Month: Dec 2020

Exposition

ROMANS 11:25-36

Posted on 28th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 3 continued

‘I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.’ Roman 11:25-32 (NIV)

Throughout this chapter Paul has been developing his argument concerning the status of Israel in the history of salvation. He has just been addressing the possibility that Gentiles might say that God has totally rejected Israel and instead called in the Gentiles. Having insisted that the salvation of Jews is possible, and suggested that it is probable, he now goes on to assert that it is inevitable. Moo (2094, p.198) observes:

‘By common agreement, the pinnacle of Romans 9-11 is reached in 11:22-32, and especially in Paul’s claim that “all Israel will be saved” (11:26a). Here is the final and decisive answer to the question about God’s faithfulness in carrying out his promise to Israel.’

In order that the believers at Rome might not be ignorant of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ and be conceited as a result Paul presents the information to them as a mystery’. Bruce (2000, p.334) observes:

‘Paul’s own sympathies were manifestly engaged in this matter, but he does not present his forecast of Israel’s restoration as the product of wishful thinking but as the substance of a “mystery” – an aspect of the divine purpose formerly concealed but now divulged.’

V.25 mentions ‘a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.’ That Israel was partially hardened’ (or ‘blinded’) could not be the mystery as this has already been mentioned in 11:7 (and hinted at in the ‘stumbled’ of 9:32). Nor could the mystery have been that Israel would be saved as that was widely expected by the Jews. Paul reveals the mystery with the word ‘until’. The reversal of the partial hardening will be when the full number of elect Gentiles has come in. The mystery is that the hardening is temporary (‘until’ v.25) and that it would be ‘so,’ that is, ‘in this way’ (in tandem with Gentile believers, v.26) that ‘all Israel will be saved.’

There are two major interpretative issues relating to v.26. First, what is the meaning of ‘all Israel?’

1. Does it refer to ethnic Jews or to the Church (all believers both Jew and Gentile)?

2. The second is the time and manner of Israel’s salvation. Is it a future
eschatological event subsequent to the coming in of the full number of elect Gentiles or a process occurring throughout history in tandem with the salvation of Gentiles in this age?

The disagreement on these issues by scholars has caused Moo (1996, p.719) to describe the opening words of v.26 as ‘the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9-11 and of the NT teaching about the Jews and their future.’ Various interpretations have been suggested for ‘all Israel’ but most are variations of one of the following three: the church, the nation or the remnant.

‘All Israel’ as the Church.

Theologians such as Calvin and more recently Barth (1968) and Wright (1991, p.250) interpret ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26 metaphorically as the Church, the spiritual Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles. This fits with the likelihood that the church at Rome was divided and that Paul was calling for unity, which would serve his own short-term missionary goals and also advance the mission of the whole Christian church. It is, however, unlikely that ‘all Israel’ refers to the whole people of God as that would
give ‘Israel’ a new meaning which is unsupported elsewhere in Romans.

The term usually refers to Israel as a whole, or is sometimes narrowed down to refer to a part of Israel. It is never widened to include Gentiles. ‘Israel’ occurs eleven times in Romans 9-11 (9:6, 27, 31; 10:1, 19, 21; 11: 2, 7, 25) before 11:26 and refers to either ethnic Israel or a part of it, in contrast with the Gentiles. Having maintained a distinction between ethnic Israel and the Gentiles throughout Romans 9-11 and having used it in v.25 to refer to ethnic Israel in contradistinction to Gentiles it is unlikely that Paul would make such a fundamental shift in meaning in v.26a.

‘All Israel’ as the nation.

The majority view is that ‘all Israel’ refers to ethnic Israel, but not necessarily every individual. Dunn (1988, p.681) defines Israel as: ‘a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions.’ ‘All Israel’ is viewed as the majority of Jews on earth who, after the full number of Gentiles has been saved, accept what Fitzmyer (2004, p.182) terms the ‘parousiac Christ’ in a worldwide, large-scale, mass conversion.

This viewpoint is somewhat misleading as it suggests a difference between physical Israel and the Church in the matter of salvation and stresses a literal fulfilment of prophecy about Israel. This view that ‘all Israel’ is the nation denies that the Church is the culmination of God’s saving plan.

‘All Israel’ as the remnant.

According to this view ‘all Israel’ refers to the elect of ethnic Israel throughout history. Israel will experience a partial hardening to the end of time (‘until the full number of the Gentiles has come in’) but God will always save a remnant of Jews. ‘All Israel’ will be saved in the same way as Gentiles are being saved: as they believe, throughout the course of history. The ‘mystery’ in 11:25 is not the fact of the remnant’s salvation but the manner in which they are saved. ‘And so’ (11:26a) means ‘in this manner’ and refers back to the arousal of Jews to envy so that some might turn to Christ for salvation (11:11-13).

This viewpoint fits the context of Romans 9-11. In chapter 9 Paul maintains that God is faithful in spite of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah as his promise to save Abraham’s descendants was not on the basis of national identity. The true Israel consists of children of the promise, rather than ethnic Jews. In 10:12 Paul shows that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the matter of salvation. God’s promises are not fulfilled in the nation but in the believing remnant.

Paul’s is thinking very much of the present, not on the long-range future. Romans chapter 11 is contemporary in nature. In v.5 Paul speaks of ‘the present time’, in which there is a ‘remnant’ (vv.2-4) and also those who were ‘hardened’ vv.8-10. Paul ‘exalts’ his ministry (v.13) in order to ‘save some’ in his own day (v.14). The Gentileswhom he was addressing were his contemporaries and he was hoping that the salvation of contemporary Gentiles would provoke Jewish contemporaries to jealousy and salvation. He was not labouring to provoke the Jews to jealousy in order to bring about a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel. That the Israelite branches broken off are contemporary as are the engrafted Gentiles is confirmed by the threefold ‘now’ in vv. 30-31. It is ‘now’ (in Paul’s day), that Israel is receiving mercy.

Some might object that ‘Israel’ in v.26 should have the same meaning as ‘Israel’ in v.25 which clearly refers to ethnic Israel (the remnant plus the hardened remainder). Paul however, has already used ‘Israel’ to refer to both the nation and the elect within the nation (‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’) in 9:6, in one sentence. Wright (1991, p.250) contends that:

‘It is impermissible to argue that ‘Israel’ cannot change its referent within the space of two verses, so that ‘Israel’ in v. 25 must mean the same as ‘Israel’ in v. 26: Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic distinction of two ‘Israels’, and throughout the letter (e.g. 2.25-9) … he has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of ‘Israel’ to the Messiah and his people.’

The climax of Paul’s discussion of God’s faithfulness in spite of Israel’s failure to receive the gospel is the assertion in 11:26a: ‘And so all Israel will be saved.’

In vv. 26-27 Paul supports his statement about the salvation of all Israel with an OT quotation based on Isaiah 59:20-21 and on Isaiah 27:9. Although using it to prove his point about the salvation of ‘all Israel’ Paul deliberately modifies the text and quotes it as ‘the deliverer will come from Zion, rather than ‘to Zion’ thus emphasizing his Messianic interpretation of the verses and identifying Jesus as the deliverer rather than God himself. Some might contend that Paul was writing after the first coming of Christ and was waiting for the deliverer of Israel to come but it is my view that ‘will come’ and ‘will turn’ point to the future from the perspective of the OT prophet, not from Paul’s first century standpoint, and thus refer to what Christ did at his first coming rather than to something that will occur at his second. The verses contain three main assertions:

1) ‘The deliverer will come from Zion.’

2) He will ‘turn godlessness away from Jacob.’

3) This would establish God’s covenant, which promised forgiveness of sins.

Wright (1997, pp. 108-109) views the latter assertion as the climax of Romans 9-11 and, speaking of Israel, claims:

‘When Paul’s fellow Jews rejected Jesus (as Paul did himself to begin with), and when they continue to reject the message about Jesus which Paul proclaims, he sees the underlying reason: they recognize, as he has had to recognize, that it will mean abandoning the idea of a covenant membership which will be inalienably hers and hers alone. So the great argument of Romans 9-11 goes on its way, reaching at its climax the most significant statement, quoting from Jeremiah 31:33 and Isaiah 27:9 – this will be my covenant with them, when I take away their sins (Romans 11:27). … Paul holds firmly to the hope that the renewal of the covenant which has taken place in Jesus the Messiah will be effective not only for Gentiles but also for Jews who will come, as he himself has done, to faith in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.’

According to proponents of the Dual-Covenant theory the Deliverer is not Christ but God who will deliver Israel from its partial hardening in an independent act of mercy that does not involve acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Fitzmyer (2004, p.181) explains that:

‘The main reason given for this interpretation is the fact that Christ has not been mentioned so far in chap.11, and indeed not since 10:17. Christ is not being envisaged, then, as the deliverer. Thus the solution to the problem of Israel is sought in an act of God’s mercy manifested toward the Chosen People of old. The “covenant” (11:27) would still be the everlasting covenant between Yahweh and Israel (2 Sam. 23:5). So these words of Paul have been interpreted by K. Stendahl, M. A. Getty, P. Lapide and P. Stuhlmacher.’

Regarding bi-covenantal teaching Zeisler (1989, p. 285-286) observes:

‘It has been suggested that, as Paul never states that they will become Christians, he allows for the possibility that somehow at the End God will bring together those who have followed two different tracks to being his people: the track taken by the remnant and by believing Gentiles, the Christian track; and the track of historical Israel, relying on God’s grace in his ancient covenant with them. This suggestion…is scarcely congruous with Paul’s argument and in particular with his argument towards the end of the olive tree passage. There the broken-off branches were grafted back in precisely when they no longer persisted in their lack of belief, i.e. when they came to faith in Jesus Christ. It is too much to suppose that Paul sees God as having two strategies, one for repentant branches and one for unrepentant branches, cf. Also vv.26f., 31. If that were the case, why should repentance matter?’

The view that there is a ‘Sonderweg’ (separate way) for Israel does not fit with the general thrust of the letter as throughout it Paul insists on salvation through faith in Christ for Jew and Gentile alike (1:16; 4:25; 10:9). Das (2003, p.105) maintains that:

‘Paul simply does not treat God’s salvation of Israel separately from the salvation of Gentiles. In Romans 11:31 he writes:” by means of the mercy shown to you [Gentiles], they, the Jews, will now receive mercy” (see also 11:13-16). The Jews’ reception of mercy by means of the Gentiles’ reception of mercy demonstrates that the two-covenant thesis of separate paths to salvation is simply wrong. The “two-covenant” approach does not explain why the Gentiles must experience mercy in order for the Jews to experience mercy. Paul speaks of one olive tree representing Israel’s heritage as the same tree on which the Gentiles are grafted. He does not speak of two separate trees. Since a single tree represents their respective paths to salvation, the Jews must likewise place their faith in the Jewish Messiah as the fulfilment to which the Mosaic Law had pointed all along.’

Speaking of those Israelites that will be saved (the ‘all Israel’ of v.26) Paul views their relationship to God from two different angles in v.28:

1) As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account.

2) As far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.

These two parallel clauses contain three word pairs: gospel/election, enemies/loved, and on your account/on account of the patriarchs. The statement ‘as far as election is concerned’ indicates that although they are considered enemies when viewed according to their rejection of the gospel, they are considered beloved when viewed in reference to God’s choice. That v.28 is not a statement of the corporate status of Israel as a nation is clear from v.29, which speaks of an ‘irrevocable call,’ and confirmed by vv. 30-31 in which Paul contrasts saved Jews with the saved Gentiles whom he is addressing.

In vv. 28-32 Paul summarizes the arguments he has made in chapters 9-11:

1) ‘Enemies’: Israel, having rejected the gospel (9:30-10:21), was rejected by God (9:6-29).

2) ‘On your account’: The rejection of the Jews led to the inclusion of the Gentiles (11:11-15)

3) ‘Election’: God has chosen to accept some and reject others which is the theme of chapter 9.

In v.30 Paul further expands on the point made in vv. 11-15 that the disobedience of the Jews has resulted in salvation for the Gentiles and says (v.31) that the Jews have ‘now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy.’ The implication is that while one part of Israel is now disobedient another part (the remnant) is now receiving mercy. Robertson (2000, p.191) agrees:

‘In the end, God’s gracious activity of calling the elect within Israel to salvation is tied to the present hour by Paul’s threefold use of an emphatic “now.” Gentiles now have been shown mercy; Jews now have been disobedient, that they may also now be shown mercy (Romans 1:30-31).’

In v.32 Paul summarizes God’s purpose for both Jew and Gentiles alike: ‘For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.’ The outlook for humanity is hopeless apart from the mercy of God. In view of what Paul has said earlier about punishment (1:18; 2:5-11; 6:21-23; 9:22, 28) ‘mercy on all’ does not mean universal salvation but refers to the fact that God’s mercy will be shown to Jew and Gentile alike. Morris (1988, p.426) contends:

‘Paul is not saying that God predetermined that all should sin, but rather that he has so ordered things that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, being disobedient, show themselves to be sinners (cf. 1:24, 26, 28) and have no other escape than through his mercy.’

11: 33-36 Doxology

From him – Through him – To him

‘Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever!’ Rom 11:32-36 (NIV)

In vv. 33-36 theology becomes doxology. Having contemplated God’s inscrutable purposes and plans for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles the apostle worships and glorifies him for the wisdom which lies behind them. Vv. 34-35 contain a quotation from Isaiah 40:13 and another (slightly modified) from Job 41:11. Together they pose three rhetorical questions, each beginning with ‘Who has’ and each expecting the negative answer ‘No one!’

‘Who has known the mind of the Lord?’

‘Who has been his counselor?’

‘Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?’

No one can understand God, no one can tell God what to do and no one can accuse God of unfairness. Paul ends (v.36) by using the prepositions ‘from’, ‘through’ and ‘to’ in an affirmation that God is the creator, sustainer and goal of creation:

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

View my posts:

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Exposition

ROMANS 11:1-24

Posted on 28th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Discourse 3 11:1-36

THESIS: God has not rejected those whom he foreknew. 11:1-2

Having shown that righteousness and salvation are by faith in Jesus Christ and having explained God’s sovereignty (chapter 9) and also human responsibility (chapter 10) in the matter, Paul in chapter eleven continues his consideration of the status of Israel in God’s plans. He does this in light of his arguments in chapters 9 and 10; particularly the salvation of Gentiles. Hunter (1955, p.99) says of chapter 11:

‘We now reach the third stage in Paul’s ‘theodicy’. In chapter 9 he argues: ‘God is sovereign and elects whom he wills.’ In chapter 10 he says: ‘This is not the whole truth. God’s judgement on Israel is not arbitrary, for in fact the Jews’ own disobedience led to their downfall.’ But he cannot rest in this sad conclusion, and therefore in chapter 11 he goes on to say, ‘This is not God’s last word. Israel is not doomed to final rejection. Her temporary lapse forms part of God’s great plan. Through Israel’s lapse the Gentiles have found salvation. And Gentile acceptance of the gospel is meant to so move the Jews to jealousy (at seeing their own promised blessings in Gentile hands) that they will ultimately accept what they now reject. And so all Israel will be saved.’

11:1-10 ISRAEL’S HARDENING IS NOT TOTAL

‘I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.” Rom 11:1-10 (NIV)

Having concluded the previous section with a picture of God willing the salvation of a people who reject him Paul addresses the possibility that God has, in turn, rejected Israel. Chapter 11 therefore opens with a rhetorical question: ‘Did God reject his people?’ This question, according to Moo (1996, p. 672, footnote 9), expects a negative answer: ‘God has not rejected his people, has he?’ Paul is aiming to impress upon his readers that although Israel is ‘a disobedient and obstinate people’ (10:21) God has not totally rejected them. He reinforces this by answering his own question with a strong negative; ‘By no means!’ and points to himself as living proof that God is still saving Jews. He underlines that he is himself a Jew by emphasizing that he is ‘an Israelite’, ‘a descendant of Abraham’ and ‘from the tribe of Benjamin’. These three statements underline not only his commitment to the nation as a Jew but also highlight his awareness of his personal place in the remnant.

Having posed the question of v.1 and given a negative answer he then proceeds in v.2 to repeat the point as a positive statement: ‘God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.’ Foreknowledge (proegnoo) has to do with the action of God in marking out for special affection and attention. Moo (1996, p. 674) writes:

‘The temporal prefix, “fore-” (pro), indicates further that God’s choosing of Israel took place before any action or status on the part of Israel that might have qualified her for God’s choice. How could God reject a people whom he in a gracious act of choice had made his own?’

Since ‘his people’ in v.1 refers to Israel as a whole it is unlikely that it would have a different meaning in v.2. It is not therefore to be understood in a restrictive sense (i.e. that God only foreknew the elect remnant) but reflects the OT and wider Jewish corporate sense of election by which God guaranteed blessings for the nation as a whole, but not necessarily the salvation of every individual member. So Paul is emphasizing that God has not rejected ethnic Israel.

In vv. 2-4 Paul gives a further proof of God’s faithfulness to Israel based on the story of Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-18). He takes up this analogy from the past (vv. 2b-4) and applies it to the present in v.5. In Elijah’s day the northern kingdom had gone over to Baal worship to such an extent that the prophet Elijah felt totally alone. After the contest on Carmel (1 Kings 18), his victory experience soon faded. Following death threats from Queen Jezebel, Elijah ran away, travelling until he came to Mount Horeb. Paul (v.3) summarises his prayer from a cave there: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me.’ God’s answer (v.4) on that occasion was: ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’

In v.5 Paul cleverly applies the OT story to his teaching about Israel in the present. In Elijah’s day Israel was at such a low spiritual ebb that Elijah considered the situation to be hopeless. God, however, had preserved for himself a remnant (only seven thousand) which was a pledge of hope for the future of the nation. Paul did not wish the audience of his day to draw a similar conclusion to that of Elijah in the face of widespread unbelief on the part of Jews. Just as the defection of the majority to Baal worship in ancient history did not invalidate God’s gracious choice of the nation; neither would the rejection of Jesus as Messiah do so ‘at the present time.’ Paul (vv.5-6) makes it clear that the remnant was chosen on the basis of God’s grace and not because of ethnic identity or meritorious works.

In v.7 Paul deals with the ramifications (‘what then?’) of his teaching on the remnant and says that the ones who did obtain grace were the elect, and the rest were hardened. The irony of the situation is that the majority of Israel had tried unsuccessfully to obtain salvation through good works but only a remnant, because of God’s choosing, obtained it. Paul thus distinguishes three interconnected entities: Israel as a corporate nation; then two groups within national Israel; an elect remnant and those who ‘were hardened’. He views this ‘hardening’ as the action of God.

In vv. 8-10 Paul illustrates the concept of hardening with OT quotations introduced by the words: ‘it is written.’ As ‘proof’ that hardening was God’s intention for Israel Paul combines and modifies Deut. 29:4 and Psalm 69:22-23 which contain the phrase ‘eyes that they could not see’ (11:8;10). He presents this as evidence of an intentional ‘hardening’ by God, punishing the Jews for persistent unbelief. The quotation ‘God has given them a spirit of stupor’ is from Isaiah 29:10 and has the idea of ‘numbness’, suggesting insensitivity to the gospel. In vv. 9-10, he quotes from Psalm 69:22-23 in which David speaks of his enemies saying: ‘may their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.’ Paul is suggesting that this comes upon the Jews who reject the gospel. They will be blind to the gospel and bent over like a
blind person groping in the dark. Such a pessimistic note would seem at this stage to confirm rather than deny the suggestion in verse one that God has rejected his people. God’s motive for the hardening, however, is revealed in v.11.

VV. 11-24 ISRAEL’S HARDENING HAS FACILITATED THE SALVATION OF THE GENTILES.

‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!’ Rom 11:19-24 (NIV)

Having shown that the message of the gospel has divided Israel into ‘the remnant’ that attains righteousness by the grace of God and ‘the rest’ who are hardened and excluded from salvation Paul proceeds to show that this is not necessarily a permanent situation. He introduces a novel interpretation of the position of Jews in God’s plan of salvation. Indisputably the majority of the nation had stumbled, but he insists that they had not fallen beyond recovery. Despite the bleak picture he is optimistic. The key issue is stated in v.11: ‘Is Israel’s rejection final? Having already said (11:1-10) that Israel’s rejection is not total; he now argues that Israel’s rejection is not final. He has strong words of warning for Gentile believers at Rome who seemed proud that they had received salvation while the Israelites had rejected it. Wright (1991, p.247) assesses the possible reasons for Paul’s annoyance at their attitude:

‘It is at this point, I believe, that Paul addresses one of the key issues of the entire letter. His mission, he has emphasized from the outset, is ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’. He suspects that the Roman church … is only too eager to declare itself a basically gentile organisation perhaps, (and this can only be speculation, but it may be near the mark) in order to clear itself of local suspicion in relation to the capital’s Jewish population, recently expelled and more recently returned. But a church with a theology like that would not provide him with the base that he needs for his continuing mission, in Rome itself and beyond. It would result, as Paul sees only too clearly in light of his Eastern Mediterranean experience, in a drastically split church, with Jewish and Gentile Christians pursuing their separate paths in mutual hostility and recrimination. Instead, in this section and in vv.17-24 he argues with great force that Jews can still be saved, and indeed that it is in the interests of a largely gentile church not to forget the fact.’

In 11:11 Paul harks back to 9:32-33 which speak of Israel’s stumbling over the Messiah and asks ‘Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?’ and again answers: ‘Not at all!’ Israel has indeed stumbled but Paul rejects any suggestion that the fall is fatal and irretrievable. In fact, in v.11b, he argues that the purpose of their fall, and the subsequent salvation of Gentiles, was to make Israel jealous. When the Jews saw the wonder of salvation in Christ, they would want it for themselves. Paul continues his unusual logic in v.12 by stating that the fall of Israel was actually good for the world.

V.12 speaks of Israel’s ‘transgression’ and ‘loss’ which have resulted in
‘riches for the world’ and ‘riches for the Gentiles.’ The rejection of Jesus as Messiah had been a tragic loss for the Jews. That being the case, says Paul: ‘how much greater riches will their fullness bring?’ Whether one interprets these words as quantitative (‘loss’ and ‘full number’) as does Moo (1996, p.688), or qualitative (‘diminishing’and ‘completion’), the net result is that what is currently defeat will one day become a victory; benefitting the world.

The Gentile believers at Rome were possibly wondering why the apostle to the Gentiles was devoting such attention to a discussion of the Jews so Paul applies the teaching to his own ministry in vv.13-14. Addressing them as ‘you Gentiles,’ he says that his mission to the Gentiles is important for the salvation of Jews. He wants to ‘exalt’ his ministry to the Gentiles in order to move some of his own people to jealousy (an idea introduced in v. 11b) and conversion. Whenever Paul, preached, saw Gentiles converted and live Christian lives that provoked Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah, then his ministry was magnified. The desire to see Jews converted was thus a major motivating factor in his missionary outreach to Gentiles. Paul adds, ‘For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be, but life from the dead?’ If the impact of Jewish rejection by God (or possibly, their rejection of the gospel) was great blessing (reconciliation) to the world, then the thought of the impact of Israel’s acceptance of the gospel is so staggering to Paul that he calls it “life from the dead.”

This controversial phrase may be interpreted literally, as referring to the resurrection at Christ’s return or to the wonderful life after that. This interpretation focuses on the last days and foresees a mass conversion of Gentiles at the end of time; a great spiritual revival that signals the resurrection. Whilst a future mass conversion of Jews would doubtless be a wonderful and desirable phenomenon the text says nothing about that. The context is rather against it since the apostle says (v.13-14) that he is already labouring to see some of his own people saved and bring about their ‘fullness’ (v12b). Thus when the last Jew is saved, and the last Gentile also (v.25), there will be life from the dead, or, the resurrection life. It is not the moment of resurrection that is in view but the glorious state thereafter. ‘Life from the dead’ may also be viewed in a metaphorical sense as referring to great spiritual blessings that enrich the whole world. It is an image denoting the greatest happiness possible.

Paul then uses several metaphors to show that the Jews can never be finally rejected and to warn Gentiles believers against spiritual pride. In v. 16 he refers to the OT practice outlined in Numbers 15:18 – 21 of offering the first piece of dough to the Lord. The first piece stood for the rest. Since God accepted the first piece the rest was holy as well. Paul is applying this concept to Israelite history and implying that since God accepted the patriarchs in spite of their many failings, he will also likewise accept their descendants. V.16 refers similarly to ‘the root’ and says that if it is holy, so are the branches.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE OLIVE TREE

Having mentioned ‘root’ and ‘branches’ Paul goes on to employ (vv.17-14) a long and elaborate allegory about an olive tree, representing the Jews. Paul imagined cultivated branches (unbelieving Jews) being broken off and wild olive branches (Gentiles) being grafted in. He stresses to his Gentiles readers that they had not replaced the branches that were broken off and suggests that by trusting in their own efforts they likewise could be broken off. He expresses optimism (v23) that Jews will believe and be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Paul begins his illustration in v.17 by referring to a cultivated olive tree and wild olive shoots. The olive tree was a familiar symbol of the nation of Israel (Jer. 11:16; Hosea 14:6) and Paul restates the tragic situation of the unbelieving Jews of his day by picturing them as branches that had been broken off the tree. He also pictures wild olive shoots, the Gentiles, as having been grafted onto the olive tree and bearing fruit along with the believing remnant. The newly engrafted Gentiles believers ‘share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.’ Paul’s analogy seems strange in that this was a reversal of the normal process, which was to graft a shoot from a cultivated tree into a wild olive so that it might produce good fruit. Paul, however, is aware that this is ‘contrary to nature’ (v.24), and by this oleicultural inaccuracy may be stressing the miraculous nature of what God is doing in allowing the Gentiles to enjoy the blessings of salvation. His argument depends on the fact that the illustration is unusual.

In v.18 Paul warns the Gentile believers against arrogance and reminds them: ‘You do not support the root, but the root supports you.’ The Gentiles had nothing to boast about as the gospel promises did not originate with them. God gave them to the patriarchs and passed them down through their descendants.

In v.19 Paul anticipates that the Gentiles might justify their feelings of superiority by saying ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ He agrees with them that the natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were indeed broken off because of unbelief and that the Gentiles ‘stand by faith.’ Faith is the only basis for a relationship with God and continuance in faith is proof that the graft has taken. He goes on to stress that the fact that the natural branches were broken off and wild ones grafted in is not cause for arrogance but for fear. The reason for this fear is given in v.21: ‘for if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.’ Lloyd-Jones (1999, p.144) contends that just as Paul has been talking about Israel in general so now he is referring to Gentiles in general:

‘He is not now dealing with the elect Gentiles but with the Gentiles in general… He says to the Gentiles that Israel was included in the same way as they now are, but she is now excluded. That has got nothing to do with the elect because, though Israel in general is out, the remnant according to the election of grace is in…The whole argument must be thought of in terms of the general position, as regards Jews and Gentiles.’

Paul concludes the allegory of the olive tree and his warning to the Gentiles in vv.22-24 by suggesting that they consider two attributes of God; ‘his kindness and sternness.’ God’s ‘kindness’ is his will to do a person good, his ‘sternness’ (used only here in the NT) is his justice applied without mercy. One has to do with the grace of God in salvation, the other with his judgment toward unbelievers. Three possible scenarios are outlined:

1) Kindness extended to elect Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the kindness… of God…to you’. That God, in his sovereignty, had taken wild olive shoots and grafted them into the cultivated olive tree is said by Paul to be a display of kindness. Gentiles had become partakers of God’s promise.

2) Sternness displayed toward rejected Jews or Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the… sternness of God…to those who fell.’ ‘Kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will
be cut off.’ Jews who had rejected Christ had been already cut off; Gentiles are not to boast about that in case God’s kindness is withdrawn.

3) Kindness in restoring Jews to their former position.

‘And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.’

Paul is confident that, providing they do not remain in persistent unbelief, God will restore Jews to their former position. He argues in v.24 that if God can save Gentiles who were from a wild olive tree, how much easier it is for him to save Jews who more naturally belong in the olive tree that began with the patriarchs. Hendriksen (1981, p.376) stresses that:

‘In reading what Paul says about the olive tree there is one very important point that must not be overlooked. The apostle recognizes only one (cultivated) olive tree. In other words the church is one living organism. For Jew and Gentile salvation is the same. It is obtained on the basis of Christ’s atonement, by grace, through faith.’

The emphasis throughout is on God’s sovereignty. The apostle stresses that ‘God is able’ (v.23) and yet at the same time that there are moral conditions associated with being ‘cut off’ and ‘standing’. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility interact. It is interesting that Paul’s conception of divine sovereignty is so flexible that he can state with conviction that both God’s kindness’ and his ‘sternness’ are reversible.

View my posts:

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:25-36

Exposition

ROMANS 9:30 -10:21

Posted on 27th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 2 ROMANS 9:30 – 10:21

THESIS: Some Gentiles received righteousness but some Jews did not (9:30-31)

9:30-33

‘What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Rom 9:30-33 (NIV)

Paul now moves on from divine sovereignty to talk about human responsibility and addresses objections to the fact that God has chosen to save many Gentiles but only some Jews. This is clearly the beginning of a new section as he uses the expression; ‘What then shall we say?’ which often introduces a change of focus in Romans (4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31) and here prompts the audience to think about Israel’s disobedience (10:21). The key word is this discourse is ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosynē) which occurs ten times.

He first mentions the Gentiles who, he says, did not pursue righteousness. How then did some of them ‘obtain’ this status (right standing with God) without having sought it?

Moo (1996, p.619) explains:

‘Paul returns (after using the term to refer to moral righteousness in chaps. 6-8) to the forensic meaning of righteousness that he established in chaps. 1-4: the “right” standing with God that is the product of God’s justifying work in Christ.’

Paul emphasises that this righteousness is ‘by faith’ (9:30), a fact that he has already made clear in 1:16-17 and in 3:21-4:25. Faith is possible on the part of the Gentle as well as the Jew (1:16) and this is why so many Gentiles are being saved.

In v.31 Paul then speaks of the Jews, who pursued a ‘law of righteousness’ but have not attained it. Unlike the Gentiles who ‘obtained’ (katelaben, lay hold of) righteousness, the Jews did not ‘attain’ (efthasen, reach) the goal. The reason Paul gives (v.32) was that they ‘pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works’ and thus ‘stumbled over the “stumbling-stone”.

He quotes from Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16, two passages that mention a ‘stone’, which he conflates to emphasize the negative point about Israel’s fall (he takes up the last part of the quotation again in 10:11 to make the positive point that Christ is the stone). By means of this composite quotation from Isaiah Paul stresses that Israel’s problem is failure to believe on Jesus Christ. He is their obstacle. The image is that of a race in which a runner is so preoccupied with the finishing line that he stumbles over a rock and falls.

10:1-4

‘Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ Rom 10:1-4 (NIV)

Having explained in chapter 9 that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved, Paul expresses to the Christians (‘brothers’ 10:1) to whom he is writing his desire that ethnic Israel might be saved. He wants the Christian church to know that he takes no pleasure in the failure of ethnic Israel to attain salvation and stresses his sincerity with a statement of his petition on Israel’s behalf. He did not seem to sense any tension between his teaching on predestination in chapter 9 and his passionate prayer for Israel’s salvation. Divine election does not mean that prayer is neither necessary nor important. That Paul was continuing to pray for the salvation of Israel suggests that he did not accept that their present state of rejection was final.

He begins v.2 with the word ‘for’, thus indicating that he is going to give the reason for his prayer. He says: ‘I can testify about them’, which suggests that he can accurately comment on the matter as a result of his own personal experience. It is because they are ‘zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.’ Their dedication was not in doubt but zeal (fervent devotion and passion) without knowledge is only fanaticism. Zeal alone does not bring salvation. Paul sums up the defectiveness of their understanding in v.3:

‘Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.’

The term ‘God’s righteousness’’ occurs twice in 10:3 and also in 1:17 and in 3:5; 21; 22 (along with references to ‘his righteousness’ in 3:25 and 26). Elsewhere in Paul it occurs only in 2 Corinthians 5:21 although there is a similar expression ‘the righteousness that comes from God’ in Philippians 3:9. Paul links ‘God’s righteousness’ with justification (3:21-26) and views it as God’s gift (5:17). The Jews, however, did not understand that the correct way to attain a righteous
standing before God was to ‘submit’ (10:3). Instead they sought to establish their own righteousness by practising good works. Schreiner (1998, p.544) concludes:

‘The reason, then, that the Jews did not subject themselves to the saving righteousness of God is because they were ignorant of the fact that righteousness was a gift of God’s grace and they mistakenly thought that they could secure their own righteousness by observing the Torah.’

In Romans 10:4 Paul makes an important and much debated statement: ‘Christ is the end of the law so that there might be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ The key terms are: ‘End,’ ‘Law,’ and ‘Righteousness.’ In any discussion of this verse one must try to explain the significance of these terms and identify the relationship of Christ to the law.

END

‘End’ (telos) may refer to a’ termination’/ ‘cessation’ or to a ‘purpose’/’goal.’ It may also refer to an ‘outcome’ (6:21). The three main views of its meaning in 10:4 are:

1) ‘Fulfilment’- All the OT institutions, types and rituals pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in him.

2) ‘Termination’ – The Mosaic Law as a covenant is finished. God’s people today are not bound to it. This view stresses the discontinuity between Christ and the law and is attractive because it bears in mind 7:6 where a release from the law has already been declared, and also the additional statement of 8:1 that all who are in Christ Jesus are no longer under condemnation.

3) ‘Goal’ – The purpose of the law was not to save, but to lead people to faith in Christ.

This does not mean that there was a full revelation of Christ throughout history but rather that God provided some details at various times about the one who would come and, based on the believing response to these revelations about Christ, righteousness was credited (10:6-9). These OT events and prophecies pointed to the coming of the Messiah and all the predictions culminated in him; the one whom Paul referred to as the ‘stone’ (9:33), called ‘Christ’ (10:4) and identified as ‘the Lord Jesus’ (10:9).

LAW

‘Law’ in 10:4 is sometimes taken to refer to law in its general sense but most scholars take it to mean the Law of Moses. The other two verses in the immediate context which mention ‘law’ (9:31; 10:5) would support this interpretation.

It is likely that Paul has in mind the Old Testament (which includes the Mosaic Law), a view which would better suit the idea that telos means ‘goal’. Paul does not distinguish between the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT in chapters 9-11. When, in each of the three chapters he speaks of his hope for the salvation of Israel (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:26), he supports his argument for salvation through faith with quotations from throughout the OT. Just before making the statement of 10:4 he has quoted from Isaiah (9:27; 28; 29; 33) rather than from the Pentateuch which suggests that in Paul’s view there is full agreement between all of the OT and the gospel that he preaches. He is contrasting two views regarding the function of the law. Non-elect Israelites thought of the law as a means of salvation; which was conditional on compliance with its demands (9:31-32). Paul saw the law rather as a body of truth which had to be believed for salvation. For him, Christ was the embodiment of that truth and was its goal.

RIGHTEOUSNESS

‘Righteousness’ is a characteristic of a person. Ziesler (1972, pp.7-8) explains what it might mean:

‘There are two main conceptions of the meaning of the noun. It is usually assumed without argument by Roman Catholic exegetes that it means “justice” in the sense of uprightness, rather than strict distributive justice or even forensic justice in general…The usual Protestant position however has been that righteousness as imputed in justification is real righteousness, which comes from God to man, but for forensic purposes only. Man is not righteous, but he is treated by God as if he were, because he stands clothed in the righteousness of Christ…Thus righteousness from God and justification are the same thing. Both are to do with the granting of a status before God, an undeserved status which in itself is not concerned with ethics, but which has ethical consequences.’

Paul has already taught (Rom. 4:4-5) that righteousness is not based on human effort but is a gift obtained by faith. He shows in 9:30 -10:4 that the Jews viewed the law as a goal in itself rather than realising that the OT pointed to Christ. He uses the OT to show that Christ was, and is, the necessary object of faith for salvation and stresses in 10:4 that the OT law fulfilled its revelatory function until the appearance of Christ, its end goal. He is the focus of salvation history. Moo (1996, p. 640) views v.4 as:

‘The hinge on which the entire section 9:30-10:13 turns. It justifies Paul’s claim that the Jews, by their preoccupation with the law, have missed God’s righteousness (9:30-10:3); for righteousness is now found only in Christ and only through faith in Christ, the one who has brought the law to its climax and thereby ended its reign. It also announces the theme that Paul will expound in 10: 5-13: righteousness by faith in Christ for all who believe.’

10:5-8

‘Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:’ Rom 10:5-8 (NIV)

In vv. 5-7 Paul contrasts righteousness ‘by faith’ with righteousness ‘by the law’ and uses two OT verses to argue against attempting to establish righteousness by means of the Mosaic Law. In v. 5 he writes: ‘Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law’ and gives a quotation from Leviticus 18:5: ‘The Man who does these things will live by them.’

‘The verse is not speaking about the attainment of eternal life; and Paul clearly does not believe that the OT teaches that righteousness is based on the law (see Rom 4). Paul is not, therefore, claiming that Christ has replaced the old way of salvation – by obedience to the law- with a new one- by faith in Christ.’ Schreiner (1993, p.125) points out that:

This is a righteousness based on works. Many interpret Leviticus 18:5 as promising eternal life, if the standard is met. If one performs the
righteousness of the law he will live. The context of Lev. 18:5, however, has to do with Israel’s obedience to God’s commands in order to prolong their blessings in the Promised Land. Nehemiah used this verse (9:29-30) to explain that their disobedience to the law resulted in their subjugation by hostile nations. Ezekiel (18: 9; 13) refers to the verse when discussing the execution of those who violate certain commandments. Leviticus 18:5 does not therefore refer to eternal life but to obedience to God’s commands in order to stay alive. Moo (1996, p.648) observes:

‘Paul’s statement in v.5 only makes sense if it is assumed that no one can perfectly obey the law. The attempt to gain righteousness by the law is excluded precisely because no one has the ability to put into effect what the law demands.’

Paul does not deal at all here with the impossibility of keeping the law as he has already covered the topic in 3:9-20. He is arguing that the perfect keeping of the law is to be rejected as a viable method of obtaining righteousness because Christ has accomplished all that is required for salvation.

Having stated (10:5) that Moses spoke of ‘righteousness by the law,’ Paul introduces a different and opposing voice in v.6. This is the personified voice of ‘the righteousness that is by faith’ speaking words from Deuteronomy 9:4 and 30:11-14. It seems that Paul has come close to setting up one scripture in opposition to another (since Deuteronomy was also written by Moses).

In his discussion of this controversial use of scripture Schreiner (2002, pp.133-134) quotes Silva who:

‘… notes it is uncommon for NT writers to call into question the interpretation of opponents by setting forth an opposing contextual argument of the text in question. He goes on to say, “Jewish literature contemporary to the New Testament shows a similar hesitation to score points by refuting the opponent’s use of Scripture. And the later rabbinic scholars, as a rule, refuted an argument based on Scripture by counteracting with a different passage, not by demonstrating faulty hermeneutics.” In other words, Paul cites the OT in Rom 10:6-8 to show that obeying the law is not the means of righteousness.’

Paul is explaining that God will not be impressed with human good works when his way of salvation is belief in the gospel. Just as the people to whom Moses spoke (Deut 30:11) had a message that was accessible to them, and not too difficult for them to understand, the same was true of the Israelites of Paul’s generation. They were not required to do the impossible. They did not need to ‘ascend into heaven’ in order to bring Christ down, or to ‘descend into the deep’ (since Christ was already resurrected from the dead). Just as the law had been brought down to the Israelites by Moses so also Jesus, the Messiah, had come down to earth. The message of righteousness by faith was ‘near’ Israel and this was the ‘word of faith’ that Paul was proclaiming.

10:9-10

‘If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.’ Rom 10:9-10 (NIV)

In 10:9 Paul explains what it is that he preaches and the simplicity of the response that it demands. It has to do with the certainty of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Consistent with the order of his quotation from Deuteronomy (‘the word is near you: it is in your mouth and in your heart’) he first mentions confession with the mouth about who Jesus is and then belief in the heart about what God has done.

Hoeksema (2002, p.461) maintains:

‘The resurrection was an act of God. The text does not say, “If you believe that Christ is risen.” Emphatically, the apostle states, “he who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead.” It was an act of God. God did something. And our faith clings ultimately to that act of God…The act of God whereby He raised Jesus from the dead was the act by which he declared us righteous.’

Just as in v.9 the result of belief and confession is salvation so it is likewise in v.10. Here Paul reverses the order of the salvation process (‘it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.’) forming a chiasm. This general statement in v.10 which again underscores that the key element is faith, not works, is a transition leading to Paul’s taking up again the idea of universality mentioned at the end of v.4 ( ‘for everyone who believes’). Since justification and salvation are as a result of faith then one must logically conclude that anyone who exercises faith in Christ will be saved, regardless of ethnicity.

10:11-13

‘As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom 10:11-13 (NIV)

In vv. 11-13 Paul takes up the aforementioned idea of universality and (v.11) quotes Isaiah 28:16, which also underscores the connection between faith and salvation, but adds the words pas ho (everyone) to emphasise the universal nature of the gospel. Everyone who believes in the Lord ‘will not be put to shame’, i.e. deliverance at the time of judgement.’

In v.12 Paul concludes that since salvation is available by faith to all who call on the Lord for help then there is no difference between Jew and Gentile; they all have the same Lord.

In v. 13 he quotes from Joel 2:32 (a verse that in its original context refers to the remnant of Israel); ‘For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’, thus supporting his statement in v.12 by sandwiching it between two OT quotations. The ‘everyone’ of v. 11 and that of v. 13 together back up the expression in v.12 that ‘there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.’ Regardless of race or culture anyone can call in faith upon the Lord for salvation. Upon reading these verses one recalls Paul’s earlier statement of ‘no distinction’ (3:23) in sin and judgment but, as Bassler (1984, p.56) notes, now ‘the emphasis of “no distinction” or impartiality has shifted’.

She continues:

‘In chaps.1-3 it was used as a warrant for the inclusion of Gentiles. Here it supports an argument for the ultimate inclusion of the recalcitrant Jews within the community of faith, so that the total scheme of salvation corresponds to the basic axiom of divine impartiality: “For God has consigned all men to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all” (11:32).

Salvation can be for everyone so how could someone know the gospel without it being preached to them? Although from vv. 14-21 Paul again takes up the situation of Israel and investigates Jewish rejection of the gospel he first speaks of the practicalities involved in a person’s salvation: a preacher must be sent and the message must be preached, heard, and believed.

10:14-17

‘How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.’ Rom 10:14-17 (NIV)

In vv.14-15 he poses a series of four rhetorical questions beginning with ‘How?’ These build upon one another by repetition of the verb at the end of one question at the beginning of the next question. In light of God’s promise that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved(10:13):

1) ‘How then can they call on Him they have not believed in?’

2) ‘How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?’

3) ‘How can they hear without someone preaching to them?’

4) ‘How can they preach unless they are sent?’

In these four questions Paul sets out the conditions necessary for calling on the name of the Lord and presents the five essential links in the chain of evangelism. These are the basic elements of Christian mission: Sending, Preaching, Hearing, Believing, and Calling. If one of the previous links is missing, Calling does not occur and there is no salvation.

Who is to be evangelized? In 1:16 Paul made it clear that both Jews and Gentiles were to be evangelized. In the context of chapters 9-11 he is
speaking specifically of the evangelism of Jewish people, the priority of which he inferred in 1:16. It is as if he is emphasizing to the believers at Rome (where there were possibly some tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians) that they ought to be involving themselves in the evangelism of Jews as well as of Gentiles. He quotes loosely (v.15) from Isaiah 52:7 (with perhaps an allusion to Nahum 1:15) noting the beauty of the feet of those who ‘bring good news’. This verse, in its original setting, prophesied the certainty of Israel’s return from Captivity in Babylon. Jews, in spite of their rejection of Christ, still needed to hear the message about Jesus the Messiah. Since Paul is analyzing Jewish rejection of the gospel up to that point in time he goes on to show that in their case all the conditions for salvation have been met; except one.

V.16 points out that even though the gospel is good news, not everyone believes. It says: ‘But not all the Israelites responded to the good news.’ This is an understatement as, in comparison to the Gentles, very few Jews accepted Christ. It does, however, reiterate the concept of the remnant introduced in 9:6; while not all believed, some did. In the case of Israel, this was nothing new. Paul quotes Isaiah 53:1 (‘Lord, who has believed our message?) in support of this and thus identifies the missing link in the chain. Faith was missing.

V.17 is a transitional verse in that it summarizes the argument thus far. It starts with ‘consequently’ or ‘as a result,’ pointing the reader back to 10:8-9 about the expression of faith but also picks up the idea of ‘hearing’ implied in the ‘message’ of Isaiah 53:1 and moves on to the next stage of Paul’s argument.

10:18-21

‘But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” Rom 10:18-21 (NIV)

In vv.18-21 Paul entertains and then dismisses two possible reasons for Israel’s rejection of the gospel. He asks two rhetorical questions which expect a positive answer. They thus become an assertion. ‘Did they not hear?’ and ‘Did Israel not understand?’ They had both heard and understood the message. In v18 Paul queries if the problem might be that the Jews had not heard the gospel: ‘But I ask, did they not hear?’ It must be because they have not heard. He answers ‘Of course they did!’ and quotes Psalm 19: 4: ‘their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.’ Paul lifts this verse from its original context which speaks of natural revelation and applies it to the special revelation of the gospel. The idea here may be what Bruce (1963, p. 223) terms ‘representative universalism’, meaning that just as the knowledge of God is said to be universal in Psalm 19 so, in Paul’s day, wherever there were communities of Jews in the known world, it could be said that the gospel had been preached. Paul contends that Israel had definitely heard the
gospel.

V.19 begins with a repetition of the ‘I ask’ of v.18 and moves from the possibility that Israel had not heard the message to the possibility that the message had not been understood. Paul quotes this time from both the Law and the prophets, using Moses and Isaiah as representative of each. The quotation from Moses in v.19 is from Deuteronomy 32:21b. The point being made is that historically Israel knew the Commandments, yet their practice did not match their understanding. They had hardly left Egypt and the experience of the power of God when they made a golden calf and worshipped it. Along the way they complained against God and longed for their former life of slavery. Having reached the Promised Land they pursued false gods. It was not a matter of not understanding God’s law. They acted in wilful disobedience to what they knew. As a result God promised to use people who were not a nation, people who did not have understanding, to make Israel envious.

In v.20 Paul, citing Isaiah 65:1, turns to the prophets: ‘Then Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek Me, I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me”.’ The Gentiles were not pursuing God. They were idolaters who did not seek God; rather he made himself known to them in the gospel. This highlights God’s grace in pursuing the Gentiles rather than Gentiles pursuing Him. Those who did not look for God found him; he took the initiative and revealed himself in the gospel. In v.21 Paul comments: ‘But concerning Israel he says’ and continues the quotation from Isaiah (65:2), ‘All day long have I held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ The second discourse closes with this thought of a gracious God actively stretching out his hands to the Jews, wanting them to come to him.

In chapter nine Paul attributed Israelite unbelief to God’s election, in chapter ten he attributes it to their own wilful rejection of the gospel message that they had both heard and understood.

View my posts:

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Exposition

ROMANS 9:6-29

Posted on 26th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 1. ROMANS 9:6-29

THESIS : It is not as though God’s word has failed (9:6).

9:6-18

‘It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.’ Rom 9:6-18 (NIV)

‘JEW’ AND ‘ISRAEL’

In Romans chapters 1-8 the term ‘Jew’ is used to distinguish between them and Gentiles. Chapter 9:6 introduces an important change in vocabulary; the term ‘Israel’ signalling a shift in emphasis from the Jewish nation (the people who live in the territory of Judea) to ‘Israel’, the covenant people of God. This becomes the foremost term in 9-11.

Dunn (1998, p.506) asserts: ‘In short, “Jew” defines primarily by relation to land and by differentiation from peoples of other lands, whereas “Israel” defines primarily by relation to God.’

In vv.6-18 Paul begins to build his case that salvation is through promise and not through physical descent. He anticipates a question that might arise from the previous section and says: ‘But it is by no means the case that the word of God has failed.’(9:6).

This assertion implies the question: ‘Since Israel as God’s covenant
people had received so many promises and privileges (vv.4-5) why have so few been saved?’ Those to whom God made promises of blessing now oppose the gospel so does Israel’s unbelief mean that God’s word has not taken effect? For Paul that was not the case. God’s word had not failed.

Hübner (1984, p.58) observes:

‘Paul clearly sees that the failure of the people of Israel in its history could prompt a thoughtful person to reflect that God’s word and God’s promise have also lost their force (see also Rom 3:3!) In other words, Israel’s failure is the failure of the divine promise and therefore God’s own failure. The answer Paul gives is surprising: it is not the promise that is problematic but rather what is meant by ‘Israel’. For since the ‘history of Israel’ cannot fail –being something which stands under the promise of God- but the historical Israel has failed, the entity ‘Israel’ must be taken in a new sense so that the divine promise may remain valid.’

Paul attempts to prove his point by introducing the concept of the remnant. He wrote: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ For Paul the remnant does not include Gentile believers but is a rather a true Israel existing within the nation of Israel. He has been clearly focusing on ethnic Israel from the beginning of chapter 9 (‘my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.’) and there is therefore no indication that what he has in mind is a new spiritual Israel composed of all believers, both Jew and Gentile.

Moo (1996, p.574) comments:

‘Throughout these chapters, Paul carefully distinguishes between Israel and the Jews on one hand and the Gentiles on the other. Only where clear contextual pointers are present can the ethnic focus of Israel be abandoned.’

Paul denies that God ever intended to save all ethnic Israelites. He says that being a Jew, a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is not a guarantee of salvation but that the true Israel is a spiritual, faithful remnant within ethnic Israel. Had God’s promise intended that all ethnic Israelites (all those who are descended from Israel) be saved then indeed his purpose had been frustrated and his word had failed.

Murray (1997, p.10) summarises Paul’s contention that not everyone
who is an ethnic Israelite is a spiritual Israelite as follows:

‘The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfilment of God’s covenant purpose and promise. The word of God, therefore, has not been violated.’

In vv.7- 13 Paul explains why God did not promise that all ethnic Israelites would form the true people of God. In each of verses 7 and 8 he restates negatively his thesis of v.6 that the children of Abraham are not merely his physical descendants but are the children of the promise. As one might expect Paul points back to the origins of the people group known as ‘the Hebrews’ (Gen 14:13; 40:15) and shows that God’s call of Abraham and the associated promises relate to both ethnic and spiritual Israel. He
supports that distinction by quoting biblical examples of God’s sovereign choice.

ABRAHAM AND HIS TWO SONS

The first example he produces is that of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. God had promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3) and that he would have a son (Gen. 15:4-5). Since Sarah was past the age of childbearing she and Abraham decided to fulfil God’s promise by having a son through Sarah’s ‘maidservant’ Hagar and as a result Ishmael was born (Gen. 16). Soon after this God’s covenant with Abraham was sealed by circumcision, a rite in which Ishmael was included (Gen.17:26-27). Ishmael was a physical descendant of Abraham and had been circumcised and was therefore technically a Hebrew. One would expect that the promises would flow through him. Abraham seems to have thought as much in Gen. 17: 18: ‘If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!’ God’s response in Gen. 17:19-20 was as follows: ‘Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.’ Subsequently Sarah bore a son and he was named Isaac (Gen.21:2-3). Paul looks to this story for an explanation of the distinction between physical and spiritual Israel and in Romans 9:7 he quotes Gen. 21:12: ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’

Having referred back to the establishment of the nation to argue that God has always dealt with Israel by means of sovereign election, Paul goes on to say that God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael began a pattern of election that still continues. Having first distinguished ‘Israel’ from ‘those who are descended from Israel’ (9:6) Paul now also distinguishes ‘Abraham’s children’ from ‘Abraham’s offspring’ (9:7) and proves that physical descent from Abraham is not a guarantee of inheritance. He proceeds in 9:8 to distinguish between the ‘natural children’ (kata sarka) and ‘the children of the promise’, using the example of Isaac’s children Esau and Jacob.

ESAU AND JACOB

These two were born, not just of the same father, but of the same pregnancy and yet God chose Jacob rather than Esau. Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen long before their birth and before their behaviour. The choice of Jacob was not based on some good deed that he performed as the choice was ‘before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad’ (9:11), nor was it based on physical connection. It was based on election. Paul describes it like this in 9:11: ‘in order that God’s purpose in election might stand’. God brings his purposes to pass and chooses those whom he wills. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael it was a choice between sons of different mothers, in the case of Jacob and Esau it was a choice between twin sons of the same mother. Jacob inherited the promise.

In vv. 22-13 Paul bolsters his argument with two Old Testament quotations; (1) ‘The older will serve the younger’ and (2) ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated’. He is stressing that God’s election does not necessarily conform to human practice and custom but is always according to his own will. The older son was normally the heir but God chose Abraham’s son Isaac rather than Ishmael. In the case of Isaac’s sons God did not choose Esau but Jacob.

The promise given to Rebecca in Genesis 25:23 would seem to suggest that the election in view is that of ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’. This verse reads:

‘The Lord said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.’

The second quotation, from Malachi chapter one, originally appears after a statement of God’s love for Israel (Mal 1:2) followed by the assertion that God’s love for Jacob is so strong that his attitude to Esau seems like hate by comparison. Again the original reference is not to individuals as Malachi (1:4) goes on to describe Edom as ‘the Wicked land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord.’

Witherington (2004, p.253) maintains:

‘As the OT context of the saying “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (Mal. 1:2-3) shows, the subject there is two nations, not two individuals, and, as we have said, even when individuals are in the picture, it is not their eternal destiny that is spoken of. The quoted verse, then, may speak of God’s elective purposes, but the concern is with the roles they are to play in history, not their personal eternal destiny.’

Moo disagrees. He contends (1996, p. 585):

‘First, Paul suggests that he is thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals in vv. 10b-11a when he mentions their conception, birth and “works” – language that is not easily applied to nations. Second, several of Paul’s key words and phrases in this passage are words he generally uses elsewhere with reference to the attaining of salvation; and significantly they occur with this sense in texts closely related to this one: “election” (see esp. 11:5,7); “call” (see esp. 8:28); and “[not] of works” (see esp. Rom. 4:2-8 and 11:6). These words are therefore difficult to apply to nations or peoples, for Paul clearly does not believe that peoples or nations –not even Israel- are chosen and called by God for salvation apart from their works.’

He continues (1996, p. 586):

‘The nations denoted by these names, we must remember, have come into existence in and through the individuals who first bore those names. In a context in which Paul begins speaking rather clearly about the individuals rather than the nations, we should not be surprised that he would apply a text that spoke of the nations to individuals who founded and, in a sense, “embodied” them. It is not the issue of how God uses different individuals or nations in accomplishing his purposes that is Paul’s concern but which individuals, and on what basis, belong to God’s covenant people.’

In vv. 14-18 Paul deals with an anticipated objection to his argument of vv. 6-13 in a question and answer format. He is not so much clarifying but rather defending his insistence (v12) that God makes his choices independently of human distinctions. He begins (v14) with ‘What then shall we say? Is God unjust?’ An objector might suggest that when God arbitrarily determines eternal destiny based on nothing but his own
choice, ignoring human claims whether by birth or self effort, then he is irresponsible and unrighteous. God, one might say, must choose people on the basis of moral qualities or else he is unjust.

ILLUSTRATION 1 THE POSITIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Paul makes his own position (v14) clear by use of a strong negative ‘Not at all!’ before proceeding to give two OT illustrations which he introduces with the word ‘for,’ and from each derives a proof introduced by the word ‘therefore’, The first quotation (v.15) that he presents is from Exodus 33:19. In the book of Exodus the quotation follows the worship of the golden calf, as a result of which the Levites, at God’s insistence, killed three thousand of their idolatrous fellow Israelites (Ex. 32:26-
28). Moses then asked the Lord to show him his glory (Ex. 33:18) after which the Lord said he would cause his ‘goodness’ to pass in front of Moses and proclaim his name ‘the Lord’. Then follows the quotation that Paul cites in Romans 9:15: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”.

Paul follows this up with v16: ‘It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.’ The subject (‘it’) implied in v.16 is not exactly clear. The reference may be to ‘God’s purpose of election’ (v.12) or, more likely, to God’s ‘bestowal of mercy’ (v15). The point is that nothing man does has any bearing on God’s choice to either withhold or bestow mercy.

God was showing Moses that all the Israelites deserved to die because of their sin against God on that occasion but that God in compassion spared many of them. The nation ought to have been wiped out then but God graciously spared it. Is there unrighteousness with God? Logic works in both directions. Was God unjust when he also spared many Israelites when they deserved to die?

Wright (2002), p. 638) says that:

‘The surprise, in other words, is not that some were allowed to fall by the
wayside, but that any at all were allowed to continue as God’s covenant people, carrying the promises forward to their conclusion.’

Paul shows that election, rather than being unjust, is merciful. Everyone deserves God’s judgement but God is merciful to those elected to salvation. God, in fact, would still be just if he did not choose to spare anyone.

ILLUSTRATION 2 THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Having thus shown the positive side of election Paul introduces (v.17) his second OT quotation beginning with the word ‘For’ and from it shows (v.18) the negative side. Verse 17 (quoting Ex. 9:16) reads ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Moo (1996, p.595) suggests that’ raise up’ has ‘the connotation “appoint to a significant role in salvation history”. The comment by Paul (v.18) that ‘therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden’ relates the ‘raising up’ of Pharaoh to his ‘hardening’.

It is interesting that Paul did not select a quotation from Exodus that explicitly mentions the word ‘hardening’ (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12). Piper (1993, p. 179) asks: ‘If Paul wanted to infer from an Old Testament quotation that God hardens whom he wills, why did he choose to cite Ex 9:16 in which the word “harden” is missing?’ Perhaps this is because in Ex. 8:15 and 8:32 it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. One might therefore infer that it was only then, and as an act of judgement in
response to this that God, in turn, hardened his heart. Paul, it would seem, wished rather to emphasise the sovereign action of God in election.

HARDENING

It is also interesting that in v.18, which restates what was said in v.16 (that God bestows or withholds mercy on whom he wills), ‘hardening’ is not the exact antithesis of ‘mercy’. ‘Mercy’ in this context refers to the bestowal salvation. ‘Hardening’ however, does not mean the infliction of eternal wrath. Paul has chosen his words with precision. At the time of Paul’s writing he considered the unbelieving Jews ‘hardened’ but was confident that they were not necessarily locked in that hopeless situation forever. Paul’s prayer was for their salvation (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:11-14, 28-32).

Some commentators try to keep their options open. Hendriksen (1981, p. 326), for example, maintains:

‘There is no reason to doubt that the hardening of which Pharaoh was the object was final. It was a link in the chain: reprobation – wicked life – hardening – everlasting punishment. This does not mean, however, that divine hardening is always final.’

Piper contends (1993, p.178):

Must we not conclude, therefore, that the hardening in Rom 9:18 has reference, just as the hardening in 11:7, to the action of God whereby a person is left in a condition outside salvation and thus “prepared for destruction” (9:22)?

In a footnote (1993, p.178 no.31), however, he somewhat qualifies this view:

‘This does not imply that the condition sometimes called hardness of heart (Eph 4:18) or mind (2 Cor 3:14) cannot be altered by the merciful revivifying act of God (Eph 2:1-4). But it does imply that God is the one who sovereignly decides who will be shown such mercy and who will be decisively and finally hardened. It is hardening in this decisive sense that meets the demands of the argument in Rom 9:1-18.

It is clear that God did not force Pharaoh to act against his natural bent, but the quotation (Ex. 9:16) chosen by Paul shows that he considered that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to accomplish his will.

ROMANS 9:19-29

‘One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.” Rom 9:19-29 (NIV)

Once again Paul anticipates the objections and, having just addressed the objection that ‘God is unjust!,’ he now turns his attention to the objection that ‘God is unfair!’ How can it be fair for God to find fault when no one can resist his will? If God hardens a person’s heart, on what basis does he then hold that person accountable for his unbelief? Paul treats this objection as an expression of arrogance against God rather than an honest inquiry and says (v.20): ‘But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?’ and goes on to make his point by using a biblical analogy.

THE POTTER AND THE CLAY

Quoting Isaiah 29:16 he compares the Creator and the creature to a potter
and clay. Only the potter (v.21) has the right to determine what types of vessels to produce. From the same lump of clay he can make a work of art or produce a vessel for common, everyday use. That which he forms has no say in the matter for he can mould it as he chooses. In the same way God can do as he pleases with human beings.

The analogy of the potter and the clay is then carried over into vv. 22-24 which Paul begins with another question: ‘What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction?’ and continues ‘What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- even us…? The word ‘choosing’(NIV) or ‘wishing’ may be interpreted in one of two ways:

1) Causally = ‘because he wished’ to display his wrath.

Or:

2) Concessively = ‘though he wished’ to display his wrath.

The latter interpretation fits best with the assertion that God bears ‘with great patience’ the ‘vessels of wrath’. A threefold reason is given for this tolerance:

1) to demonstrate his wrath
2) to make his power known
3) to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.

The pottery ‘for noble purposes’ (honour) and for ‘common use’ of v.21 are parallel to the ‘vessels of mercy’ and ‘vessels of wrath’ of vv.22-23. These ‘vessels of wrath’ are said to be ‘prepared for destruction’, but of the vessels of mercy it is said ‘whom he prepared in advance for glory’. Paul does not say by whom or by what the ‘vessels of wrath’ are found fit for disposal but does emphasize that it is God who has actively prepared the ‘vessels of mercy’ for glory. In v.24 he states that these ‘vessels of mercy’ are those whom God has called, which includes not only Jews but also Gentiles.

In vv. 25-29 he attempts to demonstrate from the OT scriptures that the salvation of Gentiles had been prophesied long before. He gives two quotations from Hosea (2:23; 1:10) and one from Isaiah (10:22-23). Hosea was addressing the ten Northern Tribes of Israel before the exile to Assyria and proclaiming their rebellious attitude (‘not my people’, ‘not my loved one’) as well as a future restoration (‘my people’, ‘my loved one’, ‘sons of the living God’). Hosea spoke these words to give ethnic Israel hope as the elect and yet, although he does not say so explicitly, Paul was quoting these verses to try to prove that the ‘vessels of mercy’ included Gentiles. Why did Paul cite and apply these verses to people outside ethnic Israel? Perhaps his thinking was typological (one story in scripture used by God to teach about another) and he found the rejection and restoration of Israel analogous to the exclusion and then inclusion of Gentiles in God’s saving plan.

Paul quoted these verses (that in their original context referred to the restoration of Israel after the exile) to prove that Gentiles would be saved but also uses them to point out that a believing remnant of Jews will be saved. None of these scriptures refer to all Israelites being saved and they suit Paul’s purpose well as here he is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so, with regard to the remnant and its size.

In v.27 he claims to be quoting Isaiah when, in fact, the reference is to Hosea 1:10 which makes no mention of a remnant. Perhaps he is combining this with Isaiah 10:22 to form a composite quotation. Heil (2002, p.706) views it as a ‘combined citation’ and explains that throughout Romans the term ‘Israelite’ (9:4) or ‘Israel’ (9:6, 27, 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7, 25, 26) never refers to a ‘Christ-believing Jew’. It is always used in Romans to refer to Jews who have not yet believed in Christ. He states (2004, p. 707):

‘Grammatically, then, the Isaian quote in 9:27b is best translated and understood as an eventual conditional sentence expressing the hope that if, as is to be expected in accord with God’s promise that the sons of Israel (who presently do not yet believe in Christ) will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, then surely, at least a remnant of this great number will be saved in the future by eventually coming to believe in Christ.’

Verse 28 is likewise obscure. The main idea seems to be that God, having definitely decided that the Israelites will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, will accomplish it on earth. This makes the promise based on it (that at least a remnant will be saved), even more certain. Verse 29, (quoting Isaiah 1:9) is a reminder that although only a remnant will be saved (vv.27-28) the fact that God will save some is an indication of his grace.

In this discourse Paul, it would seem, denies that ethnic Israel is the elect of God (9:6) and maintains that the elect have always been a subgroup within Israel. Election is a matter of God’s sovereignty and does not depend on natural descent or on human efforts. Paul has argued for God’s right to elect as he sees fit. The question and answer format suggests his recognition that his readers would not necessarily find this an easy truth to accept. For Paul, it is God alone who has the right to elect or not to elect. Pharaoh (vv. 16-18) is an example of God choosing not to elect (to harden) and in vv.18-21 this is shown to be legitimate because God is the Creator. When God chooses not to elect some, or even most, he does not transgress his own righteousness because, while those who are elected receive grace (which is undeserved), those who are rejected receive justice (which they deserve). In Paul’s reckoning, God is neither unjust nor unfair. His word has not failed.

View my posts:

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Exposition

ROMANS 9:1-5. PAUL’S LAMENT

Posted on 26th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen’ Romans 9:1-5 (NIV)

Romans chapter nine begins with a personal lament which introduces the problem that Paul intends to address; the failure of Israel to accept the gospel in spite of the privileges with which they had been blessed. This is the first of four times (9:1-5; 10:1-4; 11:1-6; 11:13-14) in chapters 9-11 when Paul involves himself personally at major turning points of the discussion:

a) In 9:1-5, he stresses how much God’s mercy to Israel matters to him – to the extent that he would be willing to be cut off for the sake of his people.

b) In 10:1-4 he bears witness on behalf of Israel that they have good intentions: they have a zeal for God, but it is is not according to knowledge.

c) In 11:1-6 Paul testifies to the faithfulness of God who has, in fact, called a remnant of Israel in Paul himself.

d) In 11:13-14 he says that he glorifies his ministry as apostle to
the Gentiles; this is part of God’s plan to make Israel jealous.

Paul begins this section with a series of double expressions in vv. 1-2 (‘I speak the truth —I am not lying; in Christ – through the Holy Spirit; great sorrow – unceasing anguish’) by which he asserts his honesty and expresses his grief that his fellow Jews are lost.

In v. 1 he sets forth in one sentence a five-fold cumulative assertion of his sincerity:

a) ‘I speak the truth!’

b) ‘I speak the truth in Christ’

c) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying’

d) ‘ I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it’

e) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit’

Paul calls on Christ himself as the one who can vouch for the truthfulness of what he is about to say about Israel and reminds his audience that a second witness, his conscience, is testifying by means of the Holy Spirit. He may have had in mind the OT Law of Evidence which required at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15-16).

Paul (v.2) describes his heartbreak as continual (adialeiptos) and his response to this as a wish (or prayer) that he might be condemned in order that they might be saved. Was Paul speaking in hyperbole or was he serious? Moo (1996, p.558) comments:

‘I prefer, in agreement with most English translations, to ascribe a hypothetical nuance to the imperfect tense; as Cranfield paraphrases, “I would pray (were it permissible for me so to pray and if the fulfilment of such a prayer could benefit them”)’

Since Paul’s giving up of his own salvation was neither possible nor permissible the wish could not be fulfilled. He seems to model himself on Moses (Exodus 30:30-32), who had also at times been badly treated by the Israelites and yet expressed a willingness to sacrifice himself for them. That those for whom Paul is heartbroken are unbelieving Jews is emphasized in v. 3 where their identification as ‘my people’ is modified by ‘those of my own race’ and further in v. 4 by ‘the people
of Israel’. Paul may have been the Apostle to the Gentiles but he was certainly a Jew by race.

In the concluding words of this lament Paul lists eight special privileges given to Israel and bemoans the fact that the Israelites have not benefitted from these spiritual advantages:

1) adoption
2) the glory
3) the covenants
4) the giving of the law
5) the temple worship
6) the promises
7) the patriarchs
8) the Messiah – who was himself a Jew

Thus in verses 1-5 Paul laments the unbelief of his fellow Jews and their failure to take advantage of their unique privileges, and expresses his overwhelming desire for their conversion. This introduces the subject that will occupy him throughout the rest of chapters 9-11; the unbelief of Israel and the question of God’s faithfulness.

See my posts:

Exposition

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS CHAPTERS 9-11

Posted on 25th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

The Apostle Paul had an interest in the church at Rome even though he had not been its founder and did not usually preach the gospel where Christ was already named (15:20), nevertheless in Romans 1:8-13 and 15: 23 he expressed his wish to visit the believers there. Why did he write to them and why did he want to visit?

We cannot know for sure why Paul wrote his letter since it seems that there were no urgent doctrinal issues requiring correction. Romans 1:11-16 and 15:23-29, however, would suggest that Paul wrote mainly to inform the Roman Christians of, and involve them in, his future missionary plans. He wished to encourage them in the faith and, after finishing his work in Asia Minor and Greece, move farther west to evangelize Spain.

In the key verses of the letter (1:15-17) Paul expresses his eagerness to preach the gospel and states that it is ‘the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.’ The issue of the salvation of Israel is not addressed in the first eight chapters as Paul waited to deal with it later in the letter. He did so in Romans chapters 9-11, one of the most challenging sections in the Pauline writings.

Many of the major topics raised by chapters 9-11 are still subjects of theological debate. Not only are the contents of the unit 9-11 in dispute, there is also disagreement regarding the place of the chapters in the overall theme of the epistle. Some scholars argue that the section is a digression, an excursus unrelated to the theme of the letter (e.g. Dodd). Others view it as an integral part of Paul’s argument (e.g. Cranfield, Dunn, Morris, Moo, Schreiner, Stulmacher), perhaps even the climax of the Epistle (e.g Munck, Fitzmyer, Wright, Witherington).

Romans 9-11 is neither an excursus nor afterthought but to claim that it is the climax of the letter is an overstatement. It is an integral part of Romans as there are thematic links with chapters 1-8. It takes up the themes about God’s impartiality in chapters 1-3, Abraham in chapter 4, and predestination in chapter 8. The traditional view of Romans as a textbook of Christian theology takes Romans 9-11 as an appendix to the argument of chapters 1-8 and sees it as a new section of the letter dealing with a new theme; the place of Israel in salvation history.

A BRIEF OUTLINE OF ROMANS

1:1-17 The gospel reveals God’s righteousness through faith.

1:18-3:20 God’s righteousness is revealed in wrath against sinful humanity.

3:21-4:25 Justification is righteousness as a result of faith alone, not by the law.

5: -8:39 Justification liberates a person from the condemnation of the law to serve God.

9:1-11:36 The problem of Israel. The rejection of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles.

12:1 – 15:13 The Christian life. The law is fulfilled through love.

15:14 – 16:23 Paul asks for help to extend his gospel ministry.

16:25-27 Concluding doxology. God wants all nations to obey the gospel.

A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT OF ROMANS CHAPTERS 9-11

In Romans chapter eight Paul calls those who believe in Jesus Christ ‘saints’ v.27; ‘called’ v.28; and ‘chosen’ v.33. The Jews would traditionally have reserved these terms for themselves. That raises the question as to whether the privileges implied by these descriptions have now been transferred from Israel to the Christian church.

Paul had just expounded the benefits of the new Christian faith and now turns to address the embarrassing problem that the majority of Jews had
rejected Jesus as Messiah. Those to whom God had made the promises
were precisely those who were rejecting the gospel. This might raise doubts in the Christian believers about God’s trustworthiness and faithfulness. If God has not fulfilled promises made to Israel, then how could the church be confident that the promises will be fulfilled for them?

Paul addresses the integrity of God’s dealings with Israel and defends God’s righteousness. He insists that God has spared the nation in the past (chapter 9), has provided salvation for it in the present (chapter 10) and will work out his plans for it in the future (chapter 11).

Following an introduction in 9:1-5, Romans 9-11 has three discourses that deal with three main theses. The discourses are:

Discourse 1 9:6 – 9:29 This ends with an OT quotation.

Discourse 2 9:30 – 10:21 This ends with OT quotations.

Discourse 3 11:1-36 This ends with a doxology.

THESIS 1

It is not as though God’s word has failed. 9:6

What is the explanation for the rejection of the gospel by the majority of Jews? Has God’s word (his promises to Israel) failed? Paul struggles to explain why Israel has rejected the Messiah. Despite what might seem evidence to the contrary, Paul does not accept that God’s word has failed snd so he comes up with an ingenious solution. He redefines the true Israel as a sub-group within ethnic Israel (9:6).

He makes a distinction (9:8) between ‘the children of the flesh’ (Israelites by birth) and the ‘children of the promise’ (Israelites by God’s election) and interprets Old Testament verses to show that the fulfilment of the promises was not based on physical descent or merit gained by works. He maintains that God is not unrighteous because he shows mercy to whomever he wishes, and in his sovereignty, has extended his mercy to Gentiles. No-one can do anything to change this; God’s election is gratuitous.

THESIS 2

Some Gentiles received righteousness but some Jews did not. 9:30-31

Paul deals with the pursuit of a ‘law of righteousness’ by Jews who were not elect and their stumbling at the same time over the cornerstone laid in Zion (the Messiah). In 10:1 his prayer is that Jews might be saved. He says that they are currently pursuing righteousness but not according to knowledge which would have pointed them to Christ for righteousness (10:4).

Christ, whom they rejected, is the end of the Law for righteousness to whoever believes. Righteousness is not to be pursued but is by faith (‘confessed with the mouth and believed in the heart’ (10:9). In 10:16 Paul says that it is just like the time of Isaiah because the message of the gospel has been preached, but all have not obeyed. The section ends (10:17-21) with two rhetorical questions: ‘Has everyone heard?’ ‘Did Israel know?’ The answer to each must be ‘Yes!’ According to both Moses and Isaiah, Israel heard, but most did not accept the message.

THESIS 3

God has not rejected those whom he foreknew. 11:1-2

What does the future hold for Jews? Paul admits that Israel has stumbled but maintains that it is not beyond recovery. He offers his own testimony and the story of Elijah as evidence and then expands on the concept of a remnant.

He claims that just as God brought Gentiles to faith because of the transgression of Israel so he will use the Gentiles to draw Jews to himself. In 11:13-24, he uses metaphorical language (the olive tree) to address the Gentile members of the Roman church and warn them against pride in their current ‘grafted-in’ status since it is a work of God and does not depend on man.

Paul winds down the third discourse and the whole unit (chapters 9-11) in vv. 11:25-32. He declares that ‘all Israel will be saved’ and states that God pronounced all disobedient so that he could have mercy on all. The section ends with a doxology extolling God’s incomprehensible wisdom, knowledge, justice, and sovereignty in the working out salvation.

View my posts:

General

OUR DAYS ON EARTH

Posted on 24th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

JOB 14:1-14

During the late 1960s and early 70s I attended an afternoon Sunday School in the old Harryville Gospel Hall, Ballymena, where we were encouraged to learn a memory verse every week. These were not usually random verses, but from a chapter of the Bible. Of all the chapters, for me, the most memorable of all was Job chapter 14. Mr. Wilson, our teacher, did not listen to us repeat the words of each verse just for the sake of it. He also explained the meaning, pressing home the truth that life is transitory; that we are not here to stay. Job chapter 14 reminds us that:

OUR DAYS ON EARTH ARE FEW

‘Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.’ (14:1)

This is a reality that we all must face. Psalm 90:10 tells us: ‘The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.’ This, of course, is neither a guarantee that everyone will live to seventy, nor does it teach that one must die on his or her seventieth birthday. Many never make it to seventy and also many live beyond that age. The point is that we are all going to die. Using the ballpark figure of seventy calendar years that God has given us we can each expect to live for 25,550 days. Having turned sixty-one in April I have already (as I write this) used up 22,300 of those days. You can do the calculation for your own age or, easier still, ask Google: ‘How many days since ? (Your date of birth).’ If you have already reached the age of seventy you are on borrowed time. In that case do not despair! Psalm 90:10 adds ‘and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years’. Again this figure is a generalisation making the point that those who live longer can still be productive after the age of seventy. Psalm 92:14 says of the righteous: ‘They shall still bring forth fruit in old age.’ Nevertheless, when we consider our life in terms of the number of days this sobering fact emerges: our days are few.

OUR DAYS ON EARTH ARE FLEETING

‘He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.’ (14:2)

Life is uncertain, and it passes away quickly and unexpectedly. We can plan as much as we want but our plans may never come to fruition. At the beginning of 2020 who would have thought that by May the whole country would have been in lockdown for at least two months and thousands of our fellow-citizens gone into eternity as a result of COVID-19? Proverbs 27:1 reminds us: ‘Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.’James 4:13-14 says: ‘Go to now, ye that say, To day or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.’Not one of us knows what is going to happen later today. Those who will die today, like all who have died in recent weeks, will have expected to live longer. Life is:

Like a vapour (James 4:14)

Like a weaver’s shuttle (Job 7:6)

Like the wind (Job 7:7)

Like a shadow (Job 8:9)

Like a royal carrier delivering a letter (Job 9:25)

Like a swift boat or an eagle in flight (Job 9:26)

Like a flower. (Job 14:2)

OUR DAYS ON EARTH ARE FIXED

‘Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;’ (14:5)

Only God knows the number of days that each of us will spend on earth. The Psalmist (31:15a) said: ‘My times are in thy hand.’ Each of us has an allotted span of time. God knows when our souls and spirits will leave these bodies. He also knows the circumstances surrounding these departures. We do not. Yet those appointments have already been made. They are in his calendar and they are unalterable and unavoidable. Hebrews 9:27 tells us: ‘And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.’

OUR DAYS ON EARTH ARE FINAL

‘If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.’ (14:14)

We have only one life on earth. A few days! How shall we spend them? There are no reruns, no second chances, no reincarnation. No more opportunities to serve the Lord. That makes life very serious. It is sacred, too, because it is given to us by God (Acts 17:25). ‘He gives to all life and breath and all things.’ Life is a wonderful thing; a blessing from God. We must give account to him for the use we make of it. We should therefore spend it wisely. Moses wrote in Psalm 90:12: ‘So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.’Our time here is limited. The years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds that we have left are counting down. We have several options: waste them, spend them or invest them (Mt 6:19-20). Which will it be?

General

THE PSALM OF JONAH

Posted on 24th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘I called out to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.’ Jonah 2:2 ESV

The book of Jonah is a strange and unusual little book that is well-known and loved by children and adults alike. It has always been classed as one of the prophetic books but the only prophecy it contains consists of just five Hebrew words which in English read: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’. Otherwise it is the story of Jonah, a prophet from Gath-hepher near Nazareth who ministered early in the reign of King Jeroboam II of Israel (northern kingdom), possibly around 775 BCE (2 Kings 14:25). He was called by the Lord to go to Nineveh and preach a message of repentance to Assyria; Israel’s greatest enemy at that time. Full of prejudice Jonah did not want the Assyrians to experience the love and grace of God so he fled in the opposite direction, with no intention of completing the task (1:3).

The book divides into two parts. Chapters one and two deal with the Lord’s command to preach to Nineveh, Jonah’s flight from God and his submarine experience in the belly of a great fish. This came to an end following his prayer three days and nights later. Chapters three and four record the sequel to his delivery from this ordeal; including a renewed command to preach and his still-grudging attempt to accomplish his mission.

One might ask why Jonah waited in his distressing situation for three days and nights before praying but, whatever the reason, we have in chapter 2:3-10 a lovely poetic psalm (hymn of praise or thanksgiving) in which Jonah acknowledged that ‘salvation is of the Lord’ (2:9). Jonah’s psalm is full of scripture, there are many allusions to the Book of Psalms itself, which shows us that Jonah was familiar with, and greatly influenced by, the word of God that was available to him at that time. It is a pity that he was unwilling to share it with others.

So often we are like Jonah in our disobedience, in our lack of concern for friends and neighbours, in our dissatisfaction at how God works, and in our selfishness and pride. After correcting us, however, God is patient and quick to forgive.

‘Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty:’ Job 5:17

Jonah was afflicted because he was disobedient, stubborn and selfish.

God afflicts us because He is faithful. ‘I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me.’ Psa 119:75
God afflicts us when we go astray. ‘Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.’ Psa 119:67
It can be profitable to be afflicted. ‘It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.’ Psa 119:71

This Psalm of Jonah was a very personal prayer of recognition, repentance and request. He was close to death, and knew it. In the midst of his anxiety and fear and in his desperate situation he realized that God’s plan for his life was better than that. In our current situation we too might see no future and no hope. Our circumstances leave us feeling exhausted or defeated. We ask: ‘What can we do?’ ‘Will things ever get better than this?’ ‘Is this all that lies ahead for us?’ ‘Where can we find deliverance from the struggles we are having now?’

Jonah must have been asking himself questions like these. How did he find the solution?

Jonah realized that he was in trouble. ‘There is a problem here.’ Jonah realized that he needed help. ‘Fixing this myself is impossible.’
Jonah turned to the only one who could help him. ‘Salvation is of the Lord.’

Jonah prayed with a sense of urgency and deep need. He realized that he had no hope of escape from his dreadful situation, that he was unable to save himself and that if he was to be saved, only the Lord could bring it about. He said, “I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord.” What was the result? Twice in verse 2 we read that the Lord heard him. May we be encouraged by this today.

General

CASTING

Posted on 24th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.’ 1 Peter 5:7

It is interesting that the apostle Peter employed a term from his former occupation as a fisherman to advise Christians how to handle the cares and worries of daily life. What does ‘casting’ involve? It calls for ‘throwing away’ and ‘letting go.’

This verse falls naturally into two sections; each emphasizing a responsibility. Our part: ‘casting all your care upon him’ and God’s part: ‘he careth for you.’

As the ravages of Covid 19 intensify, ‘lockdown’ continues and anxieties increase let us follow Peter’s advice, bearing in mind those two parts. We do the casting, God does the caring.

Latin loanwords

MACELLUM

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.’ 1 Corinthians 10:25-26

Greek: μάκελλον (mákellon)
Latin: macellum
English: food market (shambles)

The city of Corinth, strategically located near an isthmus that linked Northern Greece and the Peloponnese, was one of the most important cities in the ancient world. Situated at a ‘crossroads’ it grew wealthy and politically influential through trade and by taxing and imposing tolls on goods moving through the area. It controlled four harbours: Kenchreai, Lechaion, Schoenus and Poseidona. Kenchreai on the Saronic Gulf was convenient for ships from Asia and the Aegean Sea and Lechaion on the Gulf of Corinth for ships from Italy and the Adriatic Sea. Rather than risk treacherous Cape Malea at the southern tip of Greece merchant ships would sail into Schoenus or Poseidona to be dragged overland on wheeled oxcarts to the opposite coast via a paved trackway called the Diolkos. The city was overlooked by an elevated citadel known as the Acrocorinth which had its own water supply and could be defended if under attack.

From about 600 BCE Corinth was one of the wealthiest and most powerful of the independent Greek city-states. These states went to war with Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great), were defeated by him at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 and united into one kingdom called the League of Corinth or Hellenic League. Corinth later joined an anti-Macedonian Achaean League and, in 243, broke free from Macedonian authority.

From about 230 the Achaean League tried to counteract growing Roman influence on Greek political affairs until finally, in 147, the Romans sent a delegation to Corinth demanding the immediate disbandment of the League. The refusal to obey resulted in the Achaean War. In 146 the Roman forces, under Lucius Mummius, defeated the Corinthian army and dealt harshly with the losers. They destroyed the city; killing all the men and enslaving the women and children. This ended the period known as Greek Corinth.

The city lay almost deserted until, just before his assassination in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar issued a decree that Corinth be rebuilt as a Roman colony (Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis). It was the largest city in Greece and, as capital of Achaea from 27 BCE, was the headquarters of the Roman administration. The population size is unknown but thought to have been about 80,000. Although a Greek city, Corinth was Roman in its urban design, legal system, culture and religion. Many gods were worshipped there but Corinth was famous in the ancient world as the ‘City of Aphrodite.’ Due, however, to its status as capital of the Roman province of Achaea, emperor worship was the most prominent cult of all, dominating every aspect of life.

The Romans repopulated the city with a mix of former prisoners, traders and retired army veterans but the bulk of the settlers were emancipated slaves (see 7:22 for the only NT use of the technical term ‘freedman’ – apeleutheros). Latin was the official language and Corinthian coins bore Latin inscriptions. Koine Greek, as in the rest of the empire, was the common language; that is why Paul’s letters to the assembly were written in Greek.

Paul arrived at Corinth in the year 50 CE and began to preach the gospel in this ‘boom town’ devoted to pleasure, sport (every two years the Isthmian games took place at the temple of Poseidon), idolatry and commerce. According to Luke’s account in Acts 18:1-17 Paul began his evangelistic work among the Jews but, after some initial success, encountered strong opposition from that quarter. During his eighteen-month stay (Acts 18:11), he also preached to Gentiles (1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2) and subsequently gathered converted Jews and Gentiles together to form ‘the assembly (ekklēsia) of God at Corinth’ (1 Cor1:2), and another one at nearby Kenchreai (Acts 18:18; Rom 16:1).

After moving on from Corinth Paul maintained an interest in the spiritual progress of the new Christians, but eventually some serious issues did arise in the assembly. These he tried to handle by a combination of letters and visits; 1 and 2 Corinthians mention several other letters (1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-9; 7:8-12; 10:10) and possible visits (1 Cor 4:19-21; 11:34; 16:5-7; 2 Cor 1:15 – 2:1; 12:21; 13:1-2) by the apostle Paul. The epistle we know as 1 Corinthians addresses various difficulties, about which the assembly had sent representatives to Paul (1 Cor 16:17) and had written asking for his advice (1
Cor 7:1). Matters had also been reported to Paul by concerned individuals (1 Cor 1:11). The major problems were:

• An emphasis on eloquence and philosophy which elevated human reasoning above Paul’s teaching.

• Factions and divisions in the assembly.

• Christians suing one another in the civil law-courts.

• Relationship issues: virginity, marriage, divorce, fornication and gross sexual immorality.

• Wrong attitudes to money.

• Disorder in the assembly.

• Misunderstandings about spiritual gifts.

• Beliefs about (the) resurrection.

• The consumption of idol food.

We hear little about the latter problem in western churches today, probably because it is not relevant to our everyday social situation. In our secular society, polytheistic religion, although present, does not impinge upon the lives of most people. Such was not the case in first-century Corinth where idolatry was visible everywhere: in temples, statues, images, inscriptions, coins, etc. Paul understood, as in fact he told the believers in 5:10, that there was no way the Corinthian Christians could avoid contact with idolaters.

Artisans and traders in Corinth were members of craft or merchant guilds. These associations held social gatherings in pagan temples and hosted communal meals in the attached dining halls (1 Cor 8:10). Temple facilities would also have been used for family get-togethers such as parties and funerals and inevitably an animal that had been sacrificed for the event would feature on the menu. In chapter 8 Paul opposes the idea of a Christian attending celebrations in a temple precinct and knowingly eating idol food. In 10:20 he again opposes eating such food, maintaining that in sacrificing to idols the Gentiles worship demonic spirits. However, in the short section 10:25-29, Paul takes a more pragmatic and open-minded approach.

Our interest lies in 10:25-26 in which he addresses the problem of goods sold in the food market (shambles). This reference is probably to meat rather than other types of food and relevant to the less well-off members of the assembly whose daily diet, on account of poverty, would have been pescatarian. Meat was expensive at that time, but they may occasionally have been able to afford small portions of salted hams, donkey meat, sausages, blood puddings or tripe. An opportunity to purchase quality cuts (at bargain prices) from animals approved for sacrifice would have been attractive.

The believers would not have known the source of the food; as not everything that was for sale in the macellum would have been offered to idols. In light of that, Paul told the Corinthian believers not to question the food’s provenance for the sake of conscience but to go ahead and eat it: ‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (mákellon), that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.’ What was a mákellon?

From earliest times, along with other types of goods, foodstuffs were bought and sold in wooden huts in open spaces or along busy streets near the centre of Mediterranean towns. This was haphazard, unhygienic and difficult to control. During the Late Classical (400-300 BCE) and Hellenistic (323-30 BCE) periods commercial activity moved to large indoor markets situated near the public square (Greek agora or Roman forum), which was the centre of civic life. During the second century BCE (200-101), however, references to a structure called a ‘macellum’ occur in Latin literature. The Romans began to build one in new towns, and the trend caught on in Greece also, where it was called a ‘mákellon.’ This was a building designed specifically for the sale of food. All of them had a similar basic layout consisting of a large open courtyard (usually rectangular or circular) surrounded by columns (peristyle) and having two entrances. Each macellum housed a series of shops and sometimes had a second floor. As a specialized food market, hygiene was paramount, so it had a water supply and paved floors for ease of cleaning. There were grooves or pipes for drainage. The macellum also housed the offices of magistrates (aediles) who enforced trading standards such as weights and measures.

Some of the macellae, including the one excavated at the site of ancient Corinth, have foundations for a circular room. Some think that this was a facility for cleaning and selling fish, others that it was a small temple. No-one knows if the macellum at Corinth served any religious function; it is only from Paul’s instruction to Christians in 1 Corinthians 10:25 that we are even aware that sacrificial meat was sold in the food market.

In verse 26 Paul backed up his advice to the believers by directing them to the Old Testament scriptures (Psa 24:1; 50:12; 89:11). He reminded them that everything on earth belongs to the Lord; therefore, it was permissible to eat the meat sold in the macellum, even if previously offered to an idol.

Exposition

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

REJECTION

Verse five hints at rejection: ‘The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it’ but verses nine to eleven again take up the idea of Jesus as light and forecast his rejection, a major theme of the gospel. The world is generally indifferent to him (1:10) but ‘He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him’ (1:11) emphasizes the hostile response of Israel. The term ‘The Jews’, although not in the Prologue, is used sixty-nine times in the Gospel and, in the opinion of Lincoln (p.71), ‘frequently serves a representative function’. Their response ‘indicates different types of belief and unbelief’. The irony in the Gospel is that although Jesus was brought up in a Jewish home his own people wanted nothing to do with him. As the Gospel progresses ‘His own’ describes a new group consisting of those who accept him and heed his message (10:34; 13:1).

BELIEVE AND RECEIVE

In contrast to his rejection by the world (1:10) and Israel (1:11) there were those who ‘received’ him. These were given authority to belong to God as children (1:12). This birth into the family of God was totally an act of God and not dependent upon race or any human act. That it has nothing to do with ordinary human birth is stressed three times in 1:13: ‘not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will.’ The theme of the ‘new birth’ is taken up in chapter 3. This description of believers as God’s children occurs again in 11:52, with the diminutive ‘little children’ occurring also in 13:33. While all men may become sons (tekna) of God the Prologue emphasises that Jesus was in a unique sense the son (huios) of God.

INCARNATION

In verses 14-18 the author explicitly identifies the Logos as Jesus. He is said (1:14) to have ‘become flesh, and made his dwelling among us’. The Greek ‘skenoo’ for ‘made his dwelling’ literally means “to pitch one’s tent”, a term which, according to Kostenberger (2004, p.41),

‘suggests that in Jesus, God has come to take up residence among his people once again, in a way even more intimate than when he dwelt in the midst of wilderness Israel in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-35).’

This statement that the Word became human is the highest point of the Prologue. God himself entered humanity and made it possible for human beings to enter the family of God. In Jesus as the Logos incarnate there was no more need for a tabernacle or temple. God’s shekinah glory was in the world and thus the author adds (1:14): ‘We have seen his glory’.

GLORY

Lincoln (2005, p.105) interprets this ‘seeing’ not in a physical sense but as ‘the perception of faith’ that ‘finds in Jesus the glory of the divine presence’. This mention of ‘glory’ in verse fourteen introduces a significant theme in the Fourth Gospel. ‘Glory’ occurs nineteen times and ‘to glorify’ twenty-three times. ‘We have seen his glory’ would have been encouraging for early Christians facing hostility from Judaism. The Jews would have seen no glory in the life and death of the crucified Jesus but the John’s Gospel insists that for those with faith to see it, there was glory throughout his life, even at what would seem to be the time of his greatest humiliation, the crucifixion.

Kostenberger (2004, p.42) draws attention to the fact that:

‘As the obedient, dependent Son, Jesus brings glory to God the Father throughout his entire ministry, but he does so supremely by submitting to the cross, which for John is the place of God’s – and Jesus’- ultimate glorification (cf. 12:23-33; 13:31-32; 14:13; 17:1, 4-5). In the Fourth Gospel the glory of Jesus is linked with the end of his life on earth rather than the beginning. At the time of triumphal entry he has not yet been glorified (12:16) and at the last supper his hour has come but he has not yet been glorified (12:23; 17:1). In 17:1-5 he asks the Father to glorify him and that the disciples may see his glory (17:24). He assures his disciples that it will happen soon (13:32). His request for glory was based on the work that he had accomplished on earth (17:4) and, as in the Prologue; it involved his revelation of God his Father (17:6).’

Roman names

SILVANUS

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Roman name: Silvanus

Greek form of a Jewish name: Silas

‘And some of them [Thessalonian Jews] were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.’ Acts 17:4 ESV

‘Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…’. 1Thess 1:1 ESV

Silvanus/Silas was one of the most influential figures in the early Christian church and yet he seems to have maintained a low profile; perhaps preferring to work quietly and effectively without drawing undue attention to himself. The Bible gives few personal details; only that he was a leading member of the Jerusalem assembly (Acts 15:22), that he was a prophet (Acts 15:32), and that he had Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37–38). His name occurs 17 times. He is called Silas in the Acts of the Apostles (15:22, 27, 32, 34, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5) and in the Epistles he is referred to by his Roman name Silvanus ( 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Pet 5:12).

THE EARLY SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL: A SURVEY

The first half of the Acts of the Apostles details the gradual spread of Christianity from Jerusalem. Acts 2:1-8:3 records phenomenal growth accompanied by persecution, mainly from the Jews as they did not regard Jesus as the Messiah and were angry that the Christians were undermining their beliefs. Luke viewed the stoning of Stephen in chapter 7 as a catalyst for the widespread ill-treatment of Christians. As a result, they dispersed throughout the empire, which, ironically, helped accelerate the spread of the gospel (Acts 8:3-4,11:19). Herod Agrippa 1 (King of Judea 41-44 CE) co-operated with the Jewish authorities in persecuting the early believers (Acts 12:1-2) and had John’s brother James put to death. He also made a failed attempt to execute Peter (Acts 12:1-19). Acts 8:4-13 tells of a successful preaching campaign by Philip in Samaria and a visit there by Peter and John also (8:14-25). Philip continued to Gaza (8:26) and from there to the seaside town of Azotus (8:40). After leaving Azotus he preached in various locations as he travelled 60 miles up the coast to Caesarea Maritima (8:40), the provincial capital of Roman Palestine.

In chapter 9 we learn that Paul preached to the Jews at Damascus shortly after his conversion, but having met with antagonism, left for Jerusalem where he joined the church. He preached to Grecians (Greek-speaking Jews) but, after again experiencing opposition, left and returned to his home town of Tarsus in Asia Minor. By that time, according to a summary by Luke (Acts 9:31), there were Christian churches throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. Meanwhile, Peter was busy evangelizing away from Jerusalem. He travelled to the coastal area where he healed Aeneas at Lydda, and then to Joppa to raise Dorcas from the dead before proceeding to Caesarea where he met the Roman centurion Cornelius (Acts 9:32-11:18) who, along with other Gentiles, believed and was ‘baptized in the name of the Lord’ (10:47-48).

Acts chapters 11:19 – 15:35 focus on Antioch, where believers were first nicknamed ‘Christians’ (11:26). Luke is careful to emphasize the strong connection between the Gentile church at Antioch and the older Jewish church at Jerusalem. People from Cyprus and Cyrene left Jerusalem as a result of the persecution following Stephen’s death and brought Christianity to Antioch (11:19-20). The Jerusalem church, receiving news of this outreach to Gentiles in Antioch, sent Barnabas to support and encourage the believers. He then brought Paul to Antioch to spend a year helping him teach the Christians (Acts 11:19-26). Later the assembly at Antioch commended Barnabas and Paul to missionary service (Acts 13:1-5; 14:26) and sent them to Cyprus, Lycaonia and Pamphylia (Acts 13–14) on what is traditionally called Paul’s ‘First Missionary Journey.’

THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and remained there ‘a long time’ (Acts 14:28) until, about 49 CE, a problem arose when ‘certain men… came down from Judea’ teaching that: ‘Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved’ (Acts 15:1). These men thought that the promises of salvation were to the Jews as a nation. Just as Judaism allowed for a few individual exceptions (proselytes) so too, they must have thought, did the Christian faith (e.g. Gentiles like the Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius). It would not have occurred to them that the gospel could be for the Gentiles as a group. They, therefore, considered it necessary that the few believers from a pagan background observe the Mosaic law, including the rite of circumcision.

One can imagine that this teaching must have caused uncertainty in the minds of Christians of non-Jewish origin. Paul and Barnabas, however, who had already preached in Gentile areas without imposing Jewish rites upon the believers, would have none of it. They realized that the very essence of Christianity was at stake. The gospel was not just for Jews but was a universal message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, without additional demands. They had presented this same message to Jew and Gentile alike. After much discussion, the assembly at Antioch decided to send Paul, Barnabas and a few others to Jerusalem to meet the elders and apostles and seek a resolution of the problem. The issue boiled down to this: ‘Is anything more needed for salvation than faith in Jesus Christ?’

At the meeting, presided over (15:13) by James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19), Peter described how converted Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as Jewish Christians had (Acts 15:9-11). Paul and Barnabas also reported (15:12) the signs and wonders that God had performed through them among the Gentiles. James made the concluding speech (15:13-21).

Realizing that the issue was highly significant, the apostles and elders decided to write not only to the church at Antioch but also to the Gentile churches in Syria and Cilicia, which had been established by missionaries (Paul and Barnabas) sent out from Antioch. The striking thing in the letter is that the Jewish leadership of the Jerusalem church officially addressed the Gentile converts as ‘brothers:’

‘The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.’ Acts 15:23

For Jews to call Gentiles ‘brethren,’ not because of blood relationship but because they shared the same faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, was hugely significant. The Jerusalem Council did not require Gentile believers to observe the rituals of the Mosaic law but requested that they avoid idolatry, unchastity and murder. The ‘brothers’ were not only to believe but also expected to behave.

The content of the letter was so weighty that oral confirmation was thought necessary. Two ‘chosen men’ (15:25) accompanied Paul and Barnabas to explain the conclusions reached by the Jerusalem Council and handle questions from the Gentiles. One of these delegates was Judas Barsabas. The other was Silas.

SILVANUS/SILAS

Silas appears on the scene at this crucial stage in the history of the church. He and Judas Barsabas seem to have been involved in the composition of the letter (15:23), which they then delivered to Antioch and taught the believers there. Silas ‘exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed (strengthened) them’ (15:32). This approach contrasts sharply with the harmful legacy of the legalists who had ‘troubled [the believers] with words, unsettling [their] minds’ (15:24 ESV). People like Silas, who can preach Jesus Christ clearly (2 Cor 1:19), teach believers to distinguish truth from error and encourage them in their faith, are much needed in today’s church.

After a while, Judas returned to Jerusalem while Silas stayed on at Antioch, teaching alongside Paul and Barnabas. Paul suggested to Barnabas that they ought to go and visit the assemblies in Syria and Cilicia which also were addressees of the Jerusalem letter. Unfortunately, Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement that resulted in each going his separate way. Paul then chose Silas to accompany him on the proposed trip.

SILVANUS THE MISSIONARY

Silas was a suitable choice because he was equally at ease with the Jewish and the Gentile wings of the church. He was a Jew with impeccable credentials as a leader (15:22) of the Jewish church at Jerusalem which had sent him as one of two trusted delegates to Gentile believers following the Jerusalem Council. On the other hand, he was a Roman citizen (16:37), had a Roman name (Silvanus) and spoke fluent Greek. He functioned well in Gentile churches (15:32-35), with his ministry among them much appreciated. Although Jewish, he welcomed the idea of missionary activity in pagan areas and was willing to endure persecution and hardship for the sake of the gospel (16:22-23). Together with Paul, he visited the assemblies in Syria and Cilicia (15:41), thus completing the instructions of the Jerusalem Council. Again, Silas produced good results as ‘the churches [were] established in the faith and increased in number daily’ (Acts 16:5).

This tour of Syria and Cilicia turned out to be just the initial stage of what we usually refer to as ‘Paul’s Second Missionary Journey.’ Paul, Silas and Timothy (16:1-3) then began to receive divine route guidance (16:6, 7, 9-10) which directed them away from Asia and caused them to take the Christian message to Europe.

They set sail from Troas and landed in Macedonia where they preached the gospel in the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica and Beroea. Silas and Timothy remained at Beroea while Paul continued to Athens, from where he sent for them to join him (17:14-15). Timothy arrived at Athens with news of persecution in Thessalonica, so Paul sent him back there with a message of encouragement (1 Thess 3:1-6). Paul then left Athens and went to Corinth (18:1). Silas must also have gone back, perhaps to Philippi, for he and Timothy met up in Macedonia before re-joining Paul in Corinth (18:5). The three missionaries preached the gospel in Corinth (2 Cor 1:19), from where they jointly wrote two letters to the assembly at Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1).

Paul eventually left Corinth and sailed to Ephesus, then on to Syria (probably landing at Tyre) before taking a short voyage down the coast to Caesarea. He went up from there and ‘greeted the church’ (at Jerusalem?) before returning to his base at Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). We do not know at what point Silas left Paul.

SILVANUS AND PETER

We do know that Silas/Silvanus continued to work for the Lord because there is a reference to him in 1 Peter, a book written about ten or twelve years after the end of the Second Missionary Journey:

‘By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.’ 1 Pet 1:5

After leaving Paul’s mission team, Silas must have joined forces with the apostle Peter, eventually working with him in Rome (1 Pet 5:13 – if ‘Babylon’ is a code word for ‘Rome’). Peter held him in high regard and accounted him ‘a faithful brother’, considering Silas/Silvanus qualified to write on his behalf. That Peter wrote ‘by Silvanus’ could mean several things:

a) That Silvanus was responsible for drafting the letter on Peter’s behalf. Peter would have told him what he wanted to say, and Silvanus would have set out Peter’s thoughts and ideas in writing.

b) Silvanus was the amanuensis who wrote down what Peter dictated.

c) Silvanus was the person who would act as the bearer of the letter.

A) is the most likely meaning because of the literary nature of the Greek of 1 Peter. Some scholars consider it too refined to have been written by a Galilean fisherman who had not had a formal education. Silvanus may have managed Peter’s correspondence, presenting Peter’s spoken Greek in a more polished and technically correct written form. Peter was writing this letter to Christians in Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1) whom he had not met. Silvanus would therefore have been an ideal helper as he had been to that area (Acts 15:41; 18:5) and had previously co-written two apostolic letters (1 & 2 Thessalonians).

SUMMATION

i. Silvanus was well-known and respected as a leader in the early church (Acts 15:22). He was not only highly esteemed by the assembly at Jerusalem but also by those in Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea and Corinth. Perhaps he was known to Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1) as well.

ii. As evidenced by his performance as a delegate of the Jerusalem church after the Jerusalem Council and in his later service as a missionary, Silvanus was a level-headed person and endowed with wisdom and tact. He was able to fit in with Christians of different backgrounds and outlooks yet had strong convictions and the ability to preach and explain the doctrines of the gospel to others.

iii. Although he was recognized as a leading brother in the Jerusalem church, we do not read that Silvanus forced his ideas upon the Jerusalem Council. Once it made its decision and appointed him as a delegate, Silas simply got on with the job. Later, when Paul ‘chose’ him as his missionary companion Silvanus was willing to ‘play second fiddle’ to Paul for the sake of the gospel. He was, therefore, a humble-minded Christian who was happy to work alongside and serve others in the Lord’s work.

iv. Silvanus was willing to endure hardship for the sake of the gospel. Along with Paul, he was brutally (1 Thess 2:2) and illegally (Acts 16:38) treated at Philippi. Despite the insults and injuries received, he was able to pray and sing praises to God in the gaol and willing to point the prison officer to Christ.

We must not forget that, despite his humble attitude, Silvanus was an important man in his own right. As a NT prophet, he was with the apostles in the front ranks of importance in the church (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11) and, exercising his gift, spoke words of exhortation and encouragement from God before the completion of the New Testament scriptures. Silvanus, in fact, was co-author of at least three (1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 Peter) of the inspired books in that collection. We can never match his achievements for the Lord, but it would be worthwhile to emulate his humble attitude, his flexibility towards other Christians with a different theological outlook and his dedication to the gospel ministry.

Roman names

GALLIO

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat.’ Acts 18:12

Name: Gallio

Full Roman Name: Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus

Position: Proconsul of the senatorial Province of Achaea

The casual reader of the Book of Acts might view Paul’s appearance before Gallio, the Roman governor of Achaea, as just another interesting detail that Luke has included about the apostle’s stay in Corinth. It is, however, one of the major incidents recorded in the New Testament and the most significant as regards the early history and expansion of Christianity. The historical details given in Acts 18, along with external sources, provide us with a fixed date in the career of the apostle Paul and shed light on Jewish hostility and Roman indifference (as exemplified by Gallio) towards the increasingly popular new religious movement.

In 50 CE Paul arrived in Corinth and began his evangelistic activity in the Jewish synagogue, aiming to convince Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Acts 18:4). This must have continued for several months (‘every sabbath’ 18:4) but, following heated discussions, disagreements, and rejection of his message by the Jews, Paul turned his attention towards the local Gentiles and moved his operational base to a building next door to the synagogue. Its owner was Justus (some manuscripts say Titius Justus) who in 18:7 is termed a ‘God-fearer’ (a Gentile believer in God who had not (yet) fully converted to Judaism).

Relations between the two groups of next-door neighbours got worse. Tension must have increased greatly when the president of the synagogue, Crispus, ‘believed on the Lord’ and, as it were, moved to the other side of the fence. Also, the Jews cannot have been happy with the ongoing success of Paul’s mission because ‘many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized’ (18:8). Eventually,the Jewish leaders brought Paul before Gallio; the proconsul of the Roman province of Achaea.

Gallio was born about 5 BCE at Cordua in Spain, into a high-ranking Roman family which had close ties with the imperial household. His father was Seneca the Elder (Lucius Annaeus Seneca), a well-known writer, historian, and rhetorician who, with his wife Helvia, had three sons; of whom Gallio was the eldest. Another son was Seneca the Younger, a Stoic philosopher and writer who was tutor to the future emperor Nero. The third was Marcus Annaeus Mela, father of the poet Lucan. During his reign Nero suspected Gallio and his brothers of involvement in various plots against him and eventually, at different times and probably on Nero’s orders, all three ended their lives by suicide.

Gallio’s name from birth was Lucius Annaeus Novatus but, when he was a young adult, a wealthy family that did not have a male heir adopted him; as was customary among Roman aristocrats. He took the name of his adoptive father, senator Lucius Iunius Gallio, and became known as Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus. Gallio became an expert on Roman law, and had a reputation for hard work, fairness, and a polite but no-nonsense approach in court. He became a senator in 37 CE and was later appointed proconsul of Achaea by the emperor Claudius.

One can deduce the date of his term of office in Achaea from what is usually called the Gallio (or Delphic) Inscription. In 1905 four fragments of this inscription were found in temple ruins at Delphi in Greece. In 1910 three more were found and a further two in 1967. The following is reconstructed from these nine fragments:

‘Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 12th year of tribunician power, acclaimed emperor for the 26th time, father of the country, sends greetings to… For long have I been well-disposed to the city of Delphi and solicitous for its prosperity, and I have always observed the cult of the Pythian Apollo. Now since it is said to be destitute of citizens, as my friend and pro consul L. Iunius Gallio recently reported to me, and desiring that Delphi should regain its former splendour, I command you to invite well-born people also from other cities to come to Delphi as new inhabitants, and to accord them and their children all the privileges of the Delphians as being citizens on like and equal terms…’

This is a copy of a letter from the emperor Claudius in which he refers to a report from ‘my friend and proconsul L. Iunius Gallio’ about depopulation in Delphi and recommends future resettlement of the city. In the letter Claudius says that he has been ‘acclaimed emperor for the 26th time’ which dates the letter to between 25th January and 1st August 52. Claudius had recently received the report; therefore Gallio’s appointment to Achaea was probably from 01 July 51 until 30 June 52.

Unlike Claudius, who was an admirer of everything Greek, Gallio disliked Greece and did not serve out his full term of office; possibly leaving before shipping finished for the winter months at the end of October 51 CE. His brother Seneca wrote:

‘When in Achaia, he [Gallio] began to feel feverish, he immediately took ship, claiming that it was not a malady of the body but of the place’ (Seneca, Epistle 1 04.1)

Under Nero, Gallio was appointed a ‘consul suffectus’ (a replacement who took over when a consul died, resigned or was removed from office) in 56 CE and later served as the emperor’s herald.

As an eminent legal expert, a man of integrity who enjoyed the confidence of two Roman emperors, and someone who reached the highest levels of office in the Roman empire, Gallio was no fool. The Jews at Corinth were to discover this fact when he immediately saw through the deception that was behind the charge that they tried to level against the apostle Paul.

The Jewish leaders brought Paul before the Corinthian tribunal over which Gallio, as proconsul, was presiding. The Greek word for tribunal is bema. The name comes from the raised platform (bema) which stood in the main square of a Greek or Roman city and from which orators addressed the public at civic ceremonies.

The Bema (KJV ‘judgement seat’) was also used for legal purposes; the supreme authority of the presiding judge was signified by his elevated position while seated on it. The word bema could refer to any elevated platform, a step or even the length of a footstep (Acts 7:5) but the Bema in Corinth was not a simple rostrum. It was an impressive building built of marble, decorated with intricate carvings, and prominently situated in the city forum. A site guide to ancient Corinth published in 2018 by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens describes the architecture of the Bema as follows:

‘The Bema was a complex marble structure dating from the middle of the 1st century A.D. that dominated this part of the Forum at Corinth. It took the form of an open propylon with a Π-shaped ground plan, which stood on a rectangular podium measuring 15.6 × 7.2 m. This podium had a krepidoma with two steps and it projected 3 m above the level of the Forum to the north. Its superstructure consisted of eight pillars, three at each corner linked by walls lined with benches, and two across the front. The podium was flanked at a lower level by two unroofed exedras with benches on two of their three sides. Beside each exedra was a marble staircase leading up to the terrace to the south. Parts of the Bema’s walls and steps, as well as the floors of the exedras, have been restored.’

The grandeur of the physical Bema in Corinth and his appearance before Gallio seems to have impressed Paul so much that he used the word bema figuratively in a letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:10) to describe a future tribunal, with Christ presiding, at which the life and service of every Christian will be reviewed (see also Rom 14:10).

We read in Acts 18:4 that Paul ‘persuaded’ (peíthō) Jews and the Greeks in the synagogue every sabbath.’ According to Acts 18:13, the Jews attempted to have Paul tried on the following charge: ‘this man persuades (anapeíthō) the men to worship God contrary to the law.’ In verse 13, however, ‘persuade’ means ‘persuade earnestly’ and has the idea of ‘seduce’ or ‘incite.’ The Jews accused Paul of misleading ‘the men.’ This term may indicate just the Jews and Greeks of verse 4 but is more likely a general reference to all the residents of Corinth. Paul, according to the Jews, was dishonestly encouraging men to ‘worship God contrary to the law.’ They did not specify whether they meant Jewish or Roman law. Gallio was astute enough to realize that their charge was deliberately ambiguous.

The relevant Roman law would have been that which governed the meetings of associations (collegium or sodalitates). The Romans were always wary of the possibility of sedition in conquered territories so they ensured that religious cults, political societies, and trade guilds were licensed by the state and allowed to meet no more than once a month. However, since they had great respect for ancestral religions, they granted Jewish synagogue meetings exemption from this restriction. The Jews were therefore maintaining, although both groups were studying the same scriptures, that the gathering in the house of Justus next door to them was not a Jewish synagogue meeting and ought to be regarded as an illegal and unlicensed religious cult led by Paul.

Gallio saw that their accusation was not essentially religious but that they were playing politics. He ruled (Acts 18:14-15) that if the Jews could back up their charge that Paul was guilty of a ‘criminal act’ or a ‘wicked plot’ he would proceed with a trial, but, in his opinion, the matter had to do with (1) ‘words’ (debate), (2) names (disputes over the meaning of words or terms), and (3) ‘your own (i.e. Jewish) law’.

Gallio thus dismissed the charge (under Roman law) that Paul was involved in political disturbance, and he also refused to judge Paul on matters relating to Jewish law. He had no interest in these. As Luke comments in verse 17: ‘Gallio cared for none of those things’.

Some (mis)apply this comment by Luke and suggest that Gallio was indifferent to the preaching of the gospel and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. This, of course, is not what Luke is saying. In fact, it is unlikely that Gallio ever heard the gospel because in verse 14 Luke emphasizes the fact that Paul did not get a chance to open his mouth. The plural ‘those things’ refers to the three points in Gallio’s ruling(v.15). He refused to pronounce judgement upon what he regarded as internal differences of opinion within the Jewish religion. Gallio was an honest and upright Roman official who did not give in to and conspire with the Jews; unlike Pilate and Felix.

Governors and judges in other locations throughout the empire would have looked to this ruling by such a distinguished jurist and have likewise adopted a tolerant attitude towards Christianity. Thus, having the luxury of minimal interference from the Roman government, the new religion spread swiftly throughout the empire. Thanks to Gallio’s assessment of Christianity as just a sect within Judaism, Christians could legally meet weekly for worship and to celebrate the Lord’s supper. For the early church the positive effects of Gallio’s ruling lasted more than a decade.

Even at the end of Acts, while Paul awaited trial for two years at Rome, the authorities did not curtail his religious activities. Luke could therefore bring the book of Acts to a close by observing (Acts 28:30-31 ESV) that, right in the very capital of the empire, Christian work was permitted to continue ‘without hindrance.’

Latin loanwords

LINTEUM

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.’ John 13:4-5

Greek – λέντιον (lention)

Latin – linteum

English – towel

Although the writer’s name is not given, authorship of the Fourth Gospel is usually attributed to the Apostle John. We learn from the book itself that the writer was a disciple (21:24) and that he had seen the glory of the Lord (1:14). This gospel records details of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus Christ with the stated purpose of convincing its readers of the deity of Christ; so that by believing in him they can have eternal life (20:31). John’s Gospel falls into two main parts, conveniently labelled by scholars the Book of Signs (chapters 1-12) and the Book of Glory (chapters 13 -21). The first twelve chapters include a Prologue/introduction (1:1-18) and seven main miracle stories (2:1-11, 4:43-54; 5:1-18; 6:1-14; 6:15-21; 9:1-41; 11:1-45). The word for miracle (sémeion) means ‘sign’.

The final nine chapters contain a long farewell discourse by Jesus to his disciples (chps. 13-16), his ‘high-priestly’ prayer to the Father in chapter 17, followed by an account of his arrest, trials, crucifixion and resurrection. The book ends with an Epilogue/conclusion (21:1-25). Thus chapters 1-12 concentrate on the Lord’s ministry and chapters 13-21 on his departure. Chapters 1-12 focus on some three years of Christ’s ministry, chapters 13-17 concentrate on about three hours at a meal.

The first division of the gospel ends with Jesus bringing his public ministry to a close (12:36) and the second commences with him spending private time with ‘his own’ (13:1). Towards the end of the first division Mary anoints the Lord’s feet with ointment and wipes them with her hair (12:3), at the start of the second division the Lord washes his disciples’ feet and wipes them with a towel (13:1-17). In this passage the word ‘lention’ for towel occurs twice (13:4-5).

This account of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet is recorded only in the gospel of John and falls naturally into two parts. In 13:1-4 the author gives the time-frame, says that what takes place occurs after the supper (modern versions say ‘during’) and informs us that Jesus knew that his mission had reached its climax. In 13:5-17 Jesus washes their feet and tells his disciples how they are to behave once he has gone.

THE SETTING

The opening verses of chapter 13 set the scene for the entire farewell discourse (chapters 13-17) as well as the foot-washing demonstration. John says nothing about the location but tells us that there was a supper (13:2) which was held before the Passover (13:1). This information, it must be acknowledged, throws up a problem that has been debated for centuries but has never been satisfactorily resolved. It relates to the nature and timing of the Last Supper.

Was the Last Supper a Passover meal? Mark 14:12 places the Last Supper and the Passover meal on the same day. Luke, in 22:15, 54, clearly states that it was a Passover meal and that Jesus had already eaten it with his disciples before his arrest and trials. John, on the other hand, informs us that the meal was eaten ‘before the feast of the Passover’ (13:1) and that after Jesus’ arrest and trials the Jews were still waiting to eat the Passover (18:28).

Over the centuries several solutions have been proposed in an attempt to reconcile the conflicting statements. The most plausible, but not entirely satisfactory, is that John was using a different method of reckoning time to that used by Matthew, Mark and Luke. It has been suggested that John used the official Jewish lunar calendar and that possibly the other evangelists went by a solar calendar; such as that used by the Qumran community and described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The timing of the Last Supper is an ongoing matter of debate so perhaps we should concentrate instead on the Lord’s act of service and his advice to his disciples.

Jesus had gathered in a borrowed room (Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13) with his disciples; a band of men who had been with him since the wedding at Cana in Galilee (2:2). They had listened to his teaching and had seen his miracles during his public ministry but still had a limited grasp of who he was and what he was about. It was therefore necessary for him to spend time (chapters 13-17) preparing ‘his own’ for the shock and grief they would experience as a result of his violent death and subsequent absence.

THE SAVIOUR

‘His own’

The disciples referred to here are not the ‘his own’ of chapter 1. That reference is to the Jewish people, emphasizing their rejection of Jesus Christ. In chapter one we learn that the world in general was indifferent to him (1:10) but ‘his own received him not’ (1:11). That is: Jesus was brought up in a Jewish home but his own people wanted nothing to do with him. From then on John’s gospel uses the expression ‘The Jews’ (e.g. 1:19; 5:16; 19:7) as a representative term for Israel.

‘His own’ here in 13:1 describes a new category made up of those who accept him and receive his teaching (see also 10:3). In the last half of the gospel several expressions are used to refer to this group of believers:

‘his own’ (13:1)

‘children’ (13:33)

‘friends’ (15:15)

‘those whom you gave me’ (17:6)

‘my brethren’ (20:17)

‘little children’ (21:5)

Jesus knew that in a few hours and days many of the disciples would forsake him. He knew that Thomas would doubt him, Peter deny him and Judas Iscariot betray him. In spite of their failings, Jesus, aware that he would soon be leaving, had a special love for them. Chapter 13:1 says that ‘having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end’. This expression ‘unto the end’ could mean either ‘to the end’ or ‘to the utmost’; either ‘love up to the end of his life’ or ‘love to the uttermost’. The reference is either to time or intensity.

‘His hour’

According to 13:1 ‘Jesus knew that his hour was come.’ The ‘hour’ is a motif in John’s gospel (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 16:32; 17:1). This verse confirms that the Lord Jesus was working to a specific divine timetable. ‘He knew’ that ‘his hour’, of suffering and humiliation, had come.

Here (13:2) the previously predicted (6:70-71) betrayal is mentioned; bringing out the contrast in vv. 1-2 between love and hate, between the Saviour and Satan, between ‘his own’ and Judas. There is a further contrast in vv. 3-4 between the evil of Judas and the nobility of the Son of God. Even though Jesus was fully aware of his divinity (13:3) he behaved with humility and love in the foot-washing that followed, and it would seem that he even washed the traitor’s feet (v.12).

THE SERVANT

Given the unpaved and dusty condition of most roads, washing one’s feet was a significant aspect of daily hygiene in that part of the world (2 Sam 11:8). For centuries foot-washing had also been a feature of hospitality (Gen 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Judg 19:21; 1 Sam 25:41;1 Tim 5:10) and failure to offer this courtesy to guests was regarded as bad manners (Lk 7:44). A good host would have extended this courtesy to a welcome guest, but he would not have washed the visitor’s feet himself. Such a menial job belonged to the lowest ranking person in the home; often a woman (1 Tim 5:10). In a wealthier household it would have been performed by a slave. None of the disciples present volunteered to wash the feet of their colleagues and thus have the lowest status. In fact, according to Luke 22:24, that same evening they argued about ‘which of them was considered to be greatest.’ Feet were normally washed before a meal began but that evening the disciples reclined to eat with their feet still unwashed. Either during (‘ended’ can have the sense of prepared and set out) or after the meal Jesus himself undertook the task of washing their feet.

Verses 4-5 give a vivid description of the event. John builds the drama by use of the historical present tense i.e. he uses verbs in the present tense to highlight actions that happened in the past. In everyday English:

‘He is going back to God’ (v.3)

‘He gets up from supper’ (v.4)

‘He lays aside (takes off) his garments’ (v.4)

‘Taking a towel he wrapped himself’ (v.4)

‘He pours water into a basin’ (v.5)

‘He began to wash his disciples’ feet…’ (v.5)

‘And Peter says to him’ (v. 6)

Note the exceptions, which I have aligned to the right of the page! Here the aorist tense (which is used to denote an action in the past) is employed at the two points in the description where Jesus’ actions are characteristic of a slave. That, it would seem, is the point that John seeks to emphasize.

There must have been a stunned silence and great embarrassment when Jesus rose from the table and stripped down to his inner tunic. A rabbi undressing in the presence of his disciples would have been unheard of and this action would have seemed very strange. Several garments were worn by males of the time. A ‘chiton’ (Mk 6:9) was an undergarment or inner tunic worn next to the skin. It was usually knee-length and gathered in by a girdle (belt) around the waist. Over that a rich man might wear a long ‘stola’ (Mk 12:38) or robe. The outer garment was a ‘himation’ (12:38; Mk 6:56); a poncho-like mantle that could also be used as a blanket. According to v. 12 this was the garment that Jesus removed and later put on again: ‘…and had taken his garments (himation).’ Wearing only his inner tunic (chiton) and having a towel wrapped around his waist like an apron, Jesus would have looked exactly like a slave.

This was a deliberate act; undertaken only by himself without the involvement or help of others. It brings to mind the famous passage in Philippians 2:5-8 which contains the words: ‘But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.’ In this connection some commentators, seeing an allusion to Jesus’ death and resurrection, point out that the verbs ‘lay aside’ (v.4) and ‘take’ (v.12) only occur together elsewhere in John’s Gospel in chapter 10:17-18:

‘Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again…’

Having undressed to his basic garment Jesus wrapped a towel around his waist. John calls it a ‘lention’, which is from the Latin ‘linteum’. This was the word for an awning, a sail or a towel. The large linen cloth may have been there so that they could all wipe their hands after eating but, by tying it around his waist like a belt, Jesus left his hands free and the long ends of the towel at either side available for drying the disciples’ feet.

Commenting on the passage the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 CE) observed the following things about a slave/servant:

– he must notice if anything is lacking in the service so he needs to be standing. Therefore, Christ rose from supper.

– he must be unencumbered and ready to serve. So Christ laid aside his garments.

– he should have everything he needs at hand. So, Christ wrapped a towel around himself and, having poured water into a basin, began not only to wash but also to dry the feet of his disciples.

As in the other gospels Peter is prominent in John (e.g.1:42; 6:68; 13:6; 18:10, 16; 20:2, 6; 21:3, 7, 11, 15), and often acts as spokesperson. Here John refers to him by the double name ‘Simon Peter’ (see also 6:68; 13:6, 9, 24, 36; 18:10, 15, 25; 20:2,6; 21:3). The wording of v.6 would suggest that Jesus had already washed the feet of a few disciples who had not protested but when Jesus reached Peter, he refused to have his feet washed. ‘Lord, are you washing my feet?’ There is a strong contrast between ‘you’ and ‘my’ and between ‘Lord’ and ‘feet’. Peter had a very high opinion of the Lord Jesus and did not wish to see him acting as a slave. Since it was the role of a less important person to wash the feet of someone greater, and not vice versa, Peter deemed it inappropriate for his Lord to wash his feet.

Without explaining his behaviour, Jesus matched Peter’s ‘you’ and ‘my’ in verse 6 with the words ‘I’ and ‘you’ in verse 7: ‘What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter’. ‘Hereafter’ is a translation of two Greek words meaning ‘after these things’. The word for ‘these things’ (tauta) occurs again in 13:17 which would suggest that the specific reference is to the foot-washing. Some, however, relate ‘hereafter’ (i.e. ‘later’) to the period after Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension and the advent of the Holy Spirit (2:22; 12:16; 20:9) rather than to the time of explanation just after the foot-washing.

Although Jesus had told him that his understanding was incomplete Peter still strongly resisted, saying: ‘thou shalt never wash my feet.’ ‘Never’ is literally ‘not in/until all eternity.’ Once more Jesus picked up on the ‘you’ and ‘my’ (v.6) and ‘I’ and ‘you’ (v.7) and talked to Peter about ‘you’ and ‘me’ (v.8): ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.’ i.e. no share in fellowship with me. Note that there is an interesting use of this expression in 2 Samuel 20:1 that helps clarify the meaning: ‘…Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: … blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse…’

It seems that here Jesus spoke of washing in symbolic rather than literal terms (see also 15:3) and was saying that in order to have a portion or part with him in eternal life one must be clean. He thus meant that it is necessary to accept, not the literal washing, but what it signified. If, however, Jesus was referring to the literal action of washing his disciples’ feet the lesson for us today is that we ought to obey him without question and not have an à la carte approach to his lordship. We cannot just pick and choose those areas of our lives over which we are willing to allow him control.

As a loyal follower of Christ, Peter wanted a share with him in the future and, willing to do whatever was necessary to secure this, he immediately moved from one extreme to the other, saying: ‘Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head’ (v.9). Displaying a continued lack of understanding Peter changed the symbol from foot-washing to a full wash, shifting the focus from daily cleansing for service to salvation/regeneration/justification. Peter asked for a fuller cleansing than that which he had already received. That, of course, was impossible as he had already been cleansed, and it is a once for all act.

In v. 10 Jesus responded to the idea of an all-over wash that Peter had raised and contrasted a complete bath with daily foot-washing: ‘he that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.’ This conversation was taking place at Passover season when Jews were scrupulous about personal hygiene and ritual cleanliness. Those invited to a Passover meal would bathe before leaving home, on arrival at the venue they did not need to do that again but just had to have their feet washed. ‘Washing’ is often used in the New Testament (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22) as a metaphor for salvation. The point for Peter and the other disciples to grasp was that they had been washed all over. That did not have to be repeated; they needed just their feet cleaned. Judas was the exception; he had not been washed. He was the only one there who lacked the spiritual equivalent of a complete bath. As believers we have experienced the once for all act of salvation (forgiveness of sin) but must now allow Jesus to serve us by cleansing us from daily sins: ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 Jn 1:9).

Having carried out the foot-washing (dramatizing what Luke 22:25-30 tells us he taught that same evening), Jesus put on his outer garment (himation) again and returned to his seat at the table. Once more assuming the posture of a rabbi (they sat to teach) he began to explain the significance of what he had just done. He opened the follow-up session with a question (‘know ye what I have done to you?’), and gave the answer in verse 15.

THE SOVEREIGN

Jesus declared that he ranked superior to the disciples: ‘Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am’ (see 4:31; 6:68). The contrast this time is between ‘you’ and ‘me’ (‘you call me…so I am’). He reminded them that as their Lord and Teacher his status was greater than theirs. The reason he washed their feet was not because he was of lower status, and he did not lose status as a result of washing their feet. He was stressing that even while he washed their feet he remained the pre-eminent person. By doing for them what was not normally expected of someone more important he was demonstrating the extent of his love and giving them an example of humble service. As their Lord and master, he ought to have been receiving service from them but instead he served them.

THE STANDARD

‘If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.’

As those who were less important the disciples ought to have been prepared to wash feet. He therefore instructed them to wash one another’s feet. There was to be no inequality, it was a reciprocal action; every one of them was to wash everyone else’s feet.

There has always been some debate as to whether the command to practise foot-washing is to be taken literally or symbolically. Did the Lord introduce an ordinance of foot-washing? The prevailing view has been that foot-washing is symbolic of an attitude that Christians ought to display towards one another (Gal 5:13; 6:2; Phil 2:3-4; 1 Tim 5:10), rather than a literal physical ceremony to be enacted. The command is to do ‘as’ Christ did, not ‘what’ he did. The word ‘example’ or ‘pattern’ (hupodeigma), occurs also in Heb 4:11; 8:5; 9:23; Jas 5:10 and 2 Pet 2:6. The command to model Christ’s attitude in dealings with others was taken up and encouraged by the apostles in their writings:

Paul: ‘Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.’ 1 Cor 11:1

Peter: ‘For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:’ 1 Pet 2:21

John: ‘He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.’ 1 Jn 2:6

The section ends at v. 17 with the first of two beatitudes in John’s Gospel (see also 20:29): ‘If ye know (understand) these things, happy (blessed) are ye if ye do them.’

SUMMATION

This passage emphasizes that the One who knew who he was, who knew what would happen, who knew where he was going and had all things under his feet, was willing to strip down to his inner tunic and wrap a towel around his waist. Taking the humble position of a slave he washed and dried the feet of his disciples as an expression of his love for them. This foreshadowed a greater demonstration of his love at the cross for later, in the same discourse, he reminded these disciples that ‘greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends’ (15:13). As his friends (15:14-15) let us also love him, keep his commands, and serve one another (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12)!

‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ Mk 10: 44-45

General, Latin loanwords, Roman names

INTRODUCING ROMAN NAMES AND LATIN LOANWORDS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Palestine during the lifetime of Jesus Christ was controlled by the Romans. They were the latest in a series of world powers (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) to invade and conquer that area over many centuries. Each occupation of the land had a major impact on the spoken language of the people and this was especially true of the rule of the First Persian or Achaemenid Empire (c. 559 -330 BCE). The language of international trade and diplomacy during this period was Aramaic and as the dominant language it, rather than Hebrew, became widely spoken by the Jews throughout this empire. In the Province of Yehud (formerly Judah) Hebrew continued as the language of the Jewish religion.In 333 Alexander the Great (356-323) of Macedon conquered the Achaemenid Empire under Darius III at the Battle of Issus and ushered in the Hellenistic Age during which Greek culture and language were promoted throughout the empire for about three hundred years. His Argead dynasty was succeeded by others such as the Ptolemies and Seleucids and under them a common language, Koine Greek, developed and became the trade language of the empire.

In 63 BCE the Romans took over the East, later appointing Herod the Great as a client king (37-4 BCE). In 6 CE the Romans annexed Palestine; creating the Roman province of Iudaea with Caesarea as its capital. The new rulers brought with them their Latin language.As a result of Persian, Greek and more recent Roman influence the Province of Iudaea was multi-lingual at the time of Christ, with the majority of its population able to speak at least two of four languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The native language was Aramaic, with the more conservative Jews also speaking Hebrew. The official language of the ruling power was Latin but Koine Greek remained the trade language. Latin was mainly spoken only by the Romans to one another; they communicated with subject peoples in Koine Greek.

As the language of the Roman administration, Latin did inevitably impact Greek literature of that time, and its influence on the Koine Greek of the New Testament took several forms; which we call ‘Latinisms’. These include:

1) Translations of Latin phrases or grammatical constructions into Greek. They occur mainly in the Gospel of Mark and Luke-Acts. We shall not be considering them.

2) Adjectives that have been formed by adding a Latin-style ending (suffix) to the Greek word e.g. Herodians (Mt 22:16; Mk 3:6,12:13 Herodianoi). We shall not be considering these.

3) Latin words that have been transcribed into Greek, i.e. Latin words in Greek characters. These nouns mostly relate to government, the military, the judiciary, trade, or to everyday items in the home. There are about thirty of these loanwords in the New Testament and most of my studies will centre on passages in which one of these words occurs.

4) Roman names. There are approximately forty Roman names in the New Testament; some place names but most are the names of people. I hope to include a short character study featuring one of the New Testament Christians, or non-Christians, who bore a Latin/Roman name.

Exposition

WHY DOES GOD NEED A SACRIFICE TO FORGIVE?

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ Jn 1.29

This quotation from the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel records the words of the austere early first century Jewish prophet John the Baptist addressing a crowd of people which included Jewish religious leaders (Jn 1.19). In those days many flocked to the desert locations which John preferred in order to hear him preach. On the day in question John saw Jesus approaching and pointed him out to the assembled crowd with these immortal words: ‘Look, the Lamb of God!’

It may be difficult for anyone brought up in the western world to grasp what John meant by this expression, but to someone living in a culture where the ritual slaughter of animals to placate a deity is commonplace, his words would be more obvious. Certainly the first century adherents of the Jewish religion, with its temple and offerings, would have immediately understood that this son of a priest (Lk 1.5-25; 57-80) was using the terminology of sacrifice.

New Testament writers describe the death of Jesus Christ in various ways. It is called, for example, a ‘ransom’ (Mk 10.45) and a ‘redemption’ from bondage (Eph 1.7; Col 1.14). Terms implying the payment of a price occur also in 1 Corinthians 6.20; 7.23 and in Galatians 3.13; 4.5. It is viewed as an ‘expiation’ or ‘propitiation’, which have the idea of appeasement (Heb 2.17; Rom 3.25; 1 Jn 2.2, 4.10), releasing one from guilt, delivering from the fear caused by a bad conscience and restoring peace with God. But the writers of the New Testament most commonly explain His death as a ‘sacrifice’ for sin (1 Cor 5.7; Eph 5.2; Heb 7.27; 8.3, 9.14, 26, 28; 10.10, 12, 14).

Thus, when John cried out ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ he may have reminded his hearers of the lamb slain at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Ex 12.1-14, 1 Cor 5.7) and commemorated annually in the Jewish Festival of Passover. Or he may have been thinking of countless animals offered over the centuries as Jewish offerings (Lev 1-7). More likely, however, he had in mind the haunting words of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah’s prophecy, which proclaimed the Suffering Servant of the Lord who gave His life for many:

‘He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.’ (Is 53.7)

The Christian faith is based on the doctrine that the death of Jesus Christ was a sacrifice that paid the penalty for the sins of mankind. So why was it necessary that one should be offered on behalf of others? In our search for an answer we must go back to the beginning, to the Book of Genesis. There we see that sacrifice was instituted by the one living creator God of the universe. We read about the first sacrifice, although it is not specifically so described, in the book of Genesis chapter three. The first human couple, Adam and Eve, warned by God not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, disobeyed, with the result that sin entered the world. This is often referred to as ‘the fall’.

The basic meaning of ‘sin’ is to ‘fall short’ of a target. For example, in Judg 20.16 the Hebrew word is used in its ordinary sense describing elite troops who could sling a stone at a hair’s breadth and not miss. To sin is therefore to ‘miss the mark’, to ‘fall short’ of God’s standard of holiness and righteousness (Rom 3.23). The first sin was no isolated act of disobedience to the will of God, but rather set in motion a host of disastrous consequences for humanity. Since then every one of us has been born with a fallen nature and has the disposition to disobey God (Gal 5.17).

In addition to this inherent sin nature, we have Adam’s sin imputed (credited) to us as members of the human race. Because he is head of the human race we are reckoned to have sinned in him, and are therefore liable to the same judgment (Rom 5.12). In addition we all habitually make wrong choices which the Bible refers to as ‘sins’. These are evident in our thoughts, words and actions. The only exception to this universal guilt is the Lord Jesus Christ who could not, would not and did not sin (2 Cor 5.21; Heb 4.15, 7.26; 1 Pet 1.19, 2.22; 1 Jn 3.5).

Not only are we all sinners (Rom 3.23), our sins result in alienation from God who is just and holy (Isa 59.2). He cannot overlook sin and requires that a penalty be paid. That penalty is death (Ezek 18.20; Rom 6.23). God must punish sinners and we are unable to save ourselves. How can we therefore escape the righteous judgment of God? That is only possible by a sinless sacrifice that satisfies God’s justice!

After the fall, Adam and Eve had a sense of their nakedness and tried to make coverings out of the leafy material available to them in the Garden of Eden. Their own efforts to conceal their shame were unsuccessful, leaving them exposed to God’s judgment. God, however, in His kindness and mercy provided them with coats of skins (Gen 3.21). This teaches us that our own efforts to deal with the effects of sin are useless; only God can meet our need. In the case of Adam and Eve the provision of the skins had a cost. For them to live animals had to die. This principle of the sacrifice of a life is set out in Leviticus chapter 17.11:

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The death of these animals, and others subsequently killed in Jewish worship rituals, pointed forward to the one great, perfect sacrifice provided by God. That was the Lord Jesus Christ who is God manifest in flesh. He is both human and divine and on earth lived a life of perfect obedience to the will of God, even to the extent of death by crucifixion (Phil 2.8). His offering was a once and for all infinite sacrifice (Heb 10.12), acceptable to God – as proved by his resurrection from the dead (Acts 2.24-26) – and able to reconcile us to God, making amends for our offences.

Thus, drawing upon the rich Old Testament background of substitutionary sacrifice, John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus as the ‘Lamb of God’. Those who heard him that day were privileged to have the Lamb of God among them, already on his way to the cross to bear the burden of sin and guilt. The accumulated transgressions, past, present and future, of God’s children in every tribe and nation worldwide, was summed up by John in that simple expression: ‘the sin of the world’.

When John the Baptist declared, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ he was acknowledging that God demands a sacrifice in order to forgive sins, and was directing attention away from himself to the One who would be that all-sufficient sacrifice. Christ offered ‘one sacrifice for sins forever’ (Heb 10.12). The work of salvation has been completed. Neither you nor I can do anything to merit or to improve it; instead, we must accept salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2.8-9). Such loving sacrifice demands a response (Jn 15.13-14). May ours be that of the two disciples of John who heard his second proclamation the following day and ‘followed Jesus’ (Jn 1.35-37).

Exposition

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, P. N. 2006, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International

Ashton, J. 1991, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Barrett, C. K. 1978, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction With Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Bauckham, R. 2007, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Beck, D. R. 1997, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel, BRILL, Leiden

Bennema, C. 2002, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Brown, R.E. 1966, The Gospel According to John I-XII in Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York

Bruce, F. F. 1983, The Gospel of John, Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids

Carson, D. A. 1991, The Gospel according to John, Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham

Endo, M. 2002, Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Evans, C. A. 1993, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Continuum International, London

Evans, C. A. 1997, Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, Continuum International, London

Gieschen, C. A. 1998, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, BRILL, Leiden

Hallett, G. 2005, Identity and Mystery in Themes of Christian Faith: Late-Wittgensteinian Perspectives, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Farnham

Hamid-Khani, S. 2000, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Harris, E. 2004, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist, Continuum International, London

Harstine, S, 2002, Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Ancient Reading Techniques, Continuum International, London

Hurtado, L. W. 2003, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Jasper, A. E. 1998, The Shining Garment of the Text: Gendered Readings of John’s Prologue, Continuum International, London

Keener, C.S. 2003, The Gospel of John, A Commentary, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Köstenberger, A. J. 2004, John in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, Ada, Michigan

Kysar, R. 1993, John, the Maverick Gospel, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Kysar, R. 2006, Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel, Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas

Lindars B. 1972, The Gospel of John, Oliphants, London

Lincoln, A. T. 2005, The Gospel According to Saint John in Black’s New Testament Commentary series, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Longenecker, R. N. 2005, Contours of Christology in the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

McGrath, J. F. 2001, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology, Cambridge University Press

Miller, E. L. 1989, Salvation-history in the Prologue of John: the Significance of John 1:3-4, Brill Archive, Leiden

Ngewa, S. M. 2003, The Gospel of John, Evangel Publishing House, Nairobi

Neyrey, J. H. 2007, The Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press

Phillips, P. M. 2006, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading, Continuum International, London

Pink, A. W. 1968, Exposition of the Gospel of John, Zondervan, Grand Rapids

Ratzinger, J, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, Doubleday, New York

Resseguie, J. L. 2001, The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John, BRILL, Leiden

Ridderbos, H. N. 1997, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Sadananda, D. R. 2004, The Johannine Exegesis of God: An Exploration into the Johannine Understanding of God, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

Schnackenburg, R. 1980, The Gospel According to St. John, Seabury Press, New York

Thompson, M. M. 2001, The God of the Gospel of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Trites, A. A. 2004, The New Testament Concept of Witness, Cambridge University Press

Voorwinde, S, 2005, Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human Or Divine?, Continuum International, London

Wallace, R. S. 2004, The Gospel of John: Pastoral and Theological Studies, Rutherford House, Edinburgh

Westermann, C. 1998, The Gospel of John in the Light of the Old Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Willoughby, W. R. 1999, John: Believing on the Son, Christian Publications, Pennsylvania

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Barton, G. A. 1902, ‘On the Jewish-Christian Doctrine of the Pre-Existence of the Messiah’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 78-91

Borgen, P. 1972, ‘Logos was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of John’ Novum Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 2, pp. 115-130

Bowen, C. R. 1924, ‘Notes on the Fourth Gospel’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, No. 1/2, pp. 22-27

Boyarin, D. 2001, ‘The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 243-284

Boyle, M. O. 1977, ‘Sermo: Reopening the Conversation on Translating JN 1,1’, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 161-168

Bruce, A. B. 1896, ‘Four Types of Christian Thought. IV. The Fourth Gospel’, The Biblical World, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 168-179

Burrows, M. 1926, ‘The Johannine Prologue as Aramaic Verse’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 45, No. 1/2, pp. 57-69

Coloe, M. 1997, ‘The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1’, Australian Biblical Review, Vol. 45, pp 40-55

Cowan, C. 2006, ‘The Father and Son in the Fourth Gospel: Johannine Subordination revisited’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 49. No. 1, pp 115-135

Giblin, C.H. 1985, ‘Two Complementary Literary Structures in John 1:1-18’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 87-103

Glasswell, M. E. 1985, ‘The Relationship between John and Mark’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Vol. 23, F 1985, pp 99-115

Kraaling, C.H. 1930, ‘The Fourth Gospel and Contemporary Religious Thought’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 140-149

MacLeod, D. J. 2003, ‘The Reaction of the World to the Word: John 1:10-13’, Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 160, No 640, pp 398-413

MacLeod, D. J. 2003, ‘The Witness of John the Baptist to the Word: John 1:6-9’, Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 160, No. 639, pp 305-320

Matera, F. J. 2006, ‘Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: a Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology’ Theological Studies Vol. 67, No. 2, pp 237-256

Meagher, J. 1969, ‘John 1:14 and the New Temple’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 57-68

Middleton, R. D. 1938, ‘Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel’, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 101-133

Miller, E. L. 1993, ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 445-457

Pagels, E. 1999, ‘Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 477-496

Price, J. L. 1967, ‘The Search for the Theology of the Fourth Evangelist’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 3-15

Pryor, J. W. 1985, ‘Of the Virgin Birth or the Birth of Christians? The Text of John 1:13 Once More’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 27, Fasc. 4, pp. 296-318

Pryor, J. W. 1990, ‘Jesus and Israel in the Fourth Gospel: John 1:11’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 32, Fasc. 3, pp. 201-218

Ridderbos, H. 1966, ‘The Structure and Scope of the Prologue to the Gospel of John’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 8, Fasc. 2/4, pp. 180-201

Rishell C. W. 1901, ‘Baldensperger’s Theory of the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 38-49

Schnelle, U. 2001, ‘Recent Views of John’s Gospel’, Word & World Vol.21 No. 4, pp 352359

Seitz, O.J.F. 1964, ‘Gospel Prologues: A Common Pattern?’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 262-268

Staten, H. 1993, ‘How the Spirit (Almost) Became Flesh: Gospel of John’, Representations, No. 41, pp. 34-57

Strachan, R. H. 1914, ‘The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Fourth Gospel’, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 81-105

Voorwinde, S. 2002, ‘John’s Prologue: beyond some Impasses of Twentieth-century scholarship’, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp 15-44

Wordsworth, W.A. 1957,‘The Bodmer Papyrus and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, Fasc. 1, pp. 1-7

Exposition

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

FATHER AND SON

In 1:14 the glory of Jesus is described as ‘the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father.’ The major claim in this Gospel is that that Jesus came from and returned to God.
This claim is so important that those who reject the son do not honour and obey the Father who sent him. Those who believe in Jesus believe in the one who sent him (12:44). On this theme the Prologue makes a fundamental statement (1:18);

‘No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’

The ‘only-begotten son’ (KJV) has seen God since only he was pre-existent with the Father before the creation of the world. This experience of seeing the Father only belongs to the One who has come from God – the incarnate Logos (3:11; 3:32; 5:37; 7:29; 8:42; 16:28).

The relationship between the Father and the Son is characterized by love (3:35; 5:20; 15:9; 17:24) and the intimacy is such that the Father continues to be present with the Son while he is on earth (8:29; 16:32). The pre-existent relationship is so close that it is described as a dwelling of one within the other (10:38; 14:10; 17:21) but the subordination of the son to the Father is emphasized. The son is viewed as having been sent on a mission initiated by the Father, and is therefore accountable to him (3:17; 4:34; 5:23; 6:38; 7:28; 8:29, 12:44, 14:24). He is dependent on and obedient to the Father who gives him things (3:34; 5:22, 26, 27, 36; 17:24; 12:49; 17:8; 18:11), and people (6:37, 17:6). The son says that he can do nothing on his own initiative but only as instructed by his Father. (5:19, 30; 8:28). Lincoln (2005, p.65) comments:

‘However, the language of dependency of the Son on the Father- ‘the Son can do nothing on his own’- stresses not so much the subordination of the former to the latter as the total alignment of the wills and activities of the two (cf. 5:19,30; 8:28; 12:59-50).’

The paradox that is developed throughout John’s Gospel is that while the Son is subordinate to the Father, it is this that makes him equal with the Father, not just equal but truly one with the Father. Jesus applies two interesting titles to himself in the Gospel. The first is ‘Son of Man’ (1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23; 13:31), the second is the ‘Son’ or ‘Son of God’ (1:14, 34, 49; 3:16-18; 5:19-26; 8:36; 9:35; 10:36; 11:27; 17:1; 19:7; 20:31). The title “Son of God” connected Jesus with the being of God himself. He is God and he is with God. He is equal to God but also dependent on God. As son he does only what the Father wants him to do and only speaks what he hears from the Father. As Logos he is the expression of God but he does not point to himself, only to his Father. As Son he reveals God and enables human beings to have a relationship with God.

THE SUPERIORITY OF THE REVELATION IN CHRIST TO THAT ON WHICH JUDAISM IS BASED

The Gospel of John is firmly grounded on the Old Testament. The connection between Moses and Jesus is stated towards the end of the Prologue (1:16-18):

‘From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’

Lincoln (2005, p.75) aptly sums up the implications of these verses:

‘In the prologue not only is the grace and truth previously associated with the glory of Yahweh in the covenant with Moses (cf. Exod. 34.6) now associated with the glory of the incarnate Logos (1.14), but a contrast can also be made between the two – ‘the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ’ (1.17). This is not a denial that before the coming of the Logos the law was previously an expression of Yahweh’s grace and truth. It is rather an assertion on the part of believers in Jesus that now they have seen the fullness of grace and truth in the Logos’s glory, these qualities need no longer be sought in the law.’

The Prologue thus ends as it began; with a statement of the deity of Christ. Verses 1 and 18 mirror one another as in each the Son is called ‘God’, is viewed as the expression (logos) or revealer of God and is described as being intimate with God (‘with God’ and ‘at the Father’s side’).

CONCLUSION

Most of these main themes and leading ideas in the Prologue continue throughout the Fourth Gospel but ‘Logos’, the key term in the Prologue, does not appear (as a Christological title). The Prologue contains the substance of the Gospel, which explains the religious significance of Jesus. He is the pre-existent Logos, the source of existence, life and light, who became a human being and lived on earth. He was witnessed to by John the Baptist, was generally rejected by his own people but was received by some, to whom he gave authority to become God’s children. God previously revealed himself in a limited way in the law, but the Logos, Jesus Christ, was the ultimate self-expression of God.

Exposition

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘the fact that the light has never been quenched is proved by the witness of the prophets, above all by the witness of John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and the herald of Christ. But his function as a witness has to be clearly distinguished from that to which witness is given – the light, which became flesh in Jesus Christ.’

The Fourth Gospel identifies the purpose of John the Baptist’s appearance and ministry as that of ‘witness’. In the Prologue the two mentions of John as witness are inserted at strategic points, reinforcing what has been said. Verse seven (‘to bear witness of the light’) harks back to what is said in verse five about the coming of the light and verse fifteen to what is said in verse fourteen about what Ridderbos (1997, p.42) calls ‘Jesus’ antecedent transcendent glory.’

Trites (2004, p.78ff.) argues convincingly that the Fourth Gospel ‘presents a sustained use of juridical metaphor’. She maintains that ‘in the Fourth Gospel God Incarnate has a lawsuit with the world’ (p.79). She indicates that in the first twelve chapters, which deal mainly with the conflict between Jesus and “the Jews”, John is stating a case, advancing his arguments, challenging his opponents and presenting his witnesses. She understands the idea of witness in John’s gospel in terms of Old Testament legal language and points out that other juridical words such as judge, judgement, cause, accuse and convince are also used in a context of debate or hostility.

Her assessment of John the Baptist as witness (p.91) is insightful:

‘John is the first and one of the most important witnesses to Jesus and his testimony is a threefold one, as the Prologue makes clear: (1) He is not the Light. (2) He is sent to bear witness to the Light. (3) The purpose of his witness-bearing is that all may believe in Christ (1:6-8). This pattern is followed in subsequent sections dealing with the Baptist. John is mentioned at the beginning of the Fourth Gospel , for he is the first to point his fellow men to Jesus, and in that sense all believers have been brought to Christ through him (1:7b). While there had been other men sent from God, John’s task was unique. He bore witness to the incarnate Word, to his superiority to himself, and to his prior existence.’

Others said to be witnesses in the Fourth Gospel include: Jesus Himself (3:11; 5:31; 8:13-14; 18:37), the Samaritan woman (4:39), God the Father (5:32,34,37; 8:18; I John 5:9), Scripture (John 5:39), the works of Christ (5:36), the crowd at the raising of Lazarus (John 12:17), the Spirit (15:26-27; I John 5:10,11), the disciples (John 15:27; 19:35; I John 1:2; 4:14), and the author himself (John 21:24).

Although John the Baptist was sent from God as a witness to the Light he is portrayed as insignificant in comparison with the Light itself. Jesus called him a ‘lamp’ (5:35) but he was certainly not the Light. The writer of the Gospel asserts John’s subordination to Jesus (1:20, 27, 29, 33, 36) and strongly denies that John the Baptist is the Messiah. According to Luke 3:15 some people thought that John the Baptist might be the Messiah’. In the Prologue John gives no information on John the Baptist but concentrates only on his function as a witness to the Light.

‘It is employed with two different nuances in this verse. In the first two instances the reference is to the created world, the world that constitutes humanity’s environment and that includes humanity itself. In the third instance – the world did not know him- the reference is to the world of humanity that by its response reveals its devastating plight of having become alienated from and hostile to the Word/Light that sustains it. It is this second negative connotation of ‘world’ that will become dominant in the Fourth Gospel.’

Exposition

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Ngewa (2003, p.10) says of the background to Logos:

‘If Semitic, then the main idea is that God communicated himself through Jesus Christ. If the background is Greek, the central idea is that Jesus holds things together. Neither of these ideas is excluded in what John says about Jesus in this passage. ‘

In the Prologue the author presents three views of the Logos:

1) In verse one he presents the Logos as being with God and within this expresses three important ideas.

– The eternal existence of the Logos (‘In the beginning was the word’).

– The eternal relationship of the Logos (‘with God’).

– The eternal status of the Logos (‘was God’).

The Logos exists before creation, enjoys a special, intimate relationship with God and in his very nature is God. The writer is thus claiming that Jesus who lived on earth was in fact the eternal Word, God himself. The idea is repeated in verse two, emphasizing the point.

2) In verse three he talks about the Logos and Creation and emphasises the divinity of the Word by stating that he was God’s agent in creation . This is put both positively (‘Through him all things were made’) and negatively (‘without him nothing was made that has been made.’).

3) In verses ten to fourteen he speaks of the Logos in the world and deals with the rejection of the Logos (1:10-11), the new birth of those who accept him (1:12-13) and with the Incarnation (1:14).

The word ‘logos’ (word) is employed thirty-nine times in John’s Gospel but it is only in the Prologue, where it occurs four times, that ‘logos’ is used as a Christological title. The term ‘Logos’ is never again applied to Jesus in John’s Gospel. Jesus later identifies himself as ‘Light’ (Jn 8:12; 9:5), as ‘Son’ (Jn 5:19-24), and as ‘Life’ (Jn 11:25) etc. but never says ‘I am the Word.”

This is because from chapter 1:14 on, he is no longer called ‘the logos’ but ‘Jesus’ Jesus and ‘the logos’ are one and the same; ‘the logos’ is the pre-existent Christ.

Christ’s pre-existence is not only mentioned in the Prologue but also on several occasions throughout the Gospel of John there are references to his life before Creation. He speaks of himself as having ‘come down from heaven’ (3:13; 3:31; 6:33; 6:38; 6:62). He says: ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ in 8:58 and, in the prayer of chapter seventeen, ‘And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began’ and ‘you loved me before the creation of the world.’ (17:5, 24).

Kysar (1993, p.31) maintains that the affirmation that Jesus existed from the beginning is ‘one of the highest claims that the Christian has made for Christ’. He observes:

‘The pre-existence of the Logos affirms not only that he existed before creation itself, but that he existed ‘before all things began’. His existence goes back into that mysterious time before time – into the realm of temporality that eludes human conceptuality. While we cannot fathom what it would mean to exist before all else, we can try to fathom what the author is trying to affirm by saying this. Christ is so important that he could not simply have come into being like any other person or object. Christ is made to transcend beings and things by the assertion of his pretemporal existence….Christ is no created being. He is before creation.’

Exposition

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 20th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

More than two thousand years ago a carpenter from Nazareth in Palestine emerged from obscurity. His influence was to divide his own nation, transform the lives of his disciples and impact the world. Who was Jesus? Where did he come from? What did he do and teach? How did people respond to his claims? What was his destiny? John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, seeks to address questions like these. He sums up his purpose in a statement in chapter 20:30-31:

‘Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’

The author thus encourages the reader to consider Jesus Christ, whom he presents as the worthy object of faith.

THE PROLOGUE

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels ( Matthew, Mark, Luke) which all introduce Jesus by locating his ministry in a historical setting, John’s prologue presents Jesus as the Word (Logos) in eternity. According to Lindars (1972, p.77);

‘The prologue is a work of immense assurance and literary power. It moves with measured steps from the Creation to the climactic moment of the Incarnation (verse 14), and then indicates the fulness of the revelation which results from it – like the dawn gradually illuminating the sky until the sun suddenly bursts above the skyline and sends its rays horizontally across the earth.’

Carson (1991, p.111) comments; ‘The Prologue is a foyer to the rest of the Fourth Gospel (as John’s Gospel is often called), simultaneously drawing the reader in and introducing the major themes’.

It is my intention to identify and comment briefly upon the major themes in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel.