Introduction to Romans

Through all of my different readings not one commentator has denied the importance of the Book of Romans to our Christian life. As a matter of fact they all indicate that without the Book of Romans we would not have all the doctrinal influence that we have today. While there has always been speculation that Peter founded the church in Rome there has never been any concrete evidence provided to support that theory. Moo suggests, “But Luke does tell us that Jews from Rome were among those who saw the pouring out of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (2:10). We may surmise that some of them were among the three thousand converted on that day (2:41) and that they brought their new belief in Jesus as Messiah back with them to Rome.” (Moo 2000, 17)

At the time Paul was writing Romans, it was shortly after Jewish Christians were being allowed back into Rome after Emperor Claudius expelled them from the city around 49 AD. While we do not have an exact date of completion of the letter, Harrison points this out, “When he wrote Romans the fund for the Jerusalem church seems to have been finally completed (Rom 15:26ff.). This may indicate a date in early 57 rather than late 56 for the writing of the letter.” (Harrison 1981, 4) Even though the Jewish Christians were migrating back into the city it is believed that, “… we conclude that Paul’s audience in Romans includes both Gentile and Jewish Christians, with Gentile Christians in the majority.” (Moo 2000, 21)

Technically Paul is the author of the Book of Romans, the ideas that are expressed are his, but did he use his own hand to write the letter? The answer is no. He used a scribe by the name of Tertius (16:22). Why write a letter like Romans? Was there some grim sin or major doctrinal error occurring in the church and they needed to be rebuked, John MacArthur doesn’t think so. He says, “Unlike some of Paul’s other epistles (e.g., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal.) his purpose is not to correct aberrant theology or rebuke ungodly living. The Roman church was doctrinally sound, but, like all churches it was in need of the rich doctrinal and practical instruction this letter provides.” (MacArthur 2005, 1500) Isn’t it amazing that Paul can write such a theologically rich book (Romans) from an area he had to write to twice (Corinth)? There are several key factors that help us know his is in Corinth but the largest is his mention of Phoebe in 16:1.

I hope that as we understand the background behind the Book of Romans we can begin to appreciate all the richness that dwells within its pages and make it more applicable to our lives.

Bibliography

Harrison, Everett F. The Expositor's Bible Commentary-Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Moo, Douglas J. The NIV Application Commentary- Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Technorati Tags: Apostle Paul,Book of Romans,History of Romans

Who Was the Man Jacob Wrestled?

This section of scripture has always been one of my favorites, because no matter which interpretation you choose to accept you cannot deny the determination of Jacob. Throughout most of my research there were only two real camps of thought; the first being that he was actually wrestling God himself, or he was mere wrestling an angel. The majority of commentators agree that the man who Jacob wrestled with was God, showing up in a theophany.

Only one commentator made a concise argument for why he believed the man could have simply been an angel. John Walton in his commentary says, “Who is this stranger? The narrator refers to him throughout the episode as “a man” (Heb. Is), which is as noncommittal as our referring to “an individual” who wrestles with Jacob. At the end of the episode, Jacob designates the individual as elohim (32:30). This word usually is a designation for deity but can be use for any supernatural being. The clearest statement comes in Hosea 12:4, where the prophet indicates that Jacob struggled with an angel. Since an angel can be legitimately referred to either as and is or as elohim, Hosea does not contradict either of the statements of Genesis, so it offers the most acceptable solution.” (Walton 2001, 606) So according to Walton the use of either of these words could refer simply to an angel; and that is why he believes that Jacob probably wrestled with an angel. My concern is how could a mere angel have authority to change his name, and bless him the way this one did?

On the other hand both John MacArthur and Bruce Waltke agree that the man with whom Jacob wrestled was God himself. In his commentary John MacArthur says this, “The site name, Peniel, or “face of God,” given by Jacob (v.30) and the commentary given by Hosea (Hos. 12:4) identifies this Man with whom Jacob wrestled as the Angel of the Lord who is also indentified as God, a preincarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (MacArthur 2005, 59) So as we can see both MacArthur and Walton reference the verse in Hosea 12:4 and each of them have a different understanding of the verse.

Bruce Waltke in his commentary keeps his point very concise, he says, “The nondescript statement heightens the story’s tension. Who has come to struggle with Jacob? Only later does the reader recognize the man as the invisible God.” (Waltke 2001, 445) Waltke makes this statement because of verse thirty where Jacob names the place Peniel. If Jacob had thought he met a mere angel, then I believe he would have chosen a more appropriate name for that area.

My conclusion of this subject is the man the Jacob wrestled with that night was none other than God himself. God came upon Jacob at a time when he needed to be shown who he truly was as the barer of the covenant that was made with his grandfather years ago. Yes, God could have over taken him at any time and I believe that is why he merely chose to displace his hip and not kill him. Also only one who is greater than you could change your name, just like Jesus did to Peter, he also did to Jacob that night.

Works Cited

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis- A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 2001.

 

Technorati Tags: Genesis,Jacob,Theophany,Christianty,Christophany

What Is the Sin of Ham?

Like many of us I usually remember Noah for building the Ark, and of course being the one chosen to survive the Great Flood. I also would remember him being drunk, because it was interesting to read of a man of God in that state. The one thing that never really stood out to me was the sin of Ham. Several commentators will refer back to rabbi saying that the sin of Ham was sexual in nature. That is a little hard to believe, the text does however say he saw his father’s “nakedness”. The Hebrew word being used here for “nakedness” is rwh, this word is used fifty-two times in the Old Testament, and 49 out of 52 it is translated nakedness, the other times it is translated indecency or naked. Two of the strongest views about this subject, or at least well argued were Bruce Waltke and John H. Walton.

Walton takes the stance that we can possibly infer from the text that Noah was not alone in his tent saying, “Since the “nakedness of the father” can include the nakedness of the mother and since the nakedness of the father is a euphemism for coitus (throughout Lev. 18 and 20), is it possible that both Noah and his wife have become drunk and, falling in to unconsciousness after intercourse, lie exposed in the tent?” (Walton 2001, 348) He also goes onto suggest that the sin of Ham is hinting at impregnating his mother.

I do believe that Bruce Waltke makes a much more believable point in saying, “His voyeurism, however, is of the worst sort. Voyeurism in general violates another’s dignity and robs that one of his or her instinctive desire for privacy and for propriety. It is a form of domination. Ham’s, however, is perverse, for his homosexual voyeurism. Worse yet, he dishonors his father, whom he should have revered in any case (Ex.21:15-17; Duet. 21:18-21; Mark 7:10), and then increases his dishonor by proclaiming it to others.” (Waltke 2001, 149)

Basically the sin of Ham was the dishonor of viewing his father naked and then trying to include his brothers in the same dishonor by telling them of the state of their father. Some commentators go onto say that the reason Noah curses Canaan is due to the perverse nature of Ham, and the Canaanite peoples adopted a similar attitude and lifestyle.

Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis- A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 2001.

 

Technorati Tags: Noah,Ham,Canaan,Sin after the flood,Genesis

A Brief Look at Melchizedek

If you are like me when you read this part of Genesis, you might say “Who in the world is Melchizedek?” There is no other mention of him in Genesis anywhere and he is only mentioned two more times in all of Scripture with those being Psalm 110:4; and Hebrews 7. We are not told much about him, but the controversy that surrounds him is very interesting, there are some people who will tell you he was just a man mentioned in passing or he was in fact Shem, others will say he was a Christophany, and lastly some will say that he was a foreshadow of the coming Christ.

Let us take a closer look at this man, his name Melchizedek means “righteous king”. He was not only the king of Salem (which means peace), he was also a priest of the Most High God. Now concerning Salem most commentators agree that it was probably ancient Jerusalem.

Pastor John MacArthur says this about Melchizedek, “The lack of biographical and genealogical particulars for this ruler, whose name meant “righteous king” and who was a king-priest over ancient Jerusalem, allowed for later revelation to use him as a type of Christ (cf. Ps 110:4, Heb7:17,21)… The use of El Elyon (Sovereign Lord) for God’s name indicated that Melchizedek, who used the title two times (vv. 18,19), worshiped, served, and represented no Canaanite deity, but the same one whom Abram called Yahweh El Elyon (v. 22)” (MacArthur 2005, 34) Pastor MacArthur makes some very valid points, ones which are hard to argue against. He also mentions how Melchizedek was probably a greater figure in that time than Abram himself.

John Walton in his commentary on Genesis takes a very firm stance, pointing out, “In the Talmud (b. Ned. 32b) and Targum Neofiti, Melchizedek is identified as Shem.” In support of his views of the king of Salem, Walton goes on to say, “The author of Hebrews is not drawing his information on Melchizedek solely from the Old Testament; he is also interacting with the traditions known to his audience. … As a result there is nothing in Hebrews or anywhere else to suggest that we need to believe that Melchizedek was anything other than the Canaanite king he is depicted as in Genesis 14.” (Walton 2001, 426-27) Walton makes his point rather clear that he believes that Melchizedek was nothing more than a regular king with whom Abram ate a meal.

Warren Wiersbe also speaks of Melchizedek’s Christ likeness, saying, “Hebrews 7 and Psalm 110 both connect Melchizedek with Jesus Christ, the “King of peace” and the “King of righteousness” (85:10). Like Melchizedek in Abraham’s day, Jesus Christ is our King-Priest in heaven, enabling us to enjoy righteousness and peace as we serve Him (Isa.32:17; Heb 12:11). Certainly we can see in the bread and wine a reminder of our Lord’s death for us on the cross.” (Wiersbe 2007, 65)

Throughout all of my readings the best conclusion that I can come to is that Melchizedek was a great king and priest who loved and served the Lord (El Elyon). John MacArthur and Warren Wiersbe have the strongest points, in believing that he was more than a mere earthly king but an allusion to the coming Christ. The largest support for this view is found in Hebrews 7, showing how Christ is in the line and a greater Melchizedek.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs,CO: David C. Cook, 2007.

Technorati Tags: Genesis,Christophany,Melchizedek,King of Salem

Is Genesis 3:15 Really the Protoevangelium?

Technorati Tags: Jesus,gospel,first gospel,Christianty

Before we can attempt to answer the question of whether or not Genesis 3:15 is really the protoevangelium, we must first define what is “protoevangelium”. The protoevangelium is the first gospel, or the first mention of the good news of a redeemer. This topic is highly debated between the dozen or so commentaries I consulted, it is split closely down the middle with many commentators leaning to the answer that yes this is the protoevangelium.

The strongest proponent against this verse not being the protevangelium, had to be John Walton. Walton says, “If we are going to take the text at face value, even on a canonical scale, we must conclude that 3:15 describes only the ongoing struggle between evil (represented by the serpent and all representatives of evil that succeed it) and humanity generation through generation.” (Walton 2001, 235-36) In light of his own argument Walton has somehow ignored the use of the words he and his in the verse. While he concentrated extensively on the grammatical use of the word “seed”, he did not really mention the fact that the word he (hu in the Hebrew) is used in a singular fashion. The word (hu) translated he is used in the Old Testament 1258 times and of those it is translated he 516. So it is a strong indication that this verse could be pointing towards one man in particular.

Bruce Waltke in his commentary on Genesis makes a very insightful point, “”Offspring” renders zera “seed”, which is used commonly as a figure for descendants. Like the English word, zera can refer to an immediate descendant (Gen 4:25, 15:3), a distant offspring, or a large group of descendants… Since the woman’s seed struggles against the serpent’s seed, we infer that it has a collective sense. But since only the head of the serpent is represented as crushed, we expect an individual to deliver the fatal blow and be struck uniquely on his heel.” (Waltke 2001, 93)

This explanation makes great sense to many of us, because we have sat in Sunday school classes or heard sermons referring to the seed of Abraham as being the whole nation of Israel. However when we hear things in the same verse, that are explained an a singular sense it tends to be a little confusing, unless we put in light of Christ defeating Satan on the cross. Warren Wiersbee explains how this verse is fulfilled at the cross, “At the cross, Satan “bruised” Christ’s heel, but because of His death and resurrection, Christ crushed Satan’s head and won complete victory over him (Eph. 1:17-23; Col. 2:14-15).” (Wiersbe 2007, 29)

A slightly alternate view that has been offered is that of John MacArthur, he speaks of Jesus winning the battle against Satan and the role we as believers play in it. MacArthur says, “Believers should recognize that they participate in the crushing of Satan because, along with the Savior and because of His finished work on the cross, they also are the woman’s seed.” (MacArthur 2005, 18)

In light of all the differing viewpoints, this writer believes that Genesis 3:15 is the protoevangelium. In the New Testament we can find several allusions back to the verse in Genesis (Rom. 16:20, Heb.2:14; Gal. 4:4). Mark Driscoll in his book Vintage Jesus gives us a little more insight into why this verse points to Christ through the virgin birth. Driscoll says, “God promises that Jesus would be born from a woman. This is unusual because the rest of Scripture speaks of children being born from their father. Here however, no father is mentioned for Jesus, which implies the he would not have a biological earthly father.” (Driscoll and Breshears 2007, 90) Understanding how birth is described in Israel normally following the father’s line gives us a greater understanding of how this verse can point to the coming Christ.

Looking at all of the different factors we have been provided I am fully confident in saying that this verse is the Protoevangelium.

Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Vintage Jesus. Wheaton,IL: Crossway Books, 2007.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis- A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs,CO: David C. Cook, 2007.