Welcome.

Welcome to everyone reading through the New Testament in 2007. Each day, there will be a new post for the day's reading. You are invited to share your thoughts about what you've read, by adding comments to that post.

If you'd like a PDF version of the Introduction/Outline to Revelation, click here.


Thursday, May 17, 2007

Disadvantaged or Justified? Romans 3.

As I thought about this chapter I was initially thinking about the opening question that Paul poses regarding the advantage in being a Jew or the value of circumcision. It plays out well in the rest of the chapter especially in verse 23 when we must all acknowledge that we are disadvantaged or "fall short" of God's criteria for righteousness - we are sinners and are hopelessly lost.

Then I read the post for Romans 2 and it turned my attention away from the negative musings about all of our failures and sins and pointed me back to the awesome grace of God who is both "just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus" (v. 26). God's law convicts us of our sin and demonstrates our need for a savior as we become conscious of our sin when faced with the righteousness and justness of God, but the joy and delight in this chapter is to be found in the fact that the same God who is so holy and righteous is the one who loves us and saves us from our sins.

The real gem in this chapter is not our sin and lostness, but the fact that God is both "just and Justifier". Praise the Lord for the fact that in my hour of need - when I was "disadvantaged" and lost, He has provided for my redemption through His Son, Jesus Christ.

My prayer for you today is that as you read you see yourself not as a hopeless sinner, but as one who is blessed and justified in Christ. May your reading of Romans 3 today be one that is full of God's grace and truth!

3 comments:

Robb said...

Just to get the ball rolling, I'll ask one question. In the post it says (per Rom 3:23) "'fall short' of God's criteria for righteousness". In the scripture I see "fall short of the glory of God".

Is "God's criteria for righteousness" the same thing as "the glory of God"?

steve warren said...

I believe Paul was trying to help us all (Jews and Gentiles together) to understand that we are not going to be justified by the law or anything else that we do. As I read this section of chapter 3 Paul is asserting that righteousness comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. This is the way it is for all people because "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

I take this verse to be a pair of statements by Paul in parallelism similar to the way that Old Testament poetry was written and so that is why I would paraphrase the fall short of the glory of God as falling short of God's criteria for righteousness. The statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God is making its point by repetition. Sin is to miss the mark and hence Paul can reinforce the conviction of sin when he says that we fall short of the glory of God. I take that falling short to be equivalent to the missing of the mark that the Greek "hamartia" refers to. God's glory or holy perfection is our goal, but we have all missed the mark and we fall short of that glory and holiness. I hope my response is not too long, but there was an intentional paraphrase of that verse because I think that falling short of God's glory does not always communicate the idea of missing the mark of righteousness that He has set for us.

Robb said...

Yes, I would agree that Paul sometimes doesn't do a very good job communicating 20th century theology. Yet once in a while I get curious about why he uses certain words, like if I want to do a word study.

I liked your insight on parallelism and repetition. Sin is falling short, and whether it is of God's righteousness or his glory, it is still a serious matter to God; and hopefully we will be inspired to conform to his glory per 8:18, etc.

Per "righteousness", this word occurs in 3:21 and 3:22. Are you using the word in the same sense as it is used in those two verses?

By the way, what do you think of the NET translation of 3:21-23?