Romans 1.1: Slavery, Honor & the Cross

[janine]

I went into that territory the last time I led a break-out group at a Ladies' Day.

The only reason I am free to accept God's gifts, or to decide to spurn them, is because I am a slave, a bondservant, a POW and an adopted child of God.  I am \"free-er\" in the chains of love that bind me to Him, than is the most unfettered-looking child of Cosmos.

Will I stand in the new garments my Master has given me, dyed the glorious hue of His own blood?  Or will I rush back out into the world, the world that killed Him, down to the very marketplace where my Lord bought me off Satan's block, to buy my own clothes, pieces that please Man and let me 'blend in' better?

[Bobby Valentine]

James thanks.  I hope we can get together before to long.

Shalom,
Bobby V.
Milwuakee, WI

[samloveall]

I don't mean to speak for Bobby, but one of the scriptural indications that Paul is usually not talking about Torah or the old covenant is that his favorite example of the contrast between law and freedom is Abraham, who came before Torah.  In his letters, Paul routinely uses Abraham and his life as the setting for the battle between law and grace/faith.  Since Abraham was before the Law was given, Paul can't be referring to the old covenant law of Moses.

[nerdneh]

There is an excellent discussion of law (without the definite article) and \"the law\" in the Commentary on the Greek text of Galatians  by Edgar DeWitt Burton. He goes into great lengths to explore this concept. I hope this is helpful.

[Bobby Valentine]

Greetings from the Land of Beer and Cheese.  I have been meditating on Romans 1 this morning and decided to share this thought with you.  After a fresh, but light, coat of snow yesterday the sun is shining beautifully today.  But to Romans.  


Romans is an incredible book! It has the power to melt the most hardened of hearts that relies upon Self rather than the tender mercies of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit.  Romans can be offensive, however, to those who glory in legalism and technicalities.  This embarrassment at Romans is never overt but is usually manifested by trumping what Paul writes.  As one wise sage wrote nearly fifty years ago,


\"The legalist glories in law, human righteousness, and rituals until he learns of Christ, grace, faith and the spiritual. Then law becomes 'refuse.'\" (K.C. Moser, The Gist of Romans, p. 1).


Moser is absolutely correct!  He uses \"law\" as an equivalent to \"legalism\" or the using of \"law\" to stand before God.  As we read Romans, however, we should not make the mistake to confuse \"legalism/law\" with \"torah\" (of the Hebrew Bible).  Rather \"law/legalism\" refers to the perversion and satanizing of something good, holy and spiritual by one who focuses upon Self-righteousness rather than the Cross.


As has been pointed out before, Paul immediately identifies himself as a \"slave of Christ Jesus\" (Goodspeed's translation, Gk is \"doulos\").  This is not only a declaration of loyalty to Christ but also carries with it a degree of honor -- of being elected to service.  This is fairly common usage of the term in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  But the phrase forces us to take one more step back to grasp its significance as well by asking, \"How did Paul receive the 'honor' of being a slave?\"  The term is actually a metaphorical way of referring to the work of Jesus upon the Cross (technically a ransom/redemption motif).  


Early Christians viewed the world in bondage to Sin, Satan and the evil powers.  At the Cross the blood of Jesus is offered as the ransom, or purchase price, for \"freedom.\" The freedom of being elected to the \"honor\" of being a slave for Christ.  That blood, of its value who can imagine, purchases Paul, Augustine, John Calvin, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Bobby Valentine.  Slaves are \"bought\" with the price of Christ.  


This shows that Paul could literally not go two words (\"doulos\" is the second word in the Greek text) without focusing our attention on the Cross of Christ.  How many words can/do we go without pointing folks, not to ourselves, our pet peeves, our inferences but to the glorious hill of Golgotha where I received the honor of becoming a slave to the Son of Man.


Thoughts on Romans 1.1,

Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

[James Rondon]

Charis Bobby!  :thumbup:

James, kai doulos Iesous Christos.  :bowsmiley:

[charlie]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As we read Romans, however, we should not make the mistake to confuse \"legalism/law\" with \"torah\" (of the Hebrew Bible).  Rather \"law/legalism\" refers to the perversion and satanizing of something good, holy and spiritual by one who focuses upon Self-righteousness rather than the Cross.
[/quote]
Bobby,
If this is a mistake, it is a common one. What do you say to the notion that \"law\" refers to the Old Covenant with its demands of sacrifices, circumcisions, dietary regulations, etc. and the \"law of the Spirit\" is the New Covenant with its unique but equally binding demands of baptism, repentance, confession of faith in Jesus, singing, etc.? How do you scripturally defend the notion that \"law\" is not Torah, but is legalism?

Curious,

Superkitty

[charlie]

Yes, but is that the case in all of Paul's references to \"law\"?