The lectionary epistle reading for Advent 4 in Year A is Romans 1.1–7, which is a single sentence in Greek!
Paul offers not just an opening greeting, but a programmatic introduction to the whole of his letter. It is relentlessly focussed on what God has done for us, before it ever touches on what might or should do for God.
And it includes some startling tensions or paradoxes between the God of Israel and his plan in the Old Testament for his people, and the new thing he has done through the Lord Christ Jesus.
The gospel reading for Advent 4 is Matt 1.18–end, the announcement to Joseph of the birth of Jesus.
The video discussion of that can be found here.
and the written commentary here.
Buy me a Coffee
“… called to belong to Jesus Christ” v. 6.
Who did we belong to before?
St Paul sets out in Romans 6 that we were slaves to sin, or as he puts it in Romans 7 controlled by the sinful nature.
Yes, that is one possible answer. 1 Peter puts it another way; we were once ‘no people’ but now we are a people.
So perhaps we did not belong anywhere before?
Hi Ian,
ChatGPT thinks it is the law, but Tom Wright chooses the sinful nature.
As you know I am fairly confident that I am correct in saying that any concept of there being a sinful nature does not now carry a consensus among biblical theologians.
It is interesting that this “programmatic introduction to the whole of his letter … is relentlessly focussed on what God has done for us” ─ and yet the Reformed guild cannot agree what that is?
because the wages of sin are death, and the dead aren’t actually people?
Though that sort of annihilationist thinking will get me in trouble around here…
if you mean the ‘unsaved’ are ultimately destroyed out of existence, then I would tend to agree.
Exegetes struggle to answer this same question when they try to explain Paul’s comment in Romans 7:4 ‘… so that you may belong to another’.
Paul seems to be contrasting living under the law and living under Christ, so I would suggest ‘belong to another’ means now belonging to Christ as opposed to previously living under the law. The law is now ‘dead’ and so has no claim, just as a dead husband no longer has any claim to his still living wife.
What God has done: in the ‘grammar’ of the gospel, does not the indicative precede the imperative?
The gospel imperatives do not come until the 12 chapter. “Therefore…
I read it as essentially a creedal statement. It’s relatively clear that St Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans without having visited Rome (the next section is all about him wanting to visit Rome and there’s nothing to indicate this would be a return visit). So Paul is working from what he’s been told about the church in Rome, in the biggest city in the world. In that case he may have felt the need to confirm upfront who he thinks he’s writing to – i.e. this is what distinguishes the Christians he’s intending to write to: that they believe this religion springs from Judaism where God is revealed in the Old Testament; that Jesus was both a man in the line of David, and the Son of God; and the whole thing turns on the resurrection. And it’s framed by Paul introducing himself – he’s an apostle (v1) and specifically his apostleship is to call the Gentiles (v5), and this calling to apostleship comes straight from Christ. So he can end with the assurance that the church in Rome, who believe the creedal statement he laid out, are Christians – that is, “among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ”.
Yes, in many ways I would agree with you. What is curious, though, is that it is not laid out as a creedal statement (in contrast to eg Phil 2 or 1 Cor 15), but as an epistolary greeting.
Thus we have a kind of fusion of genres. Perhaps this communicates that Paul’s creed is always in the context of relationships….?
Yes. Surely the gospel is about relationships.
It is clear that our new relationship involves volition and agency with a person – Jesus Christ. It would be odd if our old relationship was with the law, or the sinful nature – or ‘nobody’?
Colin, you keep mistyping your email address, which is why your comments keep needing approval.
Thank! I checked it very carefully last time! But I am on my phone, not my laptop. 🙁
I suppose it’s been done in Romans 1 as a check rather than than a teaching moment – Paul isn’t making an argument about what the church in Rome ought to believe, he’s confirming what they already believe.
Surely he is doing his best to keep Jew and gentile together in Romans! It is too easy to ignore Chapters 9-11 as an insertin but Paul clearly regards them as his punchline – he writes his doxology at the end of them. If Romans is creedal, why so little about the gifts of the Spirit which he had spent so much ink on to the Corinthians?
indeed, the weak and the strong.
What an opening to a book! Reminiscent of a Dickens or Melvill.
Unfortunate that this passage meets us amidst preparations for 12 Carols and Readings.
Yet what an opportunity for Gospel preaching to the Annual visitors.
Grace! What a word for this day of Amazing Grace, this great Gift of God .
What are we called from and too? What are we chosen for?
The obedience of Faith, this solid ground.
We live amidst a restless sea, continually casting up mire.
Blown about by every passing Wind; Diversions and Issues inside and outside the Church, a mad, comic soap opera much loved by so many viewers, some new issue to get hot under the collar about.
This day of pastoral simplicity that ushers in the Prince of Peace this day of Grace given by the God of Peace, of all Comfort, of all Certainty.
This God of all Joy and peace and riches of great abundance and fullness, this all sufficient, satisfying God who calls us to the obedience of Faith, the law of the Spirit of Life, in Christ Jesus.
God grant you a peaceful, joyous, abundant Christ mass.
Shalom.
Yes, we think very few will preach on this!
There is an excellent paper at lifehopeandtruth.com Called and Chosen that gives definitions of same.
Bearing in mind our Lord Christ’s declaration that
“many are called but few are chosen”
The same gospel grammar is to be found in Ephesians: indicatives first, then imperatives.
As an aside, there was a fascinating Reith, lecture at 9am. today on radio 4, from Stamford University.
From childhood faith to teen crisis concluding that there is no free will, to hero Bertram Russell, to atheisms search for the sacred, ending, concluding there is no free will and AI traduces human sacredness.
There was so much more, listening while driving.
Maybe this Romans reading has relevance to the lecture! Sacredness, the Spirit of holiness, the Trinity of God.
Set aside for God.
The auto-subtitles are sometimes curious…
When talking about v5 “we haven’t all received apostleship” came out as “we haven’t all received Hustle ship”.
Then shortly after ‘Junia’ becomes ‘junior’.
Yes, they are! One person got in touch to say they did not like them, but overall most people seem content…?
(I think it would be possible for me to go through the whole video, and check and edit them…in principle…)