Have We Been Missing the Apostle Paul's Intent for Writing Romans?

Hope For The Nations: Paul’s Letter to the Romans, A Corporate Reading

Tom Holland, Apostolos Publishing Ltd., London, UK, 2015

                                              

This is a book that presents both traditional concepts as well as new ones on what the Apostle Paul was intending for his audience to fully grasp.  That sounds mundane but I must admit I could not put it down.  It’s written by a scholar but within easy reach of a layman like me.  Tom Holland, Senior Research Fellow in Biblical Studies at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology, has given us a well researched and extremely well written book that speaks to every believer in a valuable and timely way.

His theory is that it is all about “context” and he shows us why time and time again.  Holland says for years we have taken the letter to the Romans as one speaking primarily to “individuals” in the church – to you and me.  But he shows us why Paul was writing about, and to, much larger groups – Israel, the Gentiles, and the new combined Church as an entity. He is careful to point out that this position does not exclude the idea that the points which Paul is making to the Roman Church are not as applicable to the individual Christian – they are, but when studying the Epistle we must remember his intended audience.

Holland argues and shows that Paul, in just about every key phrase in the letter, was drawing from the Old Testament, and especially Isaiah.  He talks about the first, second, and third Exodus of the people of Israel, the Jews, and how God has led them out of slavery, gave them a great part to play in history of all mankind’s salvation, and now is calling them to be part of the Gospel that they themselves ushered in.  He is careful however to distinguish between all of the Jewish people and those that were (and will be) a “remnant” and those that still will accept the Gospel.

He points out the various “covenantal” themes we find in Romans tied to the rest of Scriptures.  He helps us see and understand why when reading Romans we need to look at the references therein to the Old Testament from the perspective of how the early Church read it.

This is a great book for those studying Romans, teaching it in a group or to a class, or preaching a series on it.  For the individual student, it serves as a modern commentary on each verse.  Holland takes great effort to not put down the thoughts of others, but also shows us why he personally tends to go with a particular view.  I like that.

He deals extensively with the tension caused by the requirement that converted Jews placed on Gentiles to be circumcised. He also deals with the issue regarding the eating of meat sacrificed to idols and explains particularly well why that may be a problem to Gentile converts and not to Jewish ones. (The answer he provides was instrumental, by extrapolation, in helping me understand why certain Christians object to alcohol today and why some do not.) Both issues he addresses were major contributors to the discord between the two sources of origin for the original Christian Church.  In the process he deals with how Paul sees the purpose of the Law in the Old Testament and for the new Church, as well as for us today.

The book is full of gems of knowledge and wisdom for the taking. Issues that I personally struggled with were helpfully explained time and time again.  My copy of the book is filled with my notations on new insights.

You can listen to preacher after preacher and teacher after teacher on Romans and never really understand the “big message” or see the “big picture” of what the author is trying to share.  Getting a hold of a scholarly work rewritten for non-scholars yet communicating the secrets of historical and contextual hermeneutics to bring alive God’s Holy Word allows you to stop and think and question and reflect.  Tom Holland does just that for you.  I very highly recommend it to all.  I will be looking for more of his books.

The author’s bottom line (and his own desire for writing) is given away in the very title of this book – there is indeed “Hope for the Nations” of both Gentiles and Jews.

    -- Ken B. Godevenos, Accord Resolution Services Inc., Toronto, Ontario. 15/10/08  

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

God Seeks To Kill Moses -- Exodus 4:24-26

Now it came about at the lodging-place on the way that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death.  Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet, and she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood to me.”  So He let him alone.  At that time she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood” – because of the circumcision.

One cannot read the text above without wondering what on earth is going on.  God had just finished giving Moses an incredible assignment that required him to return to Egypt and now on the journey, God meets him (possibly, as Matthew Henry suggests, via a sword-wielding angel) and seeks to put him to death.  Well, let us see what we can make of it.

Clearly, the overwhelming opinion of almost all who write on this subject is that God was angry with Moses because he had not circumcised his son.  As this was a major instruction as part of the covenant God had made with His people, there was no way God would use Moses as long as this was the case.  Some think he did circumcise his first-born in keeping with God’s commands, but his wife, Zipporah, was so appalled at the blood-filled rite that she out rightly refused to allow Moses to have their second son go through the same experience.  So, when God attacked Moses, it was Zipporah who knew what it was all about and put a stop to it by doing what she did.

But let me go out on a limb here and suggest something very different, only as a possibility. 

The first thing that comes to our attention is that this happened “at a lodging-place” on the way to Egypt.  This phrase may suggest that this account happened during the night, while Moses was sleeping, and that it was all a dream.  We cannot be adamant about that, but the prospect exists.  We also note that the action changes very quickly, without notice or normal transition, from the Lord seeking to put him to death to his wife circumcising his son and yelling at Moses.  [Some would argue that the author of Exodus, Moses himself, did not want to give us all the details but I am not so sure, based on his usual writing style elsewhere, that he would have spared us as many details as he seems to.] All of this leads me to accept the dream hypothesis as a very plausible one.  There is lots of action, with no strong evident connecting points.  It makes even more sense when we consider that Moses was weary from his travels and had much on his mind as he considered the future.

Of course, one could also take the ‘literal’ approach.  But here are the implications -- God in the form of an angel, commences to attack Moses.  Did Zipporah actually see the actual Lord in order to put a stop to the fighting as the text may suggest?  Again, I do not think so.  Moses’ wife, Zipporah, ‘surprises’ God by, rather than coming to Moses’ defense, she actually blames her husband for what is going on.  She expresses her strong feelings by circumcising her son right there and then (could she really do this successfully especially given the fact she thought it so abhorrent? Perhaps) and throwing the foreskin at Moses’ feet (further proof of her anger) while calling him a “bridegroom of blood” which the text says refers to the fact that Moses had tried to introduce circumcision to her family but she had resisted and Moses never insisted on doing so.  As a result of her actions, God stops His attack on Moses, or otherwise, we can surmise, He would have killed him.  For all the above, I tend to think that the account here cannot easily be taken literally.

There is yet another school of thought that makes a lot of sense.  It suggests that Moses was fully aware of his sin and during the night, while examining his relationship with God, he realized its presence.  This may have driven him temporarily mad or to become mentally undone because of his failure to please God, especially as he knew he was going to lead the people of Israel for God.  This in turn may have resulted in a fever or a seizure, causing Zipporah to be greatly alarmed.  Or, this realization of Moses was followed by a one of those husband-wife discussions that turns into an argument, in this case over the matter of the circumcision of their son.  Worried about her husband as well as possibly her own future, she goes out and circumcises her son, not willing to fight it any longer.  (She uses a piece of flint rock readily available in the dessert there – evidence of which I have seen myself in a visit to Israel.)

We will not know the answer to the question of what really took place in the physical world until we can ask our Lord.  But as always, we should try to see what this account given in scripture might have to say to us.  What can we learn from it?

Whether the action portrayed here literally happened or whether it was a direction given to Moses in a dream, does not change the ‘content’ of what God was trying to convey to him, and perhaps to us.  The fact that God is willing to use you and me to accomplish His plan for mankind does not mean that He is willing to accept sin in our lives.  Sometimes He expects us to get rid of it ourselves; other times He’ll see to it that it is eliminated.  Either way, the sin has to go before He fully engages us in executing the plan He wants us to carry out.

Maybe the sin standing in your way is not as obvious as the one Moses committed by failing to carry out a key commandment of God’s.  Maybe it is just an attitude or a desire or a stubbornness based on false premises.  Maybe it is a sin of commission, but it could also be a sin of omission.  Whatever it is, we must identify it, confess it, and end it.

The implication in our passage is that Moses had his sin dealt with – either by Zipporah at the time God was fighting with him, or by his own action afterwards, if this were a dream.  We know that for God, as later verses and chapters tell us, allowed him to live and to carry out the purpose for which He had selected him.  It is my prayer that this be true in our lives as well.  I pray we can all be ready to do whatever it takes to eliminate any sin in our lives preventing God from using us in the way He wants to.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Can Any Religious Freedom for Jews or Christians Come Out of California? Surprisingly, Yes!

I can't believe it. More good news out of the U.S. and this time from California. Take a look at the details.

The significance behind this is that "religious freedom" still is alive and well in America, unlike a few other countries we could all name. Thank you God for our freedom to obey you as some God-loving Jews, and others, desire to do in this matter.

Capitol Alert: Jerry Brown signs bill prohibiting circumcision bans

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

U.S. Jews, Circumcision, and The Law

This is a most interesting story not so much for why U.S. Jews are happy with the decision, but because of the reason for the decision. As I understand this case, it was not won by the plaintiffs based on 'religious freedom' as much as it was won because they argued that medical state laws cannot be over-ruled by municipal laws. Take a look, but also think about the implication for such religious rules in the long-run.

On the other hand, we seem to be in support of male circumcision because many of us recognize it as an Old Testament requirement for the Jewish people and thus we're glad any move to ban circumcision in San Francisco was over-ruled. But what if the issue were about banning female circumcision, a practice engaged in by some cultures that could easily be carried on in America by immigrants from that culture -- would we have wanted the attempt to ban it to be over-ruled?

All this to say that sometimes we need to be careful of the precedent setting that is established by legal decisions favorable to Christians. And furthermore, it points out that Satan is indeed the Prince of the World at the present time, a title that Jesus gave him three times in scriptures. He's still working his evil and entrapment. Believers beware.

US Jews hail decision against San Fran c... JPost - International

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

American Jews Not Happy About Potential San Francisco Ballot Issue -- Circumcision

Now the do-gooders in San Francisco are out to "save" more children. This time they take on "circumcision" and want it banned. But it will first have to get on the ballot. Chances are it may make it there. But then what? We keep you informed.

Sure this blog with others that may be interested.

San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot | Joshua Sabatini | Local | San Francisco Examiner

-- Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive updates. -- Ken B. Godevenos, Church and Mgmt. Consultant, bringing you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe free to Epistoli or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And don’t forget to “share” this blog with your friends by clicking the “Share” link on your Navigation Bar.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.