universal indictment from Rm 1:18 through 3:20.  Or 1 Corinthians, "now concerning the things about which you wrote," Paul says in 7:1, namely questions and problems.

Therefore wouldn't it be wrong to put a problem-fixing presupposition onto these two verses here?  "Just as you have always obeyed ..." is not even the greatest positive example in the passage!  Certainly it is this: "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure."  This positive is not a "conditional promise."  What condition is Paul making for it?

So, if Paul were writing a "study Bible" version of his letter, what would the section heading be here?  Isn't "it is God who is at work in you" a section-heading-level statement?

For the logician, we can merely ask what the possible implications are, of "it is God who is at work in you."  One of them, Paul says, is "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."  Fear and trembling, as a positive?  Yes!  He is not discussing any kind of "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" besides the kind that is an inference from "it is God who is at work in you," and in light of their past obedience already.

working out your salvation in Philippians 2:12

Paul's "just as you have always obeyed ..." in Philippians 2:12 hopefully helps us understand what "work out your salvation" means in that same verse.  However, there is so much more that Paul has said to the Philippians in this letter up to this point, that helps as well.  In trying to understand what Paul means by the beginning of 2:12, "So then, my beloved, ..." we have to go back before 2:12.  What is 2:12 the conclusion from?

His first exhortation to them is Philippians 1:27, "conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ": conduct worthy of the gospel of Christ is a unique phrase here, although conduct worthy of God and worthy of our calling is also in Paul's vocabulary.  Because of the familiarity of the words "gospel" and "Christ" to us, we forget to listen to them like a First Century Philippian would.  Conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the good news of Messiah.  Hmm.  Do we often think of conduct as something that is to line up with the recent good news we've been given (cf. 1:6,8,10,11)?

Their suffering is also very noteworthy to Paul, and He will mention the suffering of Christ in 2:8, although not by the word suffering, but by the word "obedient" (2:8).  Similarly, the working out of their salvation is compared specifically with their past obedience, as its initial measure.  Other than perhaps the military, we're not as familiar in our culture with devoted obedience as Paul's culture was.  They obeyed while Paul was with them.  But does it say to Paul?  The immediate context is the obedience of Christ to the Father (2:8), and even the assertion that God highly exalted Christ because of His obedience to the Father.  Only then does Paul say "just as you have always obeyed."

The working out of their salvation is an obedience just like they obeyed while Paul was with them, and the "much more" he exhorts them to, is in working out their salvation in the present ("now ... in my absence,"), and for the reason he states in 2:13.

What is the obedience that they always had?  Obedience is a response word.  If what a person does is only the things that a person initiates himself or herself, what is there of obedience in that?  Paul deliberately refers them back to their time with him, and thus to what he has said about it in the letter so far.  He refers them to a finite interval of time, in which they always obeyed, i.e., they responded to imperatives they were under by complying with them.

Christ humbled Himself in "becoming obedient"  (2:8).  This does not mean a transition from disobedience, to obedience, but refers to actions of Christ that complied with the will of God, "to the point of death, even death on a cross." 

Therefore by directly discussing the working out of our salvation in the context of our obedience, Paul wants us to think of it together with instances of our past obedience, as motivation and standard (or if you prefer the order, as standard, and motivation).  He compares this obedience to what they already successfully had done, and to the obedience of Christ to the point of death.  Therefore our salvation places us under obligation to obey, in working it out, and this working out comes with accomplished examples of obedience, for them to consider, their own, and Christ's.  There is no working out of our salvation that cannot draw from them. 

Arguing from the past in Philippians 2:12

Continuing with Paul's important exhortation to the Philippians in 2:12-13, "so then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

We looked some at the "following-support" to Paul's exhortation "work out your salvation ...", which is the text of 2:13.  But before the exhortation are the words from the beginning of the verse as above, which people often skip.  This is the tail-end of what brings Paul to the exhortation.  Why does he bring up their past obedience?  Playing on their heart-strings?  Emoting?  No, although he loves them dearly, and loved them when they had met, and they always did what he said while he was with them.  These two chapters to this point are filled with some of the most amazing expressions of warmth of heart, plus theology intertwined, ever written.  Does "so then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but no much more in my absence" add nothing to the meaning of his exhortation?  Of course it adds.  What does it add?

1. Paul wants them to consider their past time with him and all they participated in while he was with them.  

2.  Why was he not with them now?  He was in prison.  He's writing  a letter to those who he loves like crazy, from prison, saying over and over how great it was for them to have participated with him in this and that together.  How great was that?  

3.  While he's in prison, he wants something to be "much more." Paul's love makes him want to turn their shared, obedient participation with him in the past, into a quantity argument about the future.  He wants them to accept this quantity argument from him, that goes from their past obedient participation with him, toward  a "much more" version in the future.

4.  Why does Paul have the temerity to ask this, besides due to his love for them wanting the best?  What makes him want a "much more"?  Because although he's absent from them, he can remind them of God not being absent from them.  A greater than Paul, who is among them as he can't be, gives him the temerity to exhort like this.

Philippians 2:12-13 introduction

A friend asked me to not be so negative, and put some things up that he could criticize(!)  So here goes, some thoughts on Philippians 2:12-13, an important text in the Christian life, as if from a student, to another.  Lord bless our exploration.

What is the relationship between God being "at work in you," which Paul tells the Philippians is true of them, and what Paul exhorts them to do, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling"?

The simple answer is that the first is a reason for the second.  "For it is God who is at work in you."  That's the immediate reason that Paul gives them for what he asks and exhorts and commands them to do.  God is at work in them.  That's the reason they should work out their salvation.

So before we ask questions of the form "why doesn't it mean what I think, namely, xyz," we should look at the passage on its own.  The exhortation, "work out your salvation ..." is supported on both sides: before, and after.  2:13 is the "after"; 2:12a, is the "before" (if not the whole letter in some respects).

So we have prior-support, then the exhortation, then following-support.  The following-support is very interesting, because of the fact that it supplies the premise (2:13) for an inference.  How is 2:13 a reason for working out our salvation?

Has the fact that others are working with us ever given us a reason to work at something?  How about if it is God, working in us?  Should God working in us not give a sufficient reason to work something out?  Especially if the very thing God is working on is the means that we humans get things done by using: our wills, and our deliberate actions.  But how then is it our very salvation, that we are to work out?!  More soon.

Timeframes for each chapter of Romans when reading Moo

It's been awhile since we read in Moo together, and since we're almost through with his "Introduction" (!), I thought I'd put the timeframes for reading each chapter of Romans together with the Moo 1996 commentary in one year, going at Moo's pace, reading his commentary including his essays embedded in it, at a steady pace throughout the one year.

After taking 14 days on his introduction,

chapter  1 -- 35 days
chapter  2 -- 20 days
chapter  3 -- 30 days
chapter  4 -- 14 days (!)
chapter  5 -- 23 days
chapter  6 -- 23 days
chapter  7 -- 22 days
chapter  8 -- 31 days
chapter  9 -- 33 days
chapter 10 -- 15 days
chapter 11 -- 28 days (!)
chapter 12 -- 19 days
chapter 13 -- 14 days
chapter 14 -- 14 days
chapter 15 -- 19 days
chapter 16 -- 11 days

Romans 1:28-2:11 timeframe

Romans 1:28-32 is for May 16-19 (-p. 116 in the Moo commentary on Romans).
Romans 2:1-11 is for May 19-27 (-p.  145 in the Moo commentary on Romans)

Romans 1:26-27 timeframe

Romans 1:26-27 is for May 15-16 (- p. 116 in the Moo commentary on Romans).

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 12 of 14)

(pp. 29-31)

   The alternatives that the author discusses on what the theme of Romans is will all sound very similar, to the point that we wonder what fussing there must be among scholars.  Is the difference, then, like something that one observer sees in a painting as the main interest of the painter, versus what another observer sees?
   First, we should test the idea of the author, that the gospel is the theme of Romans, for comprehensibility.  Does he use a defined term?
   The previous page has an explanation, which will serve for now, we must suppose: "how God has acted in Christ to bring the individual sinner into a new relationship with himself (chaps 1-4), to provide for that individual's eternal life (chaps. 5-8), and to transform that individual's life on earth now (12:1-15:13)" (p. 28).
   Another thing, before the reader must go on in the next few pages armed with definitions of "miniscule" and "uncial," and when the author says UBS, don't look at the bottom for a footnote about it (!).  "4" is not a footnote number on these pages! The author, in interacting with scholars who "vote" differently on the theme, says why their vote wasn't his....
   Not "justification by faith," because, although true, it doesn't cover everything.  But very interestingly, "it expresses, in the sphere of anthropology, a crucial element in Paul's understanding of God's work in Christ." (p. 29).  The gospel makes sense as being about God's work, news about which, there now is!  Justification by faith "expresses ... its entirely gracious character" (p. 29).
   This phrase, "in the sphere of anthropology," surely does justice far better than the sloganeering to the effect that "it's not about me."  Yes, the gospel is about God's work, and justification by faith is "a crucial element."  Not an "anachronism." (p. 28).  Best of all, "it expresses the resolute resistance of Paul, and the NT authors, to the constant human tendency to make what people do decisive for salvation." (p. 29).  Amen.  Luther's back.

Romans 1:24-25 timeframe

Romans 1:24-25 is for May 14 (- p. 113 in the Moo commentary on Romans).

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 11 of 14)

(pp. 27-28)

   There are so many sources of good quotes on these two pages of the commentary by Moo on Romans that I certainly must recommend them highly.  This is especially true if you are involved in the discussion of the various interpretations of the letter that are circulating, to the effect that Paul's main concern is a very human, horizontal concern, how Jews and Gentiles should relate, rather than the vertical concern, how a human being can relate to God, whatever race or races.

   "The bulk of Romans focuses on how God has acted in Christ ...."  Amen.  This is the "reality" part.  As it refers to the Jews / Gentiles, this is referring to God's actions that addressed the different status of real people that are either part of, or not part of, the covenant God had made to the Jews.  This is the "what," the "what God did" part.

   Also, there is the "meaning of" part.  When discussing what the law and gospel mean, that is where the relationship between the concepts, where the discussion of continuity and consistency and advancement and difference and dissimilarity come about.  Can we understand the meaning of what God did, and understand its relationship to the meaning of what God already had done?  That is the "meaning of what God did" part.

   In this second area, the commentary (p. 28) does well to bring out 3:31 and 8:4.  In the area of meaning, Christianity establishes the law, and in the area of reality, Christ fulfills the law.

Romans 1:18-23 timeframe

Romans 1:18-23 is for May 5 - 13 (- p. 110 in the Moo commentary on Romans).

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 10 of 14)

(pp. 24-26)

   It's wonderful to take Christ, as Moo does, as the "theological starting point" of Romans.  His twofold reason is not only the content of Romans, including the beginning verses, but also the fact that the Roman Christians could start there too.  This is actually more helpful than a jaded reader might initially think.  What if a commentator had taken "Existence" as a starting point?
 
   Similarly, it's helpful to take "salvation history" as a framework for what Paul says in Romans, what Moo does.  In a little, after reminding us of the possible vagueness of words like the "center" of Paul's theology, and even the word "theme," as assumptive without reason of only one theme, he'll get to his candidate.
  
   The many far-reaching theological statements on p. 26 sound like conclusions to be considered after reading the letter, and so, with Cranfield's proper warning we noticed earlier, I think they should be just "duly noted" for now.

Romans 1:16-17 timeframe

Romans 1:16-17 is for April 25 - May 5 (- p. 90 in the Moo commentary on Romans).

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 9 of 14)

(pp. 22-23)

   The Muratorian canon on Romans, in saying "[Paul] wrote at greater depth [than in Corinthians or Galatians], concerning the plan of the Scriptures, showing at the same time that their foundation is Christ," (p. 22), warms right up to the theme of Romans.

   Only second best is Moo's summary of Romans themes: "the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, and security in the face of suffering and death."  Second best, I think, because to be all up-to-speed on all these themes, without Christ Himself, would be the worst thing, like gaining the whole world, and forfeiting oneself.  Conversely, having Christ Himself, all these things have or will be given to us, in God's time.

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 8 of 14)

(pp. 19-21)

   One of the benefits of these pages in which the author discusses theories of why Paul wrote Romans to the Romans, besides the fact that we get all these references to the authors who have said this and that, is the carefulness with which the author deals with others' positions.

   He's "walking on eggshells" here, trying to appeal to readers of his commentary who as scholars are aware of the need to consider what others say.  So here, professor Moo is gently showing us that positions that discount Paul's theological reasons (do they all seem to derive from the F.C. Baur writing?) are "going too far."  The last sentence on p. 21 is the best: "The legitimate desire to pin down as precisely as possible the historical background and purpose of the letter should not obscure the degree to which Romans deals with theological issues raised by the nature of God's revelation itself" (pp. 21-22).

Romans 1:8-15 timeframe

Romans 1:8-15 is for April 21-25 (- p. 65 in the Moo commentary on Romans).

Romans 1:1-7 timeframe

Romans 1:1-7 is for April 15 - 21 (- p. 55 in the Moo commentary on Romans).

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 7 of 14)

(pp. 16-18)

   One thing that is hidden by comparing the use of older names such as Melancthon's to newer names such as F.C. Baur's (not that new!), and to times such as "the last three decades" is the ad novum fallacy.  There are many today who view Romans as Melancthon did, and and many then who viewed Romans as F.C. Baur and many in the last thirty years have.

   But commentators have to keep abreast of research, and Moo doesn't, after all, directly advocate a view that restricts the meaning of Romans to a particular time.

   However, doesn't it seem from Romans 1 that we already have the purpose of Paul in writing to the Romans?  "I long to see you, in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established, " etc.  Is that not a sufficient reason to write to them?  It may not be a polemic-theological thing, but it's certainly enough.

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 6 of 14)

(pp. 14-15)

   Cranfield in the first few pages of his introduction to his commentary on Romans cautions against making conclusions for the reader, before the reader has gone through the book with him.  The caution is well-taken, and here we should read our author with a grain of salt, remembering that he has gone through his research, and is ever-so-tempted by thrill of discovery perhaps, to blurt things out.  "The relationship between Jew and Gentile, law and gospel" indeed!

   What else, besides adding to this list, or taking away from it, and substituting other things to it, can a comment on the nature of the book do?  Well, it depends on what the book is about.  Is Romans about ... concepts?  The relationship between Jew and Gentile, and the relationship between law and gospel are, both ... concepts!

   To the extent that we think we're going to be dealing with concepts alone, we forget our personal God. 

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 5 of 14)

(pp. 11-13)

   If adducing the audience depends only on the meaning of specific portions of the text of Romans that addresses the audience directly, a whole class of evidence based on content is ignored.

   For example, some weight should be given, in Romans 1, besides vv.5-6 which are discussed, to "holy Scriptures" and "prophets" in 1:2, which are not discussed.  The most natural understanding of these two references in 1:2 is that Paul is speaking to people who know both what these things are, and that they are sources of God's announcements beforehand.  If he we speaking to the minority portion of his audience, would he have opened with these assertions, which are stated as if already accepted?


  

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 4 of 14)

(pp. 9-10)

   To read this section for the first time is like listening to discussion about an issue that must be important for some otherwise unknown reason to us readers.   What is the importance behind just exactly the proportion of Gentile converts to Jewish converts in Rome?  It's one of those issues that somebody, some people, are making much of, elsewhere, and the author is painstakingly keeping us out of that discussion, knowing that the audience includes some heavy investors in one or other of the possible conclusions.

   This happens quite a bit, doesn't it?  There is a natural variety in the language of address to subgroups, in a group letter.  To call such things "paradox" and "mixed signals" is the classic mountain of Mishnah on the beanhill of Torah.

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 3 of 14)

(pp. 6-8)

   The prior difficulty in approaching a discussion of the manuscript differences in the form of Romans 14-16 should be stated explicitly, because the author doesn't mention it explicitly.  The various textual evidence being looked at all has different estimates as to their dates!

   Moreover, the evidence for a different form to the ending of Romans is discussed by combining the evidence of the Latin translations and the original Greek.  It should be made explicit why Latin translations should enter into the discussion.  Latin translations are proper evidence simply because the subject is the form, not the meaning of the words.  A Latin translation is a witness to whether the chapters or passages are there in what it is translating from, nothing more, in this case.

    
  

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 2 of 14)

(pp. 4-5)

   It is impossible not to notice how well this introductory material is divided between text and footnote.  If we want to look up the exact sources for various primary data, whether Suetonius or Philo, we can see that the writer has found them and documented them for us.  How important is the make up, percentage-wise, of those to whom Paul writes Romans, between Jews and Gentiles? 

   From the letter itself, with its detailed Scriptural argument and quotation, the recipients of the letter could hardly have been unaware of the authoritative Old Testament from which Paul quotes so much.  The detailed timing arguments in chapter 4 of his letter, not to mention the classic one-of-a-kind marker of Jewish piety, their own Scriptures being their own best critic, makes Paul's remarks in Romans 2 and 9-11 earmarked for his fellow Jews.

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 1 of 14)

(pp. 1-3)
   Let's discuss Romans, and Moo together (his 1996 commentary on Romans)

   The introduction mentions what Romans has meant to Luther, and Draxe:  gospel for Luther, saving doctrine for Draxe, and for Moo, first of all, something written out of specific context.  Does our idea of Romans correspond more closely to any of these three than the other?

   The third approach is the author's cautionary safeguard against taking Romans as "a systematic theology."   What is this meant to exclude? We see that the author believes that Romans has "a message," and that it, the message, is "timeless." Is the caution against taking the assertions of Romans, directly, without forming them into a message? It is very common to take plain assertions of a Bible text as absolutes, instead of as out of a specific context.   It is also very common to disallow the plain assertions of a Bible text, and take a formulated "message" as absolute.  In doing that kind of thing, there's often a selectivity factor applied, where someone takes a set of verses X as their plain assertions, and another set of verses Y as needing to be understood in their context producing a "message" Z.  Then, that "message" is then combined with X, usually to overrule it.  A different person combines and selects differently.

   Paul's situation leads the author to say that Paul is writing at a time when he is hoping to heal the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.  He bases this idea (p. 3) on Romans 15:31 (p. 2). 

What is it like to read Romans at Doug Moo's rate?

If we're preparing to read Romans along with Doug Moo's commentary, at Doug Moo's rate of discussion spread over a year (about 18 pp. / week), then here are some broad dates of progress, and thus dates of discussion here!  The percentages are the changes in Moo's rate compared to a constant reading rate.  (If, on the other hand, you're regular-schedule-driven, after this is a sample 15 week semester schedule for reading).

Introduction - April 1 - 14

Romans 1 - April 15 - May 19 (34% more time)

Romans 2  - May 20 - June 8 (24% less time)

Romans 3 - June 9 - July 8 (50% more time)

Romans 4 - July 9 - July 22 (18% less time)

Romans 5 - July 23 - August 14 (21% more time)

Romans 6 - August 15 - Sept 7 (20% more time)

Romans 7 - Sept 8 - Sept 29 (31% less time)

Romans 8 - Sept 30 - Oct 30 (16% less time)

Romans 9 - Oct 31 - Dec 1 (88% more time)

Romans 10 - Dec 2 - Dec 16 (12% less time)

Romans 11 - Dec 17 -  Jan 15 (3% more time)

Romans 12 - Jan 16 - Feb 1 (same time)

Romans 13 - Feb 2 - Feb 15 (27% more time)

Romans 14 - Feb 16 - Mar 1 (26% less time)

Romans 15 - Mar 2 - Mar 20 (30% less time)

Romans 16 - Mar 21 - Mar 31 (48% less time)

or, in a semester,

Week 1 - Introducton; Rm 1:1-15

Week 2 - Rm 1:16-32

Week 3 - Rm 2:1 - 29

Week 4 - Rm 3:1-31

Week 5 - Rm 4:1 - 5:11

Week 6 - Rm 5:12 - 6:7

Week 7 - Rm 6:8 - 7:12

Week 8 - Rm 7:13 - 8:17

Week 9 - Rm 8:17 - 9:5

Week 10 - Rm 9:6-33

Week 11 - Rm 10:1 - 11:10

Week 12 - Rm 11:11 - 12:2

Week 13 - Rm 12:3 - 13:10

Week 14 - Rm 13:11 - 15:6

Week 15: Rm 15:7 - 16:27

Let's read Romans this year (and Moo 1996) starting April 1! 5 pp. Moo every couple days!

New Year: 1 Cor 6-9 for Dec 2

The so-called distinction between doctrine and practice is not here in 1 Corinthians 6-9.  One of the most neglected parts of eschatology (6:2) is used to rebuke a behavior issue, that of the use of the Roman courts among them.

In one of the ironies of context, the intensely famous use of 1 Cor 6:9-11 to distinguish between church members is proven by its context to be a misuse.  Paul is listing people outside the church, in order to show them that they (6:3) are not to consider outsiders as arbiters of righteousness.