MSB Book Introduction:
Book is written to the members of the church in Rome. 
Paul was born about the same time as Jesus, in Tarsus, in the Roman province of Cilicia.  He was himself both a Jew and a Roman citizen.  He studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, and was a Pharisee. 
Paul wrote Romans from Corinth.  It was written near the close of his third missionary journey, around 56 AD as he was about to leave Corinth with the offering for the church in Jerusalem.  Phoebe was given the responsibility for delivering the letter to Rome (16:1,2).
"Paul's primary purpose in writing Romans was to teach the great truths of the gospel of grace to believers who had never received apostolic instruction." 
Unlike 1, 2 Corinthians and Galatians, Romans was not written to correct errant theology or rebuke ungodly living.  Doctrinally, the Roman church was sound.  However, it was in need of the rich doctrine and instruction the letter provides.
2021 - Written from Corinth...when, exactly, in reference to 1,2 Corinthians?  Paul wrote the two letters to Corinth from some other place, not while he was there.  Intro says the second time Paul was there.  But...weren't things pretty tough that time?  Wouldn't that be after his first letter - like between the first and second letter?  MSB chapter intro says he wrote it as he was  about to leave for Jerusalem with an offering.  Perhaps this is the offering he talks about at the end of 2 Cor, that he wanted them to have ready when/if he got there.  Here is what Paul says about that trip - I think....MSB is saying this was on Paul's third missionary journey...but here is the end of 2 Cor:  1 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 2 I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them-- 3 since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. [2Co 13:1-3 ESV]  This looks like a troublesome visit that is forecast  here.  Is this the forecast of the third journey, or of some other that we don't know about.  I guess my question is, how could Paul write a book like Romans while bogged down in the mud of the visit to Corinth that he is talking about here?  How could you rise above the day to day and face to face contentions, discussions, excommunications in all probability, and just the constant tension of whether this church was going to make it or not, to write a book letter like Romans?

"The overarching theme of Romans is the righteousness that comes from God ; the glorious truth that God justifies the guilty, condemned sinners by grace alone through faith in Christ alone."  Calvinism again in the MSB???

Under "Interpretive Challenges", MSB says that Paul's discussion of the perpetuation of Adam's sin (5:12-21) is one of the deepest, most profound theological passages in all of Scripture.

2021-2, Maybe Paul was anticipating his journey to Rome as he prepared to leave Corinth for the last time.  He knew he was heading for Jerusalem - a very long journey indeed, even today.  He likely knew that he was destined to go to Rome, but that was even further away, and he was aching to speak with them and pass on the deeper things of the gospel to them.  So to "get that out of his system", and perhaps to lay the foundation for the teaching he would do when he got there, he writes them this deeply doctrinal letter - a text they could begin to study until he could arrive and elucidate further.  Maybe that is how he was able to produce such a letter even from the constant controversy and heresy that was Corinth.

Chapter 1
(The MSB notes on these first three chapters average between 1/3 and 3/4's of each page).

First 7 verses are the salutation of the letter.  There is a concise summary of what Paul is all about in here.  It opens with "Called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel - and then a summary of what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about.  Gospel is better read good news I think.  
2021-2, These first verses establish the foundation of the gospel by telling us quickly and concisely who Jesus is.  He is first, the one promised by prophets in scripture.  Second, the son of David by heritage, and third, the Son of God since the Spirit raised him from the dead.  What makes you think Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah?  These three things right here.  From there you can launch into all the prophetic scriptures about his coming, and show that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.  Then show through the genealogies that he was indeed descended from David, on BOTH sides of his lineage.  And then show by the testimony of many witnesses who were alive at the time that he rose from the dead - not by some prophet standing outside and calling to him or laying on him.  There was no human to call or touch him and bring him back.  He was raised not by man but by the Spirit.  They found the grave ALREADY EMPTY.  This had never happened before, this was unique, this was the Messiah.  Seeing that this year, I wonder now if the book will be organized along those three lines?  Probably not since Rome was already doctrinally sound.  But what a foundation for a study of Christology is in these first verses.

Paul tells them that he hears news of them, and is thankful for them, and regularly prays for them.  He tells them that he has a goal to come and see them, but so far has been "prevented".  This gets us through vs 15.

Then these verses:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." [Rom 1:16-17 ESV]
He says this right after he says he wants to preach the gospel to those in the Roman church.  So he is using gospel in a much broader sense than "the plan of salvation".  He wants to tell them all the good news he has about Jesus, his life, his ministry, his work, his sacrifice and resurrection and ascension.  All these things are part of the good news of Jesus Christ.  We so often think of the gospel as stopping at salvation.  But there is lots more to learn after that.

2022 - Came back to this when reading Chapter 2.  Look at vs 17 above.  ESV translates it "from faith for faith".  What does that even mean?  The word they translate "for" is our old friend eis, which almost always gets translated "into".  But in Acts, they translated it "for", giving us the confusion surrounding baptism "for" remission of sin.  Now here it is again in Romans.  From faith for faith instead of from faith (one place) into faith (another place).  When we are given the ability to believe what we cannot see - when we have faith that Christ is Lord, this faith translates us INTO a new state, where our faith is permanent as saved people.  It is faith INTO faith.
2023 - This from BLB as to eis  (which they pronounce ICE):  KJV Translation Count — Total: 1,774x.   The KJV translates Strong's G1519 in the following manner: into (573x), to (281x), unto (207x), for (140x), in (138x), on (58x), toward (29x), against (26x), miscellaneous (322x).
2023 - KJV, NKJV, CSB, NASB95 all translate it "faith to faith".  NLT and NIV translate it "start to finish" and "first to last" respectively, disregarding the words that are there and instead giving us an interpretation.  ESV and RSV are "faith for faith", and ASV is "faith unto faith" - so this last one at least uses the MOST COMMON translation of the word eis since they have no reason to do otherwise.  My paraphrase in an attempt to find the right word...I think "it" in vs 17 refers back to the subject of 16, which was "the gospel".  So in 17, For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faith.....faith.  It is pisteous eis pistin.  Genitive to accusative.  From Z, the genitive case is used primarily to indicate possession although it has several other functions.  Example of possessive use:  My mother's sister, when mother's is genitive instead of saying the sister OF my mother.  The accusative is not even mentioned in Z.  There is no entry for it nor explanation of it.  BLB says accusative is a noun that is the direct object, as in His disciples showed him the buildings.  In this same sentence, "His" is genitive, showing possession.  Let's make it more fun...FROM faith....faith.  FROM is the two letter work ek, and is much more commonly translated of than from.  About twice as often really.  So....revealed OF faith.....faith.   OF faith UNTO faith?  FROM faith UNTO faith?  But these ignore the genitive as possessive.  FROM faith's faith?  Revealed from the faith of faith?  But does that use all the words?  Or add extras and ignore what's there.  Here is a definition of pistis - belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same.  The belief that comes from faith.  Faith's belief...Revealed OF faith's belief.  We have a belief, born of faith, in the righteousness of God.  Why is that important?  Because the just LIVE BY FAITH - they BELIEVE as a result of faith.  Yes.  I think I'm going with that!!!  Uses the genitive and the accusative.  Belief is what faith owns.  That belief - saving belief - is what he is really talking about - so accusative.  So both of those work, and there is not need to get down in "trivial" words like unto, to, for, and so on.

2023 - This verse:  18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [Rom 1:18 ESV].  A lot in this little verse.  Suppression of the truth God reveals.  That does seem a high crime.  They do so in unrighteousness.  Even if they don't "know" it consciously, it would still be sin to do it.  I don't know that we're clear as to whether they know, except as inferred from what God reveals from heaven.  And we are told what is meant by that in vss 19-20.  

God's wrath is against all ungodliness and all unrighteousness - against violations of the first five commandments about our relationship with God, and about violations of the last five commandments about our relationship with man.  Why does God do this:
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [Rom 1:19 ESV]
Does this mean each individual man or does it mean through Scripture, preachers, missionaries, and teachers?  MSB says it means God has sovereignly planted evidence of His existence in the very nature of man by reason and moral law.  Hmm...these are universal traits that only man possesses.  So, we all know not to kill or steal.  This is the implanted moral law that all of us have.  This is conscience - a result of creation and not of hunter/gatherers deciding it is only right to feed the hungry and share the bounty with the rest of the tribe.  Morality did not evolve.
2023 - I think it means every single man ever born.  If God shows it to you -reveals, explains, ingrains, removes all doubt - then you KNOW.  After that it is about acceptance or suppression of the truth.  It has been plain since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.  It says "They are without excuse".  Now we could take the position that the people around when Paul wrote this were living an age without science to inform them, and so he could have "persuaded" the ignorant of his own day, but this will never fly in 2023.  We know, from science, about everything that has been made, right?  Except we don't.  Watch some videos on what the James Webb telescope has done to astrophysics.  It's on its ear!  The Big Bang is now doubted by astrophysicists, not just by Christians!  Newtons Laws were ok....but they were incomplete.  Einstein made them better...but why would you think Einstein will have the last word?  Newtonian physics was "magic" to what came before, and now Einstein is magic compared to Newton...There'll be someone else.
There's a good FB post here, or two, but there is a lot of material needed to make it all tie.  

2022 - Reason and moral law.  No animal can reason.  Animals are "cunning but not intelligent".  The "total learning" of animals is not increasing.  They cannot pass knowledge on.  And whoever heard of an animal behaving according to a moral code?  So what you have here, in the Bible, is a contrast between those created in God's image, and all the rest.  Reason and moral code are the attributes of God found only in man.  So, then, we might also think of these two things as the "safety net" that keeps our existence on a higher plane - a higher plane of morality and thought - than the animals.  God built this into us.
Additionally, this functionality built into man inherently recognizes that there is a watchmaker.  The recognition of something greater than ourselves arises from our built in reasoning and morality.  Our freedom of choice, originally, was freedom to IGNORE reason and morality and strike out on our own.  And this is indeed what Adam chose.  Even so, the image was still there.  The programs remained.  The foundations were still in place.  Adam still knew, as a sinner, that God was there, and that God was superior and creator, and that he (Adam) had a responsibility to his creator.

2021-2, The point is definitely that deep down, men always know that God created all there is.  We know that chance can never have brought about the observable universe.  No theory of the universe can go back to the other side of the big  bang.  Somewhere, things had to start.  The Bible says something was created from nothing by God who had always existed.  Nothing created God.  Why is it easier to accept that there was nothing before the big bang than to accept that there was nothing before God?  God's existence explains so much that is unexplainable, not just in the physical characteristics of the universe, but in the human psyche.  Evolution cannot explain why "righteousness" is better than "evil".  There is no value system possible in a completely animal evolution of mankind.

MSB note says that in 1:18-3:20, Paul will present an overwhelming case for the sinfulness of man in its various aspects, leading to a conclusion of man's great need for salvation.
In the MSB notes on 1:18, it talks about 5 kinds of wrath that God exercises.  The 5th is the wrath of abandonment, and it is that one that is in view beginning in vs. 24.  I always thought it was a progression, and this stage was always last, just before destruction.  But perhaps instead it is one way God deals, in His own wisdom and sovereignty, with a particular group.

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [Rom 1:20 ESV]
In vs 20, creation itself is sufficient evidence that God exists such that refusing to believe that evidence is alone enough to condemn individuals.  Nothing else needs to be added to the guilt of not seeing God in creation.  One guilty of only this is condemned to hell by God.  2021 - This doesn't say that we need to ignore science and the details it uncovers.  It says we should realize that the advancing scientific knowledge of man should at every turn point to the creativity of God.  We should see, any honest observer does see, that there is design here, and connection, and purpose in how things are made and how things work.  There are no evolutionary coincidences.  Science, so far, has always been incomplete.  Every theory gets overturned by a better theory.  Because the mind of God is infinite, and we can never learn it all.  We shouldn't celebrate science as the advancement - as the evolution - of the human mind, but as the continuing revelation of the mind of God.
Possible FB post.  You're a good person?  Great!  But if you refuse to see God in everything around you, that is sin, and by that sin alone you are condemned.  It only takes one.  The observable universe is the greatest sermon of all time on the subject of the existence of God.  Ignoring the message of that sermon is enough to send us to hell.

Next verse:
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [Rom 1:21 ESV]
2020 - Shunning God - knowingly and with that purpose in mind - people turned instead to idols of all kinds.  Rather than being humble to the true God, they invented their own gods, who's rules and regulations were more palatable to them.  Thinking themselves very smart about this, they were in fact foolish, overlooking that the real God still made the real rules.
2021 - Not sure this is about idols so much as about resistance to submission.  We want to be the top of the hierarchy.  We want to make the rules.  We strenuously resist service.  And we resist giving gratitude just as strenuously.  We want to rule.  Is this too part of the created, built-in code that we all have, or did this part come only after sin?  "You will become like God...", in the garden temptation, implies that this too was built in.  This resistance leads immediately to futile thinking.  Any line of thought that leads away from God, instead of toward him, is an exercise in futility.  And the further we go in that direction, the more we obscure the truth from ourselves.  Then it talks about darkened hearts...this is not a reference to knowledge and understanding.  Hearts are about personal contentment, peace, happiness, love.  These sorts of things.  And obstinately denying the visible evidence - saying that what we see means "not God" when it obviously means the opposite - condemns us to the misery of human existence without God.

This verse:
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [Rom 1:24 ESV]  Therefore.  We need to understand this as the conclusion to the case just built.  As I'm reading it in 2021, I think the case that was built is that man's resistance to God leads to personal misery and darkness and a "flailing about" in life.  Nothing works, nothing satisfies, nothing calms those who go down the path of denying their own eyes.  But...This verse says that God also withdraws when we do this.  As long as God does not withdraw, there is only so far down that we would go.  (Feels like shaky ground.  Not sure I'm on the right track here...)  That built in code that we have would, should always act as our safety net, to stop us from going too far in the wrong direction.  That code is there for our protection.  But...when God is abandoned completely and deliberately and knowingly, and we embrace the created as having primacy in place of God, to the extent that we "worship" science, we REPLACE God with SCIENCE, then God reciprocates, and removes the safety net.  Our moral code no longer breaks our fall and there is no standard below which we will not go - perhaps we fall below the "standard" that classifies us as even being human.  (2022 - We become just like animals, serving our own desires and wants and ambitions, with no thought whatever of consequences.)  Think of the atrocity and the horror of which man is capable.  Not just in recent history but all the way back to the beginning and the things done in war and conquest, jealousy and greed.  Things we just cannot contemplate.  These things are committed by men abandoned by God.  They are total darkness, without a vestige of the image of God in them.  By their own choice, and by His.

So when God abandons, he no longer restrains the decay of the mind of man as it spirals down into depravity.  Instead of pricking our consciences, instead of increasing our awareness of sin, and our abhorrence of it, or even our recognition of it as sin, we go the wrong way, headlong away from God instead of humbly towards him.  And we don't even feel bad about it, because he has abandoned us to it.  I see where God did this over and over in the OT.  He would condemn someone or some nation or some action, and pronounce his wrath on that thing.  And then a hundred years would go by and nothing would happen except that things would keep getting worse.  The wrath pronounced in Manassa's time is the most prominent example.  God said that was the end for Israel.  But it was 150 years before Babylon took them out.  First came the wrath of abandonment, and later the consequential wrath.  Here is where that leads:
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. [Rom 1:26-27 ESV]
It does not say that God gave them up to "Jack the Ripper style murder", or to "stealing food from starving children".  It is perverted sexual relationships that man sinks down to.  Again, I go back to the darkening of hearts in vs. 21.  There cannot be contentment in a perverted relationship.  It will always be a grasping, a reaching for, and a counterfeit, but will never be an acquisition.  If we refuse a right relationship with God, then the most extreme opposite of that is a perversion of our natural attraction to each other.  A rejection of the perfection of that first created relationship.
2022 - Is this about nations or individuals?  Maybe the prevalence of individuals behaving in this way is our visible, demonstrable, measurable health of a nation.  When those abandoned by God, and sunk to a sub-human level, even a sub-animal level because even animals do not so pervert the natural order of things, begin to demand recognition, acceptance, and even honor for being beyond the pale of moral behavior, then truly a nation is in its final throws.

The abandonment takes the form of sexual impurity, the withering and reduction of moral restraint in that area.  Spiritual degradation leading to the degradation of our own bodies.  Then it goes directly to homosexuality.  Not just a degradation of the sexual relationship, but a perversion of it into something it was never intended to be.  

Beginning in 28, we see the consequences over time of this perversion.  A breakdown of all kinds of "moral" and ethical values - yes, values is the word - follows the perversion of sexuality.  (2021-2, At this reading, I don't think these other things "follow" homosexuality so much as they accompany it.  When God "gives them up" to to impurity" all these other moral failures are in there.  It almost looks, in vs. 24, like there are two "giving ups".  The first is to impurity - of mind perhaps? - and the second is to dishonoring their own bodies.  They sink into the depravity of mind listed in vvs 29-31, and into the depravity of body spoken about in vss 26, 27.  Body and soul.)  Acceptance of the perversion perverts everything else.  Note that these things in the list are recognized universally as the products of a debased mind.  We know where these come from.  But once God abandons, we not only do what we know we ought not, we do what we know is to our own harm, we know what we do leads to death - but we STILL DO IT, and we approve the same actions on the part of others.  It reminds me of that parable of the unfaithful servant who went around releasing his master's debtors of their debts.  And his master admired him for being so clever.  The master was so corrupt that he admired corruption in others.  That's what this he.  

Chapter 2
Having to stop here for the morning.  I was afraid this would go really long.  I will come back to it after the kids leave.  That's a long time from now.
This chapter starts with a pretty difficult verse:
1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. [Rom 2:1 ESV]
This comes right after the long list of depravities that result from the wrath of abandonment.  The downward spiral into a culture not fit to live in.  It ends saying these people not only do the things they know are deserving of death, but approve of others who do the same.  And then comes the therefore, the conclusion of it all.  This has happened, and therefore we who judge them are without excuse either.  
MSB says the point here is that if we have enough knowledge of the laws of God to judge others, then we are overlooking a lot of our own problems.  We do this by minimizing our own sins while pointing out the horror of the sins of others.  That's what MSB says this means.  
But he uses the same phrase here of those who judge that he used in 1:20b.  Without excuse.  In 1:20 it was those who refused to recognize God in creation, in the natural world all around them, who are without excuse.  
So where does this go?  
The paragraph goes through vs. 5.  The judgers to whom Paul is referring are apparently really practicing the same sins they are judging.  They have hard and impenitent hearts.  These are not saved people.  They are just "religiously aware" church goers, who know that those who don't attend church are doing the wrong things".  And somehow, they think that because they do attend church, they can judge others, but yet do the same things as the judged without fear of God's wrath.  Paul is telling them they cannot get by this way.
2021 - I think I had this wrong also.  We all judge.  We all condemn.  Sometimes - often even - Christians are the worst about judging.  But true self-examination will reveal the same sins in us that we condemn in others.  If you steal a nickel it is still stealing, and you are still a thief.  Same as if you sell state secrets to a foreign government.  Both are thieves.  Could be this is what it really is about...Do we judge homosexuals as "hopeless as to salvation" but count our own innumerable but "smaller" sins as no handicap at all?  Is this really what Paul is trying to say to the people in Rome?  I mean, they are certainly in the middle of a culture as low, depraved, corrupt, debased, greedy and shameful as the one we live in today.  Wouldn't it have been easy for that church to sit around decrying the sad state of affairs around them and fretting that there was just no way to "put the brakes on", or no way to "reach those fallen so far", or how about that it must be time for Christ's return because it couldn't get any worse than this?  And Paul is saying...well you guys weren't really any better.  You too were ungrateful, unthankful, unsubmissive, and self-aggrandizing.  I think this is what it is about.  It is a reminder to those of us snatched back from abandonment that we too were just as debased in the eyes of God as these we look down on the most.  Wow.  This is not where I had previously gone with this.  You just cannot leave 2:1 and the "Therefore" it starts with out of the meaning of chapter 1!!!  And look at the next few verses, which I think absolutely confirm that this is the way to read these verses.  We are just as bad!!!  So...is this part of Romans evangelical?  A sermon to the lost in Rome?  To those "attending church" who are not themselves saved?  That seems like a possibility....I mean look at vs 5 - "Because of your hard and impenitent heart..."  Can that possibly refer to the saved?
2021-2 - The way I read it today, this paragraph, through vs 11, is about the pretenders in the church of Rome.  Both Jew and Greek pretenders.  In such a city, such a culture, within the church there were hypocrites, just like today, who condemned others while doing exactly the same things.  There were  secret drunks, secret adulterers, secret corrupt businessmen.  But they were in church every Sunday and so thought they could judge.  Paul is telling them that they are worse even than those they judge.  He is telling them that they are not saved.  
And the kids are up, and it's time for breakfast...so pushing on with the rest of today's reading, thankful for what I learned today.

2022 - Look back at Chapter 1, as Paul is making  his introduction:
14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. [Rom 1:14-15 ESV].  Now he has to be talking about evangelism here.  It was his purpose in life to spread the gospel of Christ.  He ALWAYS starts with who Jesus was - the long awaited Messiah, the Son of David, and the Son of God.  These are part and parcel of the gospel.  In addition to civilized and uncivilized, learned and stupid, he ALSO wants to preach this gospel to YOU in Rome.  Even back to his intro in 1:7, he does NOT call them saints.  They are loved by God and called to be saints.  All three of these words - loved, called, and saints, are adjectives describing those in Rome.  They are not verbs.  God loves them, and they (some of them) are called.  ESV translates it "to be" saints, as in they are not yet saints...They insert "to be" which is most certainly a verb.  I is probably more accurately translated "called saints".  Those in Rome are "called saints", who have not yet taken action.
2022 - If you continue this line of reasoning, it seems to imply that Paul thought a LOT of people in the church at Rome were really unsaved.  There had to be saved people there, else their faith would not be proclaimed throughout the world.  But he also wants to reap a harvest there - to bring the lost to Christ.
2022 - Look at this verse:
4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [Rom 2:4 ESV].  This is written to people who "think" they are doing right things and that because the balance tips in favor of good, God will give them a pass on the bad they continue to do.  These are works-oriented Christians.  They are substituting "more good words than bad" as Christians for the "ritual" of Judaism, the sacrifices and feasts and such.  They see that they no loner are required to sacrifice and obey the 613 rules...but they have not divorced themselves from works as a means to salvation.  Like the Pharisees believe they can be perfect before the law, these Christians see "freedom in Christ" as not having to be perfect so much as just being good on balance.  Paul says that while it is true that a sin after salvation does not require a ritual to stay saved, it does not in any way mean that sin by a Christian is ok.  God's continued mercy toward a sinful Christian ought to make us grateful, submissive and wholly repentant and determined to sin no more.  This is what it ought to do.  This is NOT the effect it was having on some in Rome - who were likely doing no end of good works for which their faith is proclaimed worldwide.  His point is that it is true faith, it is the heart of man, that God looks at, whether there are massive good works or hardly any at all.

2023 - No...go back...These first chapters are aimed at establishing as fact that man is in dire need of a savior.  So Paul sets about establishing that those who reject God spiral downward, eventually being "given over", that is abandoned by God to debase themselves and their obvious created purpose as men and women.  They seek to undo God's work at the foundational level.  When they get there, all these other crimes against the creator that were listed in vss 29-32.  The outline in MSB says verses 1:18-32 are  about Unrighteous Gentiles.  That is, it is establishing that Gentiles sink so low that they cannot help themselves.  And then 2:1 says "Therefore...", you who judge.  He switches his audience to the Jewish Christians in Rome.  That is, those who might think they can stand outside and talk about how awful these "others"  - these Gentiles, these dogs - who commit such sins really are, in passing judgment on these others they condemn ourselves because they "practice the very same things"!!!  (I struggled with who the "judgers" are in 2:1 .  The MSB outline says that 2:1-3:8 are about Unrighteous Jews, where the previous verses were unrightious Gentiles.  I went back and revised this paragraph based on this to see if it makes better sense with that understanding.)  Paul is saying that Jews in the church were in as dire need of salvation at the moment of their repentance as are these terrible awful people (Gentiles) that we now judge as hopeless.  THAT is his point.  Just because they were Jews they still had no standing to look down their noses at even the worst of sinners, because in God's sight, there was/is no difference between Jew and Gentile, not anymore.  He was warning them to not be patting themselves on the back for being Jewish Christians, and so much better than the lost Gentiles, but  fall on their knees in thanksgiving that even though they are JUST LIKE THEM, God saved them anyway and also!  He did not save Jews because they were not as bad as the Gentiles.  He saved the Jews because he decided to save them, not because of their heritage.
This is a FB post, finally.  I think I did 2:1 before, but not in this way.

2022 - Vs 5:
5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [Rom 2:5 ESV].  When is the day of wrath?  What judgment is also considered to be "the day of wrath"?  If you read on through vs 11 there are a lot more details about this judgment Paul references.  Vs 6 says it is a judgment of works.  Eternal life to those who seek for glory, honor, and immortality.  For the self-seeking indulgence in unrighteous, wrath and fury.  Terrible tribulation for those who do evil.  Glory, honor, and peace for those who do good.  So with these clues, what judgment is this?
Both good and evil people will be there, so this is not the bema seat.  That takes place in heaven.  Vs 16 says that in this judgment, God will judge BY Jesus Christ.  "by" is the Greek dia, delta iota alpha.  Here is its definition:  A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act.  So it is God's judgment, and Jesus is the "channel" through which He will judge.  The only judgment where Jesus does the judging is the pre-millennial judgment.  This takes place on earth.  This is the sheep and goats.  This is a works judgment.  The goats go into eternal punishment.  All of that fits.  But...what about this being "the day of wrath".  It has to be a judgment of those who were lost when the rapture occurred, and who, by their faith and works during tgt have been saved, and found worthy to enter the kingdom.  These people will all be alive at this judgment.

2023 - But it is SUCH a stretch to think Paul is devoting this much text to a judgment that no one to who he wrote will ever attend.  That Pre-Millennial judgment is a judgment of the living.  So have I analyzed to the wrong conclusion and it is either bema or GWT that he references?  I surely seem to be missing something important here.  Maybe vs 5, as quoted above, is the key.  Hard and impenitent hearts belong to the lost.  This is not about saved people. (So does that make the analysis above that I thought I could finally post all wrong again?  Is Paul really speaking to lost people within the Roman church that he praised just a few verses back?  Much more complicated than it seems, unless this is about purifying the Roman church still further by pushing out the judgers who aren't saved anyway.  Sure is hard to think it is about that after his compliments to them, and since he does not enumerate their problems at all, but "teaches".  What then do those earlier verses teach?  Even so, this "presuming on the riches and forbearance" seems to be aimed at unsaved within the church. - NO, it is a warning to arrogant Jews in the church.  He is speaking to former Jews here.)  Back to the point...when Paul says these will be judged, if they are unsaved, they won't be judged until the GWT.  Seems like that fixes a lot of problems with this interpretation.
2023 - The judgment could be that Jesus will pull his own from tgt, and in this way God judges BY Jesus.  All those Theos gave to Christos are raised from the dead or changed and brought to heaven, leaving the sinners to receive the wrath of God.

2023 - Paul describes this judgment on the Day of Wrath through vs 10.  Glory honor and peace for the good.  Eternal life for them.  Wrath, fury, tribulation and distress (but not hell?) for the evil.  Could we make this about the rapture.  About pulling out the saved before wrath begins...or on the FIRST DAY of wrath?  The day God decides who will receive eternal life and who will enter the time of his wrath poured out on earth?  Could Paul be talking about that?  Sure seems like he'd be more to the point about it.  


vvs 6-10 are about works.  Vs 6 starts this way:
6 He will render to each one according to his works: [Rom 2:6 ESV]
Obviously, this would be a good verse to grab if you wanted to say that you must keep doing good works to stay saved.  Also a good verse if you want to say works are required to be saved.  A Judaizer would point to this and say Paul agreed with them about keeping the Law.  The text seems to be very precise about how it is the attitude that accompanies the works that makes the difference.  The saved do good works so that their reward in heaven will be great.  Others - unsaved - do good works as a self-seeking and a quest for earthly recognition and reward. God knows the difference, and whether Jew or Gentile, his wrath or his reward will be based on the attitude.
I am reminded also of the verse in Ezekiel that I believe said the good works of the saved count for them at the judgement.  I think even their "pre-salvation" good deeds are counted once they are saved.  But for the unsaved, even their good deeds are given no weight whatsoever in judging them.  They just don't count at all.  Works are rewarded for those who do them as a result of salvation.  Works are irrelevant for those who are saved.  Sheep  and Goats.

Those who know the law well - Jews that Paul is writing to in Rome specifically - will be judged at a standard commensurate with their knowledge of the law.  Those who violate Mosaic law in full knowledge of their sin being judged more harshly than those who never knew they weren't supposed to do that in the first place.  Both judged, but according to what they knew about God's standards.  Paul goes on to say that sometimes the Gentiles do the right thing because their conscience identifies - distinguishes - sinful acts from righteous, even though they have no written law about that particular action.  By the same token, Jews, with full access to the law and the prophets, even those who lord it over the less learned and make themselves teachers of the law, turn around and violate the very laws they teach.  They are found out, and fulfill the scripture about "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."  Hypocrites bring reproach on all they are associated with.  They turn very much good, very many good, into objects of disdain by the way they themselves act.  We see it every day.

In the last paragraph, vvs 25-29, Paul says that circumcision - a condition of pride among Jews apparently - means nothing.  Uncircumcised Gentiles who do the right thing are counted more "circumcised" by God than are circumcised Jews who break the law openly and repeatedly.  Those Jews are held to a higher standard because of what they know.

Remember, this book is written to the Jews in the church in Rome, and this letter is from a Pharisee.  Paul knows precisely what those in Rome have been taught, and he is urging them to maintain the highest possible standard in the most prominent city of the time, because they are being scrutinized, criticized, and demonized for every single indiscretion as to the law.  Paul is telling them to step up to the plate and play hard!

2023 - Maybe we should think of this chapter as a warning to the church in Rome of things Paul had seen elsewhere, and he does not want them to fall into the same sort of problems.  So he is telling them in the last part of Chapter 2 that being a Jew under the New Covenant does not give you special privileges to go on sinning.  In fact, under the New, if you do such things, then the uncircumcised Gentiles are "more" in God's sight than you.  So he is heading off the "pride in heritage", the divisions that come from Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, or from circumcision vs uncircumcision.  He wants all to be contrite and humbled before God, EQUALLY, with none claiming some special blessings of God that applies only to the Jews.  Or in terms of today's (9/25/23) revisions based on the MSB outline, he is pointing out that the Jews are just as unrighteous, and therefore just as needy of a God who will save them.  So Paul isn't "accusing" either the Gentiles or the Jews in the Roman church.  Not at all.  He is pointing out to them just how pitifully incapable they are of helping themselves out of their sin and depravity - which is the SAME, whether Gentile or Jew.  The whole world is in this boat.

Chapter 3
Opens with questions.  If Jews are held to a higher standard because of their knowledge, then why would anyone want to be a Jew?  So Paul continues addressing this part of his letter to the Jewish Christians at Rome.  He continues to "undermine" their pride of heritage.
2022 - Or maybe it should be phrased, if it is a matter of the heart, and not of physical circumcision, then why would anyone even want to be a Jew, why would anyone be proud they were a Jew, why would anyone want the prejudice against them that Jews always draw?

First reason, because the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.  The Jews have the OT and they have been entrusted with it's preservation for millennia!  

There is something here...something important...
This verse:
5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) [Rom 3:5 ESV]
So...If, when we do something wrong, and God forgives it, therefore showing to all the world that God is a righteous God, why would He punish us for "helping" Him to show how good he is?
Paul says this is a "non-starter" argument, because if you take this position, then God could never judge the world at all.  But God is the world's judge, and judges always judge wrongdoing, even if some good to someone comes of it.  It is not logical to say that we do something wrong on purpose so that God's grace in forgiving us can be made greater.  Because committing an offense against God can never be seen as a way to honor God.  It is a ridiculous notion.  Ok...that seems to be on the right track to what Paul is saying.

2023 - Oh my...here it is yet again.  This is the Bill Burr Argument yet again.  This time Paul himself addresses it, and points out the internal contradiction of the original question.  The question itself first builds a false picture of God, and then says that false picture of God shows him to be false.  Ok...let me see if I can get this down.  Look at vs 5:  If we sin, and God forgives our sin, then our failures show how merciful he is.  So really, our sins serve to demonstrate what a wonderful merciful God we have.  If our sins  therefore proclaim how good God is, then how can he judge us for our sins???  So not quite BB, but look how similar!  Burr starts with "If God made us this way, how can he blame us for being this way?"  Paul's hypothetical is "If God is shown merciful by our sin, how can he blame us for making Him look good?"  Paul's answer is that if this were the right way to look at things, it would be impossible for God to judge the world.  Look at where the logic goes...If God's forgiveness of sin makes Him look better, and we say therefore we ought to honor him by doing what he hates so that he can forgive it, then we would have a world whee the absolute worst sins you could commit would the most honoring to God.  The worse the sin he forgives, the more merciful he is shown to be.  This kind of reinforcement system not only ENCOURAGE sin, but encourages the worse sins we can come up with!  It makes the worst of sinners, the most heinous of sinners, the ones who bring the most glory to God.  NO ONE would want the world to work that way!   So can we make a similar counter to the BB argument?  The BB question comes down to "Why  did he make us flawed?"  Did he make us imperfectly so that he can show his mercy by forgiving us...and therefore is it fair for him to judge us for our flaws since he himself created us with flaws.  I think Burr's question is different.  What the BB question implies, without saying it, is that the reason we sin is that God created us imperfectly!  THAT IS THE HIDDEN ASSUMPTION!!!!  And if God DID create us imperfectly, then Burr is right and he is unjust to condemn us.  So the key is that God DID NOT create us imperfectly, but he DID gives us freedom to choose right or wrong, and history most certainly proves that we prefer wrong.  So either God could create us in a way that we would NEVER sin, in which case he could never NEED to condemn us, or he could create us with freedom of choice, and then judge us for rebelling using the very gift he freely gave us.  By giving us free will He proved that he is not a heavenly tyrant directing every thought and choice we make!  Free will proves that that he wants us to see, as he does, that goodness, righteousness and mercy are the GOOD way and he wants us to be able to CHOOSE that on our own rather than to hard wire it into us. If we had no freedom of choice, then God WOULD be responsible for our sins.  That is not the world God created, and we all KNOW this all the way to the core.  Slap Bill Burr for no reason and see if he blames God...or the one that slapped him!

Then these two verses:
7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. [Rom 3:7-8 ESV]
These seem to be Paul's version of what I wrote above.  Claiming to glorify God by disobeying God is a ridiculous way to look at this.

BUT, this is different from Bill Burr saying that if God has made all the choices already then how can he blame us for what we do.  I thought these verses were addressing the Bill Burr position, but that is not what they are doing.

Read the MSB notes as to the quotations of vvs 10-18.  There, it says these verses are Paul's summary condemnation of all men, everywhere, in all times.  There are many MSB notes on the individual phrases.  

2022 - I also think we have to ask whether this practice is something that is becoming prevalent among the Jews in the church at Rome.  I wonder if they are sinning, and then praising God for forgiving them for that sin...though there is no repentance.  
Or...is the argument that if you are a Jew, you are chosen, and special to God, and He keeps you from sin.  So if you do sin, is it ok to say that God that stepped away and let you sin?  You have the oracles of God, they ought to make you righteous.  And if they "slip", isn't that on God for not giving you what you need?  And Paul's answer is don't be silly, of course not.  

2022 - Vs 9 is a new paragraph.  MSB seems to think it begins Paul's summary of his first point, that all have sinned.  He has spent the previous verses showing that Jews also,  though chosen, are also guilty of sin, and that they are not treated differently when they sin because they are Jews.  If we "embrace" that our sin makes God more righteous by his forgiving those sins, always, rather than condemning them, then He can never judge sin, but is put into the position of almost welcoming sin - because forgiving it makes him more righteous.  Is that the real solution to Bill Burr's claim?  If God is in charge, and we sin, why does He get so mad - after all, forgiving us, rather than judging us, just makes Him look better?  Because that puts God in a position where He must actually prefer that we DO sin, and this is not God's character, and we know it is not because He says He hates sin.
Moving on...getting bogged down and I don't think I'm really clarifying anything here.
2023 - Verse 9 makes it clear that MSB's outline is correct.  First Gentiles, then Jews are shown to be equally sinners.  

2022 - Vss 10-18, we are not talking about little sins.  Both Jews and all others commit the sins on this list.  Look how ridiculous it would be to say that God loves these sins because forgiving them displays his great mercy.   No.  When God forgives, He is forgiving what he hates.  He hates it before he forgives it, and  he hates it after.  

2023 - This verse:  19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. [Rom 3:19 ESV].  We don't hear this one quoted very much, and we especially don't hear that it applies the Law to ALL mankind.  I think Paul's implication here is that all are under the law, and if we apply the law as the standard for perfection, "every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world ...held accountable".  If you are a Jew, the law of Moses, the religion you follow, condemns you.  But also, if you are not a Jew, that same law, though not "given" to you, condemns you also, as shown in Chapter 1.  Hmm...I wonder if the real point of the progression from rebellion to full on total corruption described in Chapter 1 is to show that Gentiles are informed not by the law but by creation itself as to right and wrong, as to God's will vs man's will.  That even though the Law was not given them, the import of the law, the universal moral code built into all men at creation, condemns them when they rebel against it, and rebellion against the reality and rule of God as expressed in creation is worthy of God's harshest judgment.  So creation informs us of God, and the Law - as expressed in the oracles of God given only to the Jews - informs us of God, leaving absolutely no one uncondemned.  

This verse comes next:
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- [Rom 3:21 ESV]
Paul now moves away from universal guilt and rebellion, and and moves away also from the Law.  Seems to be setting up a discussion of universal truth, that will apply to Jews, Greeks, barbarians and pagans, an all inclusive salvation to offset an all inclusive condemnation.  
2023 - Yes...but what he is really doing is setting up the New Covenant in Christ to work as universally as the Old Covenant.

Yes, that's exactly what he does.  He says the visible righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.  ALL can be saved.  And then comes Romans 3:23.  All have sinned.
and Romans 3:24 and [all] are justified by His grace.
He condemns all, and He saves all.

We all know 23, but 24 has some pretty good things in it too:
24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [Rom 3:24 ESV]
Therefore, nobody can brag about how their goodness, their purity, their great and fine works, have justified them before God.  It wasn't a payment, it was a gift.  No charge.

2023 - These verses:
"25 ...This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. [Rom 3:25-26 ESV].  The first part of this speaks to the fact that God did not go ahead and just send everyone prior to the atonement of Christ straight to hell, and only save those who came after, under the New Covenant.  God "delayed sentencing" those who died before Christ in order that he might apply the extenuating circumstance of the atonement as their purchase price though it had not yet been earned.  This is what it means by "passed over former sins".  It does not mean those sins weren't real, nor does it mean that God didn't judge both Jews who knew the law and Gentiles who did not for any and all sins against him whether realized or not.  But he WAITED to send men from Sheol to heaven or hell until the blood of Christ was offered for those who believed in him.

And in case anyone still thinks what Paul had said in Chapter 2 about works being a "justifier", he makes sure everyone knows where he stands on that:
28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. [Rom 3:28 ESV]  Keeping the law, being charitable, taking care of widows and orphans - all good works included in the law or without the law, is something apart from justification.  Faith justifies.  Works result!
2023 - This conclusion says that keeping the law NEVER saved anyone.  The law only condemned, as the revelation of God in creation condemned all those without the law.  Faith - in God under the Old, in Christ under the New and applied as the price of redemption in both Old and New - is the door to eternal salvation.  It always was!  So...Gentiles of old did not "need" the law to save them.  They had all of nature to inspire the faith that the Jews received more directly.  But they were not "in the dark".  

2022 - This chapter just seems to be completely over my head this time through.  I don't remember it being such a problem before.  I think the problem today is that I am reading 3 as a stand alone chapter, and all my notes are telling me it goes with chapter 2.  I even have that note where MSB says part of this chapter is a summary and conclusion of what went before.  But today, I cannot seem to connect it back.

Chapter 4
See this line below - OK, I have learned enough for 2023.  Reading on through to the end.  NEXT YEAR, I will pick up at vs 13.

2023 - In the outline, a main point was begun in 3:21 and runs through 5:21.  That point is "Justification: The Provision of God's Righteousness.  1:18-3:20 was about Condemnation: The Need of God's Righteousness.  After Justification, we will move on to Sanctification.  So these main topics are pretty important.  Though the end of 3, we saw "The Source of Righteousness, and now in Chapter 4, we will cover The Example of Righteousness.

2023 - Paul just finished showing that Abraham in the past and Gentiles in his own time, were all justified the same way - through faith counted as righteousness.  But looking at the outline, we might also say that what was shown is that Gentiles, and all those "before" the Law, were condemned by the revelation of God in nature - in creation - and also by the embedded knowledge of God that all men have.  This knowledge is part and parcel of our being.  Most deny it, preferring to worship a lesser than God, because, in my thinking, they are all less demanding than God.  Or because they are not so high as God, their judgment is not as guilt-provoking, and no one enjoys guilt and shame.

So what then did Abraham gain, if anyone can have faith?  (Remember, this is written to the Jewish Christians in Rome.)  This important verse:
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [Rom 4:2 ESV]
Abraham was a good man, overflowing in good works.  If works were what mattered, Abraham could show himself to be the best of the best.  But since it is NOT about works, those works could never be bragged about to God, only to man.
2023 - The critical part of this verse is "...but not before God."  Man might think Abraham was the best man who ever lived and that his "goodness" made him righteous, but Paul says that was not enough for God.  And note that Abraham was good BEFORE circumcision.  So before the covenant, works were not enough, and then AFTER the covenant, works were not enough, and then when the Law came, works were not enough, as we shall see, and today, under the New Covenant, works are NEVER ENOUGH.  This has always been the way sinful man - believing himself wonderful - WANTS it to work, this or on a curve - but it has never - past present or future - worked this way.

2023 - This verse:
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." [Rom 4:3 ESV], and the original:  6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. [Gen 15:6 ESV].  Paul's point with this is that it was not the works in vs 2 that made Abraham righteous in God's eyes, it was that he believed God's words to him.  

Then Paul highlights the contrast between something received because of works and something received as a gift.  If we work hard enough for salvation, then salvation is our wages, not a gift.  We've earned it so God OWES US.  But if instead of works we depend only on faith, that faith is counted as righteousness, there is no performance requirement, and salvation is a gift.  This is how it would work if there was a possibility of works salvation.  Paul quotes David in the OT saying "Blessed is the one to whom God will not impute sin".  These seem to go in another direction...Paul has been talking about righteousness earned instead of gifted but now he talks about sinlessness.  So...we have to recognize that sin precludes righteousness.  So there is no neutral state.  You are righteous or you are sinful.  So if we depend on our works to make us righteous, and mess up even once we are excluded from any possibility of righteousness.  We are charged with that sin, and the punishment is death, and all our good works are insufficient to "overcome" that sin.  It has been imputed to us, and there is no procedure to atone for that sin - to make it right with God our judge.  There is no way out of the consequences of sin through works.  But if we believe, we know that we do, and we have the peace of God, assuring us of His salvation.

2021-2, Vss 4 and 5 contrast those who work to earn their pay with those those who don't work but have faith.  Here are the verses:
4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, [Rom 4:4-5 ESV]
How could you say it more plainly than this?  

So having established now that salvation can never be "earned", but only gifted to all who believe, Paul tears down the wall that says salvation is exclusive to the Jews.  Paul makes the point that faith was counted as righteousness in Abraham's case BEFORE he was ever circumcised.  
2023 - This verse:
11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, [Rom 4:11 ESV].
He was already declared righteous - he was already saved - before he was sealed as God's own in the flesh by circumcision.  That is, he was a GENTILE when he was saved.  And that next line..."The purpose was...".  NIV says "So then...", KJV and NKJV say "that he might be..." NASB says "so that..."  Paul is clearly stating that Abraham's faith was declared righteousness by God BEFORE circumcision on purpose.  Why did it come before?  To make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised SO THAT righteousness by faith could apply to them also.  So many things going on here...Like, if it didn't work this way for your father it is not going to work this way for you.  We don't really do things that way now so we miss this crucial perhaps cultural and certainly LEGAL requirement.  This is God's requirement, not man's.  Sin is passed down from generation to generation through fathers.  If God legally requires that sin be applied to all in this way - that is, through genetic association - then God also requires that the "cure" for sin - that is salvation by faith alone - must also come this way.  So what is being stated is that SINCE Abraham was counted righteous BEFORE he was a Jew physically, then righteousness by faith alone is available to both circumcised and uncircumcised.  So Paul is making a little leap here...in that Abraham had NO progeny at all at this time.  So it is not that Abraham had children before circumcision and so those kids could be saved, and then more kids after circumcision, so therefore both circum and non--circum can be saved by faith.  Paul makes it "bigger" than that.  It is not about the kids, but about Abraham.  Abraham was saved as a Gentile, therefore all Gentiles can be saved.  That's what Paul is saying.  But there is room for argument as I see it.  Paul says we can "attach" Gentile offspring TO Abraham even though NONE of his children would have been called a Gentile.  All his sons were circumcised.  Does the story of Melchizedek apply here in that he was not physically a son of Levi at all, and yet he was a priest of God?  Paul, it seems to me, to make this argument valid, MUST SHOW that this is not about those who are Abraham's physical descendants, but spiritual descendants.  He is declaring that all who are ever saved are the spiritual descendants of Abraham.  We need to see that argument, he needs to "prove" that thesis now, for this argument to be valid.  Where will he go next?
2023 - He continues the above by pointing out that Abraham is the father not of those who are "only" circumcised, but those who are both circumcised but who ALSO walk in the faith.  So the other side of the coin is that being circumcised, or being a DIRECT DESCENDANT of Abraham, does not mean you are automatically declared righteous.  That is not enough.  So clearly, even though we used the word "genetic" above, this is NOT about biology.  The word "Father" is not being used here in a physical sense.  Paul is separating it from the physical in two ways - he is covering both possibilities.  It is brilliant really.  By doing both, he shows us that he is talking spiritually.  He is saying that Abraham was the first of his kind - the first justified on the basis of faith alone...NO!!!  That does not work, else no one before Abraham was saved.  This is showing that Gentiles BEFORE there were Jews can also be included here, because they could be saved pre-circumcision also, just as was Abraham!!!  Paul is also projecting salvation by faith backward in time from Abraham!  AND, we could say that those saved by faith before Abraham are nevertheless the children of Abraham spiritually, as much as those who came after him!  Does this tie to "the Lord said to my Lord"?  I think ti does!!!  Spiritually, David is the son of Jesus in the same way that say Abel is the son of Abraham.  Spiritual relationship - kinship - is superimposed on the physical world, and does not require any kind of blood relationship.  It is beyond all that!!!  This is huge!  

OK, I have learned enough for 2023.  Reading on through to the end.  NEXT YEAR, I will pick up at vs 13.

Therefore, it is applicable to the uncircumcised.  In Abraham's case, circumcision was the seal of the covenant of faith, not the cause of the covenant.  He was counted righteous by faith before circumcision so that he is the Father of both the Jew and the Gentile.  Justification by faith is applicable to all because it came before circumcision, and long before the law.  Abraham is the Patriarch of all those saved by faith.
2021-2, Circumcision did not "save" Abraham any more than baptism saves us today.  Baptism is the seal, the mark, the public profession of what has occurred between a man and his God.  The man knows, and the seal shows -confirms - the transaction.  You cannot undo circumcision, and you cannot undo a baptism.

2022 - An interesting way to look at it.  The Law was a physical covenant, with physical requirements, and it was sealed with the physical seal of circumcision.  The New Covenant is of faith, and faith alone with no physical requirements, and is sealed by baptism, which leaves no physical evidence, but is nevertheless a seal.

Next Paul turns to the promises made to Abraham.  These promises were made 100's of years before the Mosaic Law.  So it was not the Law that "earned" the promises.  That's not where they came from.  This verse is giving me no end of difficulty:
14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. [Rom 4:14 ESV]
Adherents of the Law means Jews post-Sinai I think.  If the promises are only to them, and only because they follow the Law, then I get that faith is null.  The promises would then be "due" because they were earned.  But how does that make the promise void?  (2023 - Because it is no longer a gift, but a paycheck if one perfectly keeps the law.  It is no longer promise, it is contractually obligated pay.  I think that's what it means.)  MSB note says that making a promise contingent on an impossible condition nullifies the promise.  As in, I will give you a million dollars if you leap this tall building in a single bound.  So the pre-supposition here - that I may have missed in previous verses - is that the Law cannot be perfectly followed.  That is impossible, so the promise would be contingent on the impossible, which is not the kind of thing a just God would ever do.  (2023 - I can see the point being made...but is that really what it says?  We have past Rom. 3:23, so we know the Law cannot be kept, but is Paul really going all the way back there?  I guess he could be, this section started in 3:21....)

vs 15 is just as difficult and there is no help in the MSB:
15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. [Rom 4:15 ESV]
The Law brings wrath in that violation of the Law brings guilt, and guilt is judged harshly under the Law (wrath).  So those who follow the Law only, bring wrath upon themselves.  Gentiles know nothing of the Law, so breaking the law in ignorance has no consequences?  That can't be right.  If that's what it means then everyone except the Jews would be saved!  
2022 - This is all "legal" talk.  If you don't know about a law, then you cannot be guilty of breaking it.  You can accidentally break it, and the Law of Moses is chock full of sacrifices (reparations) that you can make for your mistake.  But that guilt, that you did not know about, does not stick with you.  You can expunge it.  On the other hand, there are NO sacrifices in the Mosaic Law that expunge deliberate, pre-meditated sin.  There was the annual scapegoat, that delayed the punishment, but the guilt remained always...until the perfect sacrifice and the way of salvation.  This is what it means.

Not making much progress here...Going to just push on and do what I can.

Ohhh!  The Gentiles, even though they don't know anything about the law and don't break the law - because you can't justly punish someone for violating a law they didn't know about - must still have faith to be justified.  Faith is still the basis for Gentile salvation.  If the basis was the law, then they couldn't be condemned because they don't know the law!!!  That is what it means!  Faith alone saves, completely apart from the law, and this is true for both Abraham's seed and Gentiles.  And since all are saved the same way, all are Abraham's spiritual descendants, because they are "born into salvation" through faith, just as our father Abraham was saved through faith!

This is the answer to those who believe in a universal salvation.  That all are saved, because they don't know any better.  Because it isn't fair to condemn them for what they do not know.  Paul says it is their lack of faith that condemns them, and he has previously established that God is revealed even in nature.  Everyone has opportunity to recognize God and to believe in Him.  There is no excuse for having no faith.

This MSB note on vs 17:
17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"--in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. [Rom 4:17 ESV]
"calls into existence the things that do not exist.  This is another reference to the forensic nature of justification.  God can declare believing sinners to be righteous even though they are not, by imputing His righteousness to them, just as God made or declared Jesus "sin" and punished Him, though He was not a sinner.  Those whom He justifies, He will conform to the image of His Son.. (8:29,30).

One last point on chapter 4 (and I am sure I missed hundreds of points in this chapter):
25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. [Rom 4:25 ESV]
I get that Jesus was delivered up for our trespasses.  Here is the MSB note for Jesus being raised for our justification:
"The resurrection provided proof that God had accepted the sacrifice of His Son and would be able to be just and yet justify the ungodly."
 

Chapter 5
Chapter begins with "therefore", Paul having concluded his "proof" of justification by faith for all men.  Then he talks of how our "endurance" in faith is built up and made stronger by suffering for Christ.  He has an extended syllogism about it.  
2023 - The MSB outline said Chapter 4 yesterday was The Example of Righteousness.  Today, vss 1-11 are The Blessings of Righteousness, and 12-21 are about the Imputation of Righteousness.  MSB says that Paul's discussion of the perpetuation of Adam's sin (5:12-21) is one of the deepest, most profound theological passages in all of Scripture.  I think it is best to start with what comes after therefore:
2023 - Starts this way:
1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [Rom 5:1 ESV].  This certainly goes with the previous chapter.  But I like the matter-of-factness of the wording.  That is how it works.  We are justified by faith.  We are.  The Jews are.   Those before Abraham were.  One salvation for all.  Paul now "adds in" Christ.  He says the peace we obtain is "through" Jesus Christ, but he hasn't told us how that works yet.  Not the next verse:
2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. [Rom 5:2 ESV].  "Access into grace (by faith I think he means) through Christ.  But again, he seems to be making thesis statements which he will support later?

2023 - Vss 3-5 are this sequence connecting our suffering for Christ to to endurance, then hope, then shamelessness because the presence of the Holy Spirit in us confirms God's love for us.  So...once be are justified by faith, God's grace is gifted to us.  We have paid nothing.  Even so, now that we have this grace, we rejoice in our sufferings as they mold us into what we ought to be in this life, as the Holy Spirit assures us of God's love in the suffering.  Is Paul saying that since grace was not of our doing, we ought to not complain if there is some "downside" to it afterwards in the form of suffering, but that this suffering builds character in us and the hope of glory after this life?  Grace refocuses us on eternal rewards, and puts earthly suffering into context in that way?  I don't know...I thought he was going to explain what Christ has to do with justification?

2023 - Hmmm.  In vs 9:   9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [Rom 5:9 ESV].  In vs 1, Paul said we are justified by faith.  It was the point of "Therefore...".  Now Paul says we are justified by the blood of Christ.  So...faith = blood?  That doesn't seem like the right way to state it.  Hmm...there is another therefore in this verse isn't there?  What came before it?  That Christ died for us while we were still sinners.  Too deep...What about those saved before the crucifixion?  Do we need to see them as "still sinners" in the sense that wrath (justice, the fit sentence for the crimes all commit against God) was still hanging over all because there had not been sufficient atonement to that point?  Is that how Paul means "sinners"?  That seems to work but you'd have to state is as "Prior to the crucifixion, the saved were justified by faith but still under wrath.  After crucifixion, the saved were justified by faith and atoned for (should be a better word...redeemed?) by the blood of Christ APPLIED only to the justified...or those who would be justified.  Seems to work as "been justified" is aorist passive participle, loosing us from time restrictions that would make salvation as an ongoing concept a little difficult.  In this mood and tense, though, the saved, whenever they were or are saved, Christ's blood is justifying them - being applied to them - according to when faith "manifests" in them/us.  And in that same verse, we see that we SHALL BE saved from wrath.  This is in future tense.  Paul, as he wrote this, was NOT saved from wrath YET, but would be at some future time.  Wrath seems to be used here as final justice from God.  That final justice is hell for those who have not faith, which is required for Christ's blood - the atonement - to apply to you, which after your death in the future will save you from hell.  So we need to keep in mind that wrath is also future for all who are living still.  Wrath comes only after death or rapture.

2023 - I'm taking too much time again today...but this is so important.
Next is verse 10:  10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. [Rom 5:10 ESV]. "While we were" is present active participle.  So "Being enemies formerly", we were reconciled - aorist to show that it was at different times for different people depending on when they came to faith and by the shed blood of Jesus.  That word I couldn't think of above that ought to better than "atoned for" is in fact "reconciled".  Paul is saying that Christ's death paid our entire debt - and so reconciled in "accounting terms" all that we owed Him from debt owed to debt paid.  Then Paul uses "reconciled" again, this time as aorist passive participle - think -ing - in the sense of still committing sins, covered as they occur by Jesus shed blood - then sometime in the future we SHALL BE SAVED (future tense) by his life.  So Paul is juxtaposing the completion of our redemption by Christ on the cross - that is by his death - and by his resurrection - his life - we will in the future be saved from hell and live AGAIN, as he does, in heaven with God.
Never occurred to me before...ultimately, we the created will live in heaven with the God who created us.  Does anyone else look forward to that condition?  Is Muslim's God in Muslim heaven, or is it just for people?
To hammer it home, in vs 11 Paul explicitly states that it was God, through Christ, that accomplished our reconciliation.  Received is in the aorist, because all receive it at a different time.  But see how clearly Paul states that this was God's plan, executed in the sending of his Son to die, to reconcile US to HIM.  There is no reconciling ourselves.  We DO NOT initiate reconciliation by ANYTHING that we do.  Deals a hard blow to baptism I think.

2023 - Good work here.  Reading on out today, since this is the really really deep stuff.  I will focus on 12-21 next year.

There is a sequence here...
Christ's death on the cross paid for our sins, and reconciled us to God.  God required payment, as justice demanded.  There was no amnesty, no commutation of the sentence.  Those are not justice, but something else.  Those are not Godly things.  Here is the rest of it:
9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [Rom 5:9 ESV]
We first had to be justified/reconciled/paid in full in our relationship to God.  Jesus blood (his death on the cross) accomplished that reconciliation.  Once that was done...something further....but I am not getting it.
MSB note says that since ALL of God's wrath for our individual sin was focused on Christ substituting for us as the object of that wrath, there is now no wrath left to be directed against us.  We are free from wrath.  Seems to still be missing something....but that's the note.

This verse:
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- [Rom 5:12 ESV]
Says that the "imperfection" that sin caused in Adam was an inheritable, dominant trait that we all have received through him.  But it also adds that we have each sinned on our own, apart from that, and so are subject to sin's penalty.  Paul refers again to the difference between condemnation for sin when you know it is sin, and the injustice of that condemnation if you didn't know.  It is not about sin it is about unbelief????
2021 - Looking at the MSB note...because this is hard.  MSB says this passage is one of the most enigmatic in the entire book.  So I am not going to feel too badly about struggling to assimilate it.  So.  Some things from MSB:
Adam's sin transformed his inner nature and brought spiritual death and depravity, and this "fallen" nature is passed on.  It does not "renew" and start fresh with every newborn child.  The nature is corrupt, and is passed on in its corrupted form.  That nature makes it impossible - for anyone at any time - to live a life wholly acceptable and pleasing to God.  So all men sin, even in the absence of the law, by "falling short of the glory of God".  It isn't just about refraining from things you should not do.  It is also about not doing what you ought to do.  It is about thinking what you ought to think, about being grateful to God for all that happens...So...From Adam to Moses, the book doesn't say "He violated the 3rd commandment".  It says "he could not and did not do as unfallen man could have done".  It is failure to reach the mark that is sin, rather than violation of a specific rule.  The nature of sin during this time was different than under the law.  Today, we have the scriptures, we have a delineation of the standard, we sin both ways, whether Jew or Gentile.

This verse:
14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [Rom 5:14 ESV]
This says that man was condemned by sin from Adam all the way to the giving of the Law to Moses - even though there was no Law there to condemn men.  They were condemned not by legal means for violating the written law, but by their unbelief.  I think.  
But MSB disagrees.  Says this is not about individual sin at all.  Not about each of us earning our own condemnation.  MSB says as we were all "seminally" present in Adam when he sinned, we also are sinners.  The phrase used in MSB is that we are not sinners because we sin, but instead that we sin because we are sinners. (2023 - even so, Paul puts in this phrase that says "death spread to all men because all sinned", rather than saying "death spread because all are sinners in Adam.".  We sin because we are sinners - as Adam's descendants - but it is ALSO TRUE that all do sin.  We are sinners in that we cannot help but sin.  Adam did that to us.  His sin "infected us" with something that was not there before.  Adam did not have to sin, but we must.  He could resist, but that antibody is now destroyed.  Ohhh!  I like that!!!  When Adam sinned, it killed forever the antibody that could resist it!)

2023 - Death reigned from Adam to Moses.  BEFORE the Law.  All were sinners and all sinned, so wrath was in effect, even before the law.  What God did not do, even before the Law, was to apply that wrath, but He instead justified by faith (Chapter 4), and did not send the dead directly to hell since Jesus had not yet been born.  He put them in a "holding cell" until "the guilty party - the one who assumed their guilt" had come forward, after which they were not "bailed out" nor "released on parole", but exonerated by Christ.  They were no longer guilty!  That's how it works with us too!

2023 - The word "type" here is used of Adam in relation to Christ.  The Greek word is typos, Strong's 5179.  It is used 16 times in 15 vss in the mGNT.  LOOK UP ALL OF THEM!  Also, see what the equivalent word is in Hebrew, and look those up also.  The point is that you cannot declare everything in the OT a type, and then find something in the NT that corresponds.  That is putting things in there that are not there.

2021 - "sinning was not like the transgression of Adam".  Adam sinned in that he violated a direct command of God.  God said don't eat.  Adam ate.  From Adam to Moses, there was no direct command about how to do things.  There was no law to violate.  So...where there is no law, there is no transgression - at least not of the kind that Adam committed.  Finally, I get that.  Doesn't mean there was no sin, it means sins from Adam to the Law were qualitatively different than before or after.  Yet...death reigned.  Sinners sinned, and died.  That last little phrase of vs 12 has to be honored:  "...because all sinned.".  What kind of sin, then, are we talking about?  It was not the violation of a direct prohibition.  It was not the lack of obedience to a specific command.  So what constituted sin from Adam to Moses?  
Note also that this is a NT statement that Adam is a type for Christ.  It explicitly says that we can examine Adam as a type for Christ.  

MSB also says that from Adam to Moses death reigned not because of violation of Mosaic Law, but because of the inherent, inherited sinful nature of all men.  What?  Where there is no law sin is not imputed, yet these are all considered sinners?  That is NOT the way to explain this concept.  (see above, 2021)  MSB refers us back to 2:12, which says there are those who "sin without the law".  Which takes me back to saying that while it is Adam's sin that condemned the whole world, each of us also sins individually.  I am saying there is unwritten law that we all understand.  To lie, to cheat, to kill...we need no law to know those things are sin.  A sort of "universality of conscience" exists because we are in the image of God.  It is against this that we sin without the law.  Again...this is what I think right now.  I could be way off.
2022 - As noted 2022 on chapter 4, there is unintentional transgression of the Law - which does not count as "legal guilt", and there is purposeful intentional sin, knowing and premeditated, that exists with or without the law.  Deciding to do what we know - from general revelation if nowhere else - is wrong is always sin, with or without a written Mosaic Law.

2021 - Perhaps I am getting crossed up by thinking that Paul is speaking here of individuals, and each man's accountability for his own actions.  Instead, maybe Paul is talking about the big picture, of sin entering the world and condemning all men, and then the gift that saves some men.  The gift is not like the trespass.  The trespass condemned all.  Universal, fallen man, no longer capable of pleasing God.  The gift, though available to all,  only saves some - those who have faith.  No decision is needed to be sinful, we are born in it, as a result of Adam's sin.  Decision is needed to be faithful.  We choose to accept the gift.  Some choose to do so.  This seems a good way to understand this verse:
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [Rom 5:15 ESV]

This summary verse:
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [Rom 5:18 ESV]
However you explain the details, this verse makes sense to me.  One sin condemned all, one sacrifice justified all.  
2021 - Or at least it made sense last year...Where is limited atonement in light of this verse?  The verse starts with therefore, and the verses just prior are about Jesus.  Abraham had faith, and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness.  So...if we "have faith", then that one act of having faith - in the atoning sacrifice of Christ - leads to our justification...to justification of all who "have faith".  Faith is efficacious to the saving of all men, and does save all who are justified by having faith.  I think this is the way to read it.  EVEN SO, faith would not have saved us without the atonement, without the substitutionary death of Christ in flesh like ours, without God's willingness to place us "in Christ" and see him only when he evaluates/judges each of us.
2021-2,  One single sin - Adam's disobedience - led to the condemnation of all men.  But Christ's sacrifice cleanses men of many sins, not just Adam's one sin.
2021-2, MSB says that Paul's use of the word "all" in association with justification is not about universal salvation - he says it cannot mean that because only those who accept Christ can be saved, despite the sufficiency of that sacrifice.  The word "all" is used here for the sake of maintaining parallelism of language - a kind of "rule of prose" if you will - with vs. 12.  And look at the continuation in vs 19.   Here, that one sin didn't lead to the death of all but to the death of many, just as the sacrifice leads to the life - not of ALL - but of the many.  So Paul says it both ways, tying it all together grammatically and prosaically.    

2021-2, Abraham was not under the law.  So no sin was imputed to Abraham.  Nor was righteousness imputed to him until he had faith.  Abraham, as Adam's seed, was born corrupt, sinful, and unacceptable to God.  Even with no Law to condemn him, sin corrupted him, he was conceived in sin, because he was descended from sinners.  He also died before there was any sacrificial system under the Law to atone for his sins and justify him in God's sight.  The blood of animals could never have done that anyway.  But faith in God, trust in God, recognition of God - also apart from the Law and based on personal interaction with God - is what saved Abraham from sin, just as it saved Gentiles during the time of the Law though they did not know the Law.  

2022 - Oh my....Abraham WAS sinless in that there was no Law for him to break.  He could not be held guilty of a crime that there was no law against.  BUT, he was already a sinner because he was born in sin as a descendant of Adam, as a participant in Adam's sin because Abraham, like the whole planet, is descended from Adam.  It does literally mean that Abraham was sinless, as was EVERYONE born from Adam to Moses.  But without faith in God, as revealed either in nature or by family tradition, the "sinless" still die, because they are sinners in Adam.  Finally!  It DOES mean exactly what it says.  There is NO SIN where there is NO LAW, but there are still SINNERS!!!  There is no way to be such a good person that God will not send us to hell.  We are the children of children of children who were all sinners, and as such we are also counted sinners.

My goodness, think of the implications of this!  It goes along with God being recognized even in nature.  That "sermon" had to be present for all this to work.  The ancient Americas, where there was no religion, where the Law was unknown - individual sin was not imputed to those people because there was no Law for them to violate - not like the Law that Adam violated.  Nevertheless, they are descended from Adam, and so corrupt and sinful as their general condition, for which God's wrath is directed at them.  BUT, they have as much chance to be saved as Abraham did, because Abraham was saved when there was no Law!  Oh my!  This is how it works.  Also, it can ONLY work this way if God created Adam and all mankind descended from him.  I cannot work in the case of evolution at all, because there is no common inheritance of a fallen condition.  Unless you pick out that first creature that attained "human-ness", and name him Adam.  But then you have death preceding sin in order to evolve that kind of Adam, but death only came after sin.  All this is contained in these first five chapters of Romans.  Wow.  No such thing as the imputation of specific sin to individuals where there is no law.  But general condemnation as descendants of Adam.  That makes it fair to send them to hell, because it is not about what they did wrong, but about who they are.  They are fallen man.  And if they could recognize, and be recognized by God, they, like Abraham could be saved.  But I am not sure they were.  I am not sure any of them were ever saved.  Well...that's not so.  Noah was before Abraham, and he was saved.  But no one else on the planet was.  So many died in sin when there was no Law, even though no sins were charged to their accounts.  Because it is not about sin, it is about faith!  This is what Rom. 5:12 is all about!  vs14b - It is not the same kind of sin that Adam sinned, but it is still sin.

2022 - This is the concept that Satan has corrupted into universal salvation.  We are no longer under the Law.  Bible says that specifically.  Where there is no Law, no sin is imputed.  So no one "sins" because there's no Law to break.  Therefore, all are saved.  But faith is left out of this sequence.  Even where there is no sin, wrath - the wages of sin - still comes, because we are all the seed of Adam.  And if it were not that way, the sacrifice of one man would also NOT be able to save us.  FAITH is the key to salvation, from Adam all the way down to today.

Chapter 6
Begins with this same rhetorical question (rhetorical device?) which is obviously to be answered "NO!".  Should we sin more so that God's grace toward us is even greater?  No, because we do not honor God by dishonoring God!  Or in Paul's own words:
2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? [Rom 6:2 ESV]
2021-2...this question arises because of 5:20 - 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, [Rom 5:20 ESV].  The argument from unbelievers being that we should sin all we can because the more sin there is to forgive, the more grace God can bestow.  (2022 - Like He needs our help to bestow grace!  Like He isn't grace itself!)  I can see this being an argument for "Christian freedom" to sin with abandon, and to continue to live as before, because now, doing so just leads to more and more grace, which makes God ever more merciful toward us.  Paul disagrees because...
2021 - Who would ask this question as a result of chapter 5?  What "faulty logic, but logic nonetheless", arrives at this question next?  Per MSB, Paul was anticipating an argument the Pharisees would make.  They liked their rules, and they believed that the fewer rules you broke, the better you were.  They even believed that they had never broken any rules at all, and were justified by their works.  So now here is Paul saying that's all wrong, it's not "keeping all the rules" that justifies anyway, it is only faith.  So the Pharisees were going to next ask, then what motivation do we have to avoid sin at all?  If justification is by faith, and not by obedience to the law (works), then what we "do" makes no difference at all in the final analysis.  THIS is who would ask the question.
2023 - The other fallacy here is that acting on the question - sinning more so grace will be more - is to rebel against God's clear command that we do not sin.  So the assumption implicit in the question is that it is ok to bed if it is to make God look good.  That is not in the Bible.  God never gives us a "good" reason to be "bad".  Following the assumption to its hyperbolic end says that the "best world" to glorify God would be a world that does only evil, so that he can save even that.  It gets ridiculous when  you follow it on out.  I need to practice the "out loud" explanation of this.  It does come up now and then.

I note also in 2021 that the MSB outline says we are starting a new section, running from 6:1 to 8:39.  These two succinct definitions that I would like to remember:
The "Doctrine of Justification", which is God declaring the believing sinner righteous.  Paul has just finished outlining this doctrine.
He now moves to the "Doctrine of Sanctification", which is God producing actual righteousness in the believer.
MSB sort of says Paul is going to move from intense theology to practical ramifications of salvation.  I think that's what is being said.

2020 - 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [Rom 6:3 ESV]
There is stuff about baptism here.  I am not going there this morning.   Too tired for that already.  But this verse:
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. [Rom 6:5 ESV]
In baptism we died with Christ.  His resurrection proves God was satisfied with payment for all sin.  Christ resurrection signified a complete and final end to condemnation for sin.  Likewise, our faith completes our salvation.  There are no other requirements.  
2023 - Dr. Rummage preached on Baptism using Romans 6 last Sunday, 9/24/23.

2021 - This little verse comes next: (How can every single phrase be so earthshakingly vital!?!?):
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [Rom 6:3 ESV]
Rephrasing, based on the remarks above about how when God looks at us, He sees only Christ, because we are positioned "in Christ", gives this:
All who are immersed in Christ are immersed in his death.  That is, we died for our sins by virtue of our position "in Christ" when/as he died for all sins.  Christ rose glorified - and we are STILL in him.  Glorified is transformed, renewed, qualitatively different, perfection.  God sees us this way.  Indeed, we ARE this way.  And if glorified, sin has no more place with us.  Though sins no longer accrue to our eternal harm - they drop into a bucket with no bottom - they are no longer "for" us.

2023 - A little word study from this verse:  5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. [Rom 6:5 ESV].  I wondered whether the word "like" is as strong as the word for type that saw yesterday.  The word yesterday was typos, Strong's 5179.  The word Paul chooses here is "homoioma", Strongs G3667.  Here is the BLB definition of that word:
              that which has been made after the likeness of something         
1.                      a figure, image, likeness, representation                 
2.                      likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity                 
At the very least, we see here that Paul knows both words, and that he uses them differently.  It seems to me that "like" here is still a significantly profound comparison going back to Chapter 5.  This is no small thing we're talking about.  We had a "death like his", but Paul does not say that Jesus death is a TYPE for dying to sin.  From this, I would make the point that things in the OT are "types" only when the NT says they are.

This verse:
7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. [Rom 6:7 ESV]
There is a translation note in the TCR that says instead of "been set free" in Greek it reads "has been justified".  You cannot kill the condemned man a second time.  Death pays the price, once and for all.  Christ died once for all.  As believers, we died "in Christ".  We cannot die again any more than Jesus can.  If we lost our salvation, it could only be regained by dying again.  We can't do that.  We can only die that once, as Jesus only died once.  There will be a verse about that later on (vs 9 in this same chapter in fact).  Having died, Jesus never dies again!  Perseverance of the saints.

And this one, so meaningful to me:
9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. [Rom 6:9 ESV]  Sin can never "win" again.  We can indulge, succumb, and choose to continue doing it.  But if we want to stop it, we most certainly can.  Any sinful addiction can be beaten!  Vs 11 bears that out.  It starts with "so", but could as easily start with "Therefore":
11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. [Rom 6:11 ESV]

Vss 12-14 urge the Christians - the believers - in the Roman church to not let sin reign.  It is still possible to sin after salvation.  It is still possible to sin routinely after salvation.  If it were not, Paul would have no need to say this.  

2021-2, Jesus was not raised from the dead so that he could sin with abandon.  And he most certainly did not sin with abandon after his resurrection.  For this to all hold up in court, we (the saved) had to be "in him" when he died.  If we were in him then, we were also in him when he rose.  Like him, who did not sin after resurrection, we are not to sin after salvation.  We are to be sanctified - improved, made into something better - after salvation, because we "died" and paid our debt for sin, and it no longer has the power to draw us into it as it did before.  Sin was a part of the old nature, but NOT of the resurrected/saved nature.  It owned us before.  It is of no consequence now.  We have been freed from it.

2023 - In light of 1Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. [1Jo 5:18 ESV], where the words "keep on" are added, and the word translated sinning, as a participle, is NOT a participle at all in Greek, I think this section of Romans helps us in translating what John means.  In the NASB95, the verse starts this way, more clearly translating what the text says:    18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. [1Jo 5:18 NASB95].  How do we explain this?
When we are saved, we are baptized by the Spirit.  We are immersed, by the Spirit, into Christ.  So we who are in Christ we in him when he died.  In like manner, when Christ rose, we who are in him by virtue of our salvation also rose from the dead.  Now after Christ rose, did he sin?  NO!!!  And we who are saved are now IN HIM so far as God sees us?  Yes, of course.  Then being IN CHRIST, we NO LONGER SIN.  Not that in 1Jn 5:18 the verb for "born" is in perfect tense, meaning something done in the past with continuing results which need never be repeated.  John goes to some trouble with verb tense here to make sure we understand that he isn't talking about people who CLAIM to be saved, but about those who ACTUALLY ARE.  And such people, truly saved, according to Romans 6, are IN CHRIST, who does not sin, and therefore the saved DO NOT SIN!  This is how John means it.  This whole paragraph came up the morning after a Wednesday night when the speaker talked on this verse in 1John, using the NIV, which interprets the Greed as "those born of God will not continuously sin".  But continuously is not in the Greek and not implied by the verb tense.  I argued in the discussion after that we ought not read it with "continuously" in there, but look deeper to understand why John said the way he ACTUALLY SAID IT!  ANd I think in Romans 6 this morning, I can now explain why he said it that way.  John was telling those he was writing to that neither men, nor angels, nor things above...and so on....can separate us from God, because there is never ANY BASIS on which to accuse us.  Because the saved do not sin!  Once saved, always saved!

Vs 15 is another of those rhetorical questions:  15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! [Rom 6:15 ESV]  In vs 1, it was "Do we sin as much as we can so that we receive as much grace as we can?"   Now it is "Do we sin purposely - without regret or caution - because grace is going to cover it anyway?"   This is so much like the stuff....Oh my!!!!....This is like the things that were going on in the Corinthian church - which is where Paul is when he is writing this letter!!!  They were even committing incest, because hey, why not, we are under grace!!!  So even though this letter is to a doctrinally sound church, Paul is likely being preemptive as to false teachings that are likely to show up in Rome, just as they have shown up in Corinth.  He want's the Romans prepared to answer these heresies - this Hellenistic dualism as applied to grace - before they can get a foothold in that church and threaten to destroy it as has happened here in Corinth.  Wow.  I never saw this before.  This is also the answer to the question of how Paul is able to tackle this in-depth doctrinal treatise about the higher things of God while he is "living" in the muddy pig sty of misinterpreted Christian freedom that is Corinth.  He writes it BECAUSE of where he is, not in spite of it!

Paul's answer to this vs 15 question is quite simple and straightforward.  Finally!  The one who's bidding you do is your master.  If you sin, you are the slave of sin.  Not that it sends the saved person to hell, but still it is antagonistic to our new nature.  We have a new master, yet still serve the old master.  This makes no sense.  The new master is righteousness.  Serve righteousness and (back to the doctrine of sanctification) now that you are in Christ, you can actually accomplish some righteousness.  Some of your works may actually be to your gain!  (Ezekiel again, saying that if you begin to served God, all the good you ever did - even that from before you served him - is counted in your favor.  But if you were serving and stop, then none of the good you did comes with you.  It no longer counts at all.  This seems to be saying the same thing).

2021-2, So if you're a professional football player, and you play for a certain team, and you get traded, then which team will have your loyalty?  The old team has nothing else for you.  All that you have to gain, all that now "helps" you advance, is loyalty to that new team.  Any loyalty to the old must be purged, because it will diminish your commitment to the new team.  If you play against the old team, would you purposely fumble the ball over to them, because you still favor them?  
Possible FB post, using some verse from Romans 6.  There are several that would work. (Have I done this one before?


Chapter 7
2023 - According to the MSB outline, Paul is still talking about sanctification, and will be through 8:39.
Death to the law through the death of Christ.  The Law is no more.

Freed from the Law through Christs' death, now free to "marry another", that same Christ, since it is no longer adultery.

This verse:
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [Rom 7:4 ESV]  This is perhaps another point anticipating the heresy that may come to the Roman church.  The Judaizers will want you to keep the law still.  But you no longer serve that law.  You violated that law, and in Christ you died for those violations, and you CANNOT DIE AGAIN for the same offenses.  You do not need, you should not ever, return to serving that law.  Here is the freedom of grace without the law:
6 ...so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. [Rom 7:6b ESV]  I would note that this written code is the Mosaic law.  The written scriptures - OT and NT - are still commands!
2023 - I like the way this extends the metaphor of our dying in Christ when he was crucified from Chapter 6 as it spoke about baptism, and now applies it to marriage.  When we died in Christ, it freed us from marriage to the Law, and when we rose in Christ, we were - we are - free to follow Christ since we are no longer obligated to be faithful to our previous spouse.  

2021-2, This verse:
8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. [Rom 7:8 ESV]
I am not sure about all the implications of this verse.  It seems to say that had there never been a prohibition against coveting, then no one ever would have coveted, and that sin would not exist.  But since the law defined it and said not to do it, people "began" to covet things and so brought sin upon themselves.  MSB says the idea is that the Law - actually breaking the law - is not about how cool it is to covet now that we know what coveting is and also know that we shouldn't - but provides a basis on which to assert our own will in conflict with God's will.  And this is what sin does, this is exactly the kind of illogical self-destructive thinking that Adam's sin first introduced.  When we go our own way outside of God's way - and it is built into all born sinners to do exactly this, as if it were part of the "software" - that is sin.  So the Law itself did not "generate" sin.  There was already sin.  What the Law did was give us a list of things we could rebel against, because rebellion is what is built into us.

2021 - Just reading on through 7.  Next year, 7!
The central verse of chapter 7:
15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. [Rom 7:15 ESV]

...and this one:
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. [Rom 7:20 ESV]
Isn't Paul sort of doing the same thing the Greeks were doing?  He is saying that his spirit, which has been saved, has a new nature, and would never decide to willingly sin, is coerced into sin anyway by the corruption of the physical body?  The corrupt physical flesh, attached and part of the corrupt world, still pulls him into doing the things of the world, despite the fact that his spirit would have it otherwise.  This is the struggle, and the reason that we continue to sin after we are saved.  I would rather read a good, quality book, but instead I watch a TV gameshow.  My spirit knows what is best, but my body likes game shows.  And we can never escape this physical body, short of death.

The chapter closes thus:
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. [Rom 7:25 ESV]
Surely that says we are divided beings, pure in mind because of salvation, yet sinful in the body of flesh.

Chapter 8
This contrast in verse  2:
2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. [Rom 8:2 ESV]
The gospel is the "law of the Spirit of life", Mosaic Law is "the law of sin and death".  This verse is the only place in the ESV with the exact phrase "Spirit of life".  I have rarely used this translation but:
2 And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death. [Rom 8:2 NLT]
This seems to be a "clearer to me" way of saying this.  
Sin - as defined by the law - is not in charge once we are in Christ.  His death, his payment of the ultimate penalty, served the demands of justice, and made the law null as far as we are concerned.  The confirmation of that is the Spirit within us, as we are in Christ.  You can't pay more after you're dead.  
2022 - I think that beyond that, based on the Covenants chapter in Grudem, that the difference in the church age and the Abrahamic age is the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Without the Spirit, there was a lot of sin that just flat wasn't recognized as sin.  I think murder was always murder, rape was always rape...but drunkenness, adultery, most lies, and so on, if generally acceptable in a culture were just not seen as sins.  But with the Holy Spirit inside us, we have the discernment to ferret out sin no matter the circumstances.  It may take time and prayer, but the Holy Spirit will reveal it to us when we sin - or even better, when we are about to sin.  This seems more likely to be what Paul is talking about.  The Law revealed sin in very specific instances.  Like 613 of them, and if you broke even one, you broke them all and the penalty was assured.  But if something happened that was not covered by the 613, well..what then?
And even more, the Holy Spirit gives us the power to turn away from sin.  Our corrupt bodies cannot help but sin, do not care if they sin, tend to do whatever we see as best for us.  The Holy Spirit shows the right direction, and grants us access to the road that goes that way.

These verses make an important point also:
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [Rom 8:3-4 ESV]
I guess I always thought this was something we "inferred" from scripture.  But it is not. It is clearly and concisely stated.  God sent Jesus to live a perfect life, and be offered as sacrifice, as the Law required.  The aim and point of the Law is now satisfied.  The Law is over.  This is not so for believers only.  It is also true for Orthodox Jews, for Hassidic Jews, and for Muslims and Buddhists.  The Law, no matter how closely one follows it, no longer has any power at all.  By substitution, Jesus has satisfied the purpose of the Law and indeed the requirements of the Law, on our behalf, and made it powerless to either convict us or to save us.  It can no longer do either one!
2021 - These verses are the how and the why of Christ.  God did it by sending him in the flesh.  He sent him "for sin".  Jesus was here to deal with the sin of the world, the totality of sin.  He showed that flesh can win against sin, inferring that Adam could have said no.  But he did not.  Then it says that the Law was fair.  The Law was the contract between God and Israel.  This says the contract was "honorable" by Israel. They could have kept its statutes, its commandments, and its judgements.  The contrast was not so difficult as to be impossible for them - which would have made it unfair.  They could have done it.  But they had to want to do it.  Jesus showed that Adam could have said no, and showed that Israel could have said yes.  Our position in Christ (8:1) imputes his success in the flesh to those of us who are in the flesh.
2023 - This is positional.  We must be IN CHRIST, just as we were in him when we died, and in him when we rose again.  There is position in him, yet we are still in these corrupt bodies.  God sees us in Christ.  

2022 - Jesus kept the whole Law, accurately, and as intended rather than as perverted by the Pharisees.  The covenant between God and Israel said that if you kept all these Laws, God would accept you. All the sacrifices though, were "corrections" for when you inadvertently broke one of the Laws.  But you'd still broken it.  Further, there was no provision in the Law for intentional breakage.  And in the flesh, there was ALWAYS intentional breakage, which completely condemned and disqualified you under the Law.  You were no longer perfect, even by the Law - which was recognized as incomplete and incapable of saving.  Jesus kept it all.  He was therefore perfect and acceptable.  Only perfect, like kind sacrifices could be substituted.  So a ram is, in reality, an insufficient substitute for a man.  It is not the same "death".  Jesus could only pay for others because he had no sin of his own.  He was not only like kind, he was perfect in being sinless.  

2023 - Animal sacrifices had to be physically perfect.  Jesus had to be spiritually perfect.  Animal sacrifices were sufficient only for "accidental sin" because an animal cannot choose between right and wrong.  Jesus was sufficient for all sin because he always chose to reject sin.  We might extend this to say that physical death is insufficient payment for rejecting Christ.  Spiritual death - separation from God in hell to suffer for eternity - is the price for rejection of God's own son.  

His death was not required of God for Himself because he had no sin.  Therefore, his death could count for someone else.  God allowed "replacement" on the gallows.  He didn't have to do that.  He could require payment for our sins individually.  Each for his own.  But he allowed a substitution.  

A test for determining our spiritual condition:
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. [Rom 8:5 ESV]
Your life shows your condition.  This test makes me unsaved for most of my adult life.  By this test I was saved as a child, then unsaved for a while, then back to saved, then unsaved again, and repeated this at least twice more.  By this test, I'd say saved now.  How can we explain this?  Remember these verses, that appear to be addressed to saved people:
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. [Rom 6:12-14 ESV]  But is this about how to escape sin and be saved, or about how even living like a full blown sinner cannot condemn you under the law anymore, but you still shouldn't embrace the flesh and the world?  MSB note here seems to agree that this is addressed to the saved in that it says this: "mortal body.  The only remaining repository where sin finds the believer vulnerable.  The brain and its thinking processes are part of the body and thus tempt our souls with its sinful lusts (see note on vs 6;"  Looked at 6 also.  I think I am on the right track.  Saved people can allow themselves to be tempted and drawn and influenced by the corrupt body - the part of us that does not regenerate until the rapture, when it too is made new - to do the "old things" that we previously enjoyed.  With me, the difference in before salvation and after salvation was sometimes "visible" only to me.  I woke up every Sunday regretting that I had not gone to church.  I woke up hungover and regretted my drinking. I always, during the "unsaved" times, believed in God and despised my sins.  But even so, for long periods I "let sin reign in my mortal body".  

And still more:
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. [Rom 8:7-8 ESV]
It is not even possible to be "good" in God's eyes without full submission to Him.  This is clearly about unsaved people.  The word "cannot" is the key word.   And the next verse confirms that thought, because it starts with "You, however, are not in the flesh..."

2021 - So the discussion about chapter 6 is ok, but what about 8:5-11?  Whom are they addressing?  Look at vs 9:
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. [Rom 8:9 ESV]
Clearly, the description in vss 5-8 is about unsaved, unregenerate people.  It is not about carnal Christians, backslid Christians, none of that.  Vs 9 clearly contrasts the unsaved with the saved.

The wording here:
10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [Rom 8:10 ESV]  Continues the whole dualism of body and spirit.  Again, remember that Paul is in Corinth as he writes this where I believe the false teachers were elevating the idea that the body - and what the body does - make no difference at all to the spirit.  They are treated as separate, compartmentalized.  Their point was that what the body did cannot affect the spirit at all...so let your body party.  Paul seems to be agreeing that what the body does cannot affect the spirit, but says further that the body isn't about a party, because it is dead, corrupt, decaying, and a ball on a chain for the saved - who look forward to ridding themselves of that old corrupt body and putting on the new body.  You don't mix life and death.  You don't have dead bodies at your celebrations of life.  So Paul is saying that "indulging" what is dead is irrational.  To even suggest it is obviously an error.  Then this last line:
11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. [Rom 8:11 ESV]  This would just about have to be about the resurrection, wouldn't it?  MSB notes are no help here.

I am sick to death of ESV footnotes that read "...or brothers and sisters..."  If you are mature enough to be trying to understand this stuff, you know that the gospel is not, was never, and won't be exclusive to men.  The context of the NT proves that, the context of the OT proves that. There is no chance that anyone with a tenth of a brain would ever think the Bible exclusive to men.   One footnote, at the very beginning, would make the point.  But no.  Every single time it comes up, we get another "clarification" that Paul is talking to women also.  It is sad that this whole translation is obsessed with maintaining equality of the sexes - as though if they did not, everyone would believe the Bible was just about men.  At no time in the history of the Bible did anyone ever think it meant that!!!  That's the Quran you're thinking about!!!  I daresay that there has been a whole lot more written about how when the Bible says "women can't" or "women shouldn't" it is not talking about women at all, much less about women AND men, than has been written about how when the Bible says "men" it means men AND women.  These footnotes are a solution in search of a problem.

This verse:
12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. [Rom 8:12 ESV]  Seems to be put together oddly.  Why is that last phrase stuck on there?  What does that phrase go with?  Should it read "We are debtors to live according to the flesh...but not TO the flesh"?  That makes very little sense.  Or would it be better to say "We are NOT debtors to the flesh nor should we let the flesh dictate our actions."  Almost all the translations I looked at are similar to the ESV in this odd translation.  Here's one that was a little different:
12 Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, you have no obligation to do what your sinful nature urges you to do. [Rom 8:12 NLT]  To me, this is more the point of the verse.
It also begins with therefore, so is the conclusion of what went before.  But ESV makes it verse 1 in a new paragraph.  If we move it up into the previous paragraph, the point there was that our bodies are dead.  We have no obligation to what is dead.  The previous point was that we are alive in the spirit because of THE Spirit.  Any debt we owe is to that which makes us alive, not to that which is already dead.  So I would say Paul is telling us we are in debt, but not to anything about the flesh, only to the spirit that quickens our spirit now, and will quicken our bodies into something new at a later time.

13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [Rom 8:13 ESV]  
I read this as "If you are unsaved, you're destined to die in both body and spirit.  If you are saved, indulging your body is pampering what is already dead - what possible good can that do you?"  What a complete waste.  I suspect that this idea, taken to its extreme, is where asceticism comes from.  Not only do we not pamper our dead bodies, not only are we not just indifferent to our dead bodies, but we in fact inflict harm on them to show how wonderfully detached from them we are in spirit.

New paragraph talks about the saved receiving the "Spirit of adoption" as sons.  This verse states the reason why:
14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. [Rom 8:14 ESV]  Because we are in Christ?

This verse also:
17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Rom 8:17 ESV]
That last part - "provided we suffer with him".  Are we not heirs if we have it too easy?  MSB has this note:  "Proof of the believer's ultimate glory is that he suffers - whether it comes as mockery, ridicule, or physical persecution - because of his Lord."

2023 - This seems to clearly say that suffering is a prerequisite for glorification.  But that "sounds wrong".  Wonder if Grudem addresses this verse?  He does in several places.  This is about persecution and ridicule and such, but it also includes physical death.  The die physically is also to suffer with Christ.  This verse:  10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. [Heb 2:10 ESV].  The suffering here referenced is Christ's death on the cross.  It is physical death.  There is much more also about it in the second chapter of Hebrews, but it is Sunday morning, and I cannot go there...

2021 - Picking up the pace here.  Too long on the first 17 verses.  Next year, pick it up at 18.  It would seem to me that this 8th chapter is very pivotal to Paul's case.   It is like every verse must be pondered and dissected and reconnected to all the other things that one believes in order to make the whole "machine" function in harmony.  Verse after verse - Is he jumping all over the place, or am I just too blind to see the connections?

Then beginning in vs 18, Paul talks at length about suffering, and it's irrelevance in view of eternity in glory.  

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. [Rom 8:19-21 ESV]
Creation itself is suffering under the curse of sin.  Futility - that is, effect without cause, no defense against it.  Effect without cause is the curse of sin on the universe.
2023 - Oh my...Is this why James Webb seems to be tearing cosmology apart?  Because science is looking for a reason things are as they are, but like trying to understand what makes man do unjustifiable, evil things when morally correct things could be done, the universe is sometimes "random" because of the effects of sin?  That seems way way out there past what this would be saying...but it does work.  Cosmology can't figure out "the beginning" because cosmology rejects creation by God.  And they cannot scientifically go back past the point where sin entered the world and began corrupting the data.  It is rare to get a valid conclusion from unsound data.  That is a sentence I can get behind.  Can I get a
FB post out of it, possibly?

Verse 26, often quoted, comes right after this statement that both the creation of all that is, and we ourselves, are groaning in hopes of being translated into the perfection that God has intended for His own:
26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. [Rom 8:26 ESV]
MSB says this is about communication directly from the Spirit to the Father, longing for the perfecting of all that is.

Have to put in vs 30, possibly the best proof text there is for "predestination":
30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Rom 8:30 ESV]  MSB note indicates that John believes predestination is for real.  He says this  is not just a reference to God's omniscience in knowing who will come, but is in fact a predetermined choice of God as to who He will set His love upon, and have an intimate relationship with.  There are multiple other references, both to verses and to other notes.

Then five questions:
1. If God is for us, who can be against us?  So is God or us?  He gave us his SON! So...
2.  How will he not give us all things?
3. Who will bring any charge against God's elect?  God is the judge, and if he is the judge can anyone else...
4. Who is to condemn us, if Jesus died for us?  It is Jesus who defends us from all accusers.  If Jesus is defending us because he loves us, when then can...
5. Who can separate us from the love of Christ.
All unanswerable.  Here is where confidence lies for the believer.  This is how Paul returned to Corinth even after messing up badly.  Who can bring a charge against him for it?
2023 - Added the explanations at the end of each of the questions.  When put together this way, we have a very strong proof text for perseverance of the saints.

(2021 - My head is getting worse I think...will try to just get the reading done.)

2022 - These verses:
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. [Rom 8:35-37 ESV].  Paul quotes Psa 44:22.  See the detailed discussion there of a very common misunderstanding of why these verses are used.  We ought not to take them at face value only, but look to the Psalm for the context of the verses and what they mean there.  We are NOT sheep for the slaughter and that is why vs 37 starts with NO!

Chapter 9

Paul now expresses his anguish as to unsaved Jews, descendants of Abraham after the flesh.  Then he says that not all Abraham's children are his children.  Only the children of promise - that is the descendants of Isaac, and not Ishmael.  I think his point is that there is more to salvation than tracing your lineage all the way back to Abraham himself.  There are those who could do so yet they are not Abraham's children.  So if those are not promised salvation though Abraham is their physical father, then wouldn't there also be descendants of Isaac that are not saved?  It has to be about more then genetics.  He goes on to point out that Jacob and Esau were also not both elected.  Only Jacob was, and that even though he was the younger, and should not have received the inheritance.  But God, in order to show His sovereignty in election, chose Jacob...and that certainly not because of anything worthy that Jacob ever did!

These verses sum it up, again using the device of asking a question with an obvious "No!!!" answer:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [Rom 9:14-15 ESV]
Need to get this verse in there too:
16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [Rom 9:16 ESV] Unconditional election, irresistible grace.
There it is, like it or not.  Nothing we do matters as to our election.  That is done.  So our responsibility is to conform to election?  To confess that Jesus is God's risen Son?  We still have to do that...but only those chosen before the foundation will get the option?  Is that how to explain it?  MSB agrees with the answer to these questions being yes.  This is very difficult - for me to swallow, and for most other people I imagine.  But this IS what the Bible says.

2021-2, This verse upends Islam also.  Interesting, isn't it.  That the same mistake that cost the Jews so much was adopted by Mohammad and Islam.  He who works the hardest and complies the most perfectly gets into heaven.  But that's not so.  God decides.  Then throw in vss 30-33:
30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." [Rom 9:30-33 ESV]
The fault with the Jews of Paul's time, and with Islam since Mohammad, is that they sought/seek to obtain good standing with God by following the Law of God - Torah or Quran - rather than by faith in Christ as the fulfillment of those laws.  I need to put this into an email.  So interesting that it applies to both Jews and Islam.
((((((((((Can show from the Quran and that Sura that describes the hierarchy of those who go to heaven.  How the most compliant get the the top spot, then two and three, and show how that is exactly what was going on with Israel.)))))))))
Can I get a FB post out of this?

This looks like the Bill Burr question, specifically addressed in the Bible:
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [Rom 9:19 ESV]
If God makes all the rules and the decisions, how can he blame me for anything that I do?  He's the one that's determined it and I have no real choice of my own.

Hmmm...The answer is, who are you to question what God has done.  So the Bible, so God, refuses to answer such an impertinent question.  God does what he wants.  MSB says this is not an "honest" question anyway, but a question asked to justify continued sin.

2022 - Also these two verses go with the Bill Burr, and this is Paul's speculation as to the "why" of it all:
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? [Rom 9:22-24 ESV]
Paul poses his own answer to the question, putting it not as a certainty, but a what if.  He is saying that if God did it for this reason, doesn't that make sense to us.  God is just.  But it is not just to be always lenient toward even the vilest offenders.  Justice requires both wrath and mercy.  To show himself just, some must be refused and sent to hell, while others receive mercy and blessings.  So we ask, how then does God choose which is which?  And the only answer we have is that He is the potter and we are the clay.  If we believe he is just, then there is a reason that only he comprehends.  God is never just random.  This is also not random, but is not for us to understand at this time.  Not completely satisfactory?  Too bad, because I think finally I have the correct words.  It is about who He is, it is about Him meeting the standard he has set for himself universally, and not about what we think is fair to us individually.  We are to have faith.  That is what Romans 9 is about.  Faith matters, not ancestry, not being a good person, not being a little better than most people.  Faith that God knows what He is doing.  That is what matters.
This sentence from the notes in MSB on vs 22:  "God does not make men sinful, but He leaves them in the sin they have chosen."  So think about this.  It is not just that Bill Burr is asking a dishonest question.  It is in fact that he is so ignorant that he does not see that it is even "worse" than he thinks it is.  Not only does God hold us responsible for the sins we commit, even though we inherit our sinfulness from Adam, whom God created, and so Burr blames Adam's imperfection for his own sin, but God CHOOSES those who will go to hell, so that they can do nothing ever in their lives to escape hell, and will then burn because God chose them to burn.  But here is the thing...look at the MSB sentence.  Even though God chooses some for hell, he does not CAUSE THEM to sin.  Sin is what they'd have done anyway.  And God leaves them to that, and gives them the justice that is their due because of their sin.
So very difficult to grasp...

These last verses indicate that the whole point of the "why blame me" question was to get around to this point:
31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." [Rom 9:31-33 ESV]
2021 - Look at vs 32...how have I not noticed it before?  Earlier, in 8, Paul made it clear that the contract was fair, that it was achievable for Israel, and yet they failed to keep their part, and they failed.  Why?  Because in their minds they perverted the contract and made it all about the letter of the contract - about the stipulations - and CHOSE to IGNORE the purpose behind the details.  The purpose was to help them love and appreciate God and to have faith in all his ways and to serve him gladly.  Instead, they made sure to tithe from their cumin seeds while behaving like a bunch of heathens - indistinguishable from the nations around them.  The question answered in so many words.  And then when clarity came - when the purpose was unveiled for all to see, and especially for the seed of Abraham to see - they were so far removed in understanding the law they lived by that they "stumbled" over its fulfillment.  They just flat missed it.

God can hold us accountable for the things we do wrong because He is a qualified judge.  Maybe He set the rules up that way so we had to fail - and thus He proves to us that He is right to condemn us because we could never have gotten it right on our own anyway.  

(2023 - Or so we would realize that we need Him!  If it had been so easy to be sinless that we could do it without effort, we would never have realized our need for God, nor understood his plan for redemption.  No struggle, no need, no purpose.  All these go together.  If there is no dragon to slay you don't need knights.  Everyone can just lay around and get fat.  Why would anyone glorify you and give you an eternity in a place like heaven if you yourself never did anything?  There is no way to EARN heaven, so God made it about faith in HIM to find a way to justify rewarding us with heaven, not for what WE did, but for what HE did.  Again, we are so small that our worst sins can't condemn the elect nor can an exemplary life save those who are not elect!  The saved SHOULD be grateful for the faith that saves them, and the lost SHOULD....No, that cannot be right can it?  That the lost should blame God for NOT saving them?  The first part is God's sovereignty.  The last is man's responsibility.  ALL would go to hell, because all DESERVE hell, but God chooses some to save FROM hell.  This last is where you start.  Left to themselves, all men would choose sin, as Adam proved in paradise.  He had the best chance he could possibly have, and he chose sin.  The only way around that would have been for Adam to have no choice at all.  To be constrained in his actions and so be a righteous robot.  Is it then a greater thing for God to create a perfectly righteous robot, or to create a thinking deciding creature that CHOOSES to do right, as the God in whose image he is created defines right?)  Yes.  This God is far greater than that God would have been.

And the fundamental truth is that our works are not determinative anyway, only faith matters, only faith ever mattered.  Our sins don't condemn us because Christ paid the price for those sins.  Our sins are proof that we need God's salvation, and encourage us to seek that salvation, through faith.  God condemns us for our sins, but it is our lack of faith that sends us to hell.  Sins are to learn from, sins are for our instruction.  It is for faith or lack of it that He holds us accountable....
But we don't have faith either without Him blessing us with belief.  
It's a hard concept, and I am still not satisfied with the explanation as I can work it out.

2022 - It is fair for God to hold us accountable for the things we do wrong, even if we say that His determinative will was ultimately responsible for our actions, because he also sent Jesus to reconcile, to justify us despite those sins.  Since Christ paid in full for all those things, those things do not condemn us.  Not having faith, not acknowledging the sacrifice made on our behalf by the Son of the One who decides all things, is what condemns us.  Playing word games and making decisions that are wrong while refusing to take responsibility for those decisions is not faith.  Faith is what matters, and it is all that matters.  

2023 - As I read Chapter 9, it occurs to me that I need to stop struggling with the Bill Burr question, at least I need to stop trying to find an answer for it that would make sense to Bill Burr.  His very question means he isn't looking for the answer.  The Bible, here in Romans 9, gives the answer:  
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? [Rom 9:20-24 ESV].
Burr elevates himself wrongly by thinking himself worthy to even ask the question!  Just like in those last chapters of Job where God says "Were you there???  Did I need your input???  Only My equal has any right to question me!!!  From now on, I'll just let it lay right there.  If it is wrong to ask it, it is equally presumptuous to explain it.  No matter which side of the argument you are on, you are talking about things the human mind can never comprehend.

Chapter 10
Paul wants his people to be saved, he recognizes the zeal for God, and he recognizes the ignorance of God.  They seek through the law to establish their own righteousness (previous verses) when God has already done that for them through Christ.

2021 - These two verses:
3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. [Rom 10:3-4 ESV]  Even more detail about the stumbling.  Israel didn't realize that the Law was there as part of God's plan to impute righteousness to them through the perfection of His Son.    They saw it as a way to cut God out of the "judgement business" entirely, and to make themselves whole by their own ability to keep the letter of the contract.  And they were so focused on "doing for themselves" that they just failed to recognize that Jesus was God's way of "consummating the contract of the Law".  The Law was never really about them, it was about God doing all the work since God makes all the rules..

6 But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); [Rom 10:6-8 ESV]

Never understood this quotation before.  Always thought it was about Jesus' triumph over sin and death and him going down to hell to proclaim his victory to them and to heaven in celebration with God's angels.  Seems all wrong now, in light of the MSB note.
What this is saying is that salvation is not some big journey and quest all around the universe - to heaven and back and to hell and back.  It isn't that hard.  You don't have to search far and wide.  In fact, the answer is right inside your own soul.  Faith is all you need, right where you sit or stand or walk.  And remember that this quotation is from Dt. 30:12, 13.  It goes that far back.  It was always just faith.

He concludes with this verse...and then builds on it still higher:
13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Rom 10:13 ESV]
Next who asks "How can they call on Him...."

So the question seems to be that it is unreasonable to expect the lost to realize that they need faith in Jesus if no one has told them, no one has been sent, no one has preached the gospel to them.  How can these be condemned for a lack of faith in someone they have no inkling about?  How is this ok?

In vs 18, Paul quotes Psa. 19:4 to show that even David realized that God's revelation of Himself had reached the whole world.  Here is the quote:
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." [Rom 10:18 ESV]  There is that Psalm that says "The heavens declare the glory of God..."  Somehow, this realization of God's hand in all that is may be construed by God as faith in His Son, and so none are ever condemned without opportunity first to believe.  I think that's the inescapable conclusion here.

2023 - I think I have this right.  Paul told them already that they have no right to question God's condemnation of the sinners that he created.  Even though God CAN condemn without even offering salvation, Paul now says it is not and has never been that way.  We go back to Psalms where the heavens declare.  Paul is surely saying right here that all have opportunity.  Either God accepts this "unfocused realization of his existence" as saving faith, or he in fact reveals his presence to those whom he has chosen.  I think this means there was never a time when faith was not counted as righteousness, even without the details.  This is my proof text for that.  At the same time though, Paul is making a huge case for missionary work.  Perhaps the point is that if the gospel is preached, there is a higher probability of salvation.  Maybe direct revelation is a rare thing, for a very few whom God chooses to show that NONE is left without a chance, but that only a few come this way.  And God can do that if he wants.

It seems, in hindsight, like these three chapters - and maybe even some before this - address the hardest questions that man has yet come up with to protest God's universal condemnation, to deny the total depravity concept.  Paul spent time establishing that all have sinned...and then to establish the right of the potter over the clay.  Sometimes, many times, this right is difficult to swallow.  One rebels at being in total subjection to ANY authority, even God Almighty.  But this is what the Bible says, and it is plainly revealed and understandable in this book.

Chapter 11
Paul discusses the current standing of Israel before God - as His chosen people, and as a nation.
Paul asks rhetorically if God has rejected Israel?  Of course not.  Paul uses himself as an example.  He is of Israel in every way, and he is preaching the gospel, and saved by grace.  Then he quotes Ezekiel where God says even though it seems all Israel has been rejected, He has reserved 7,000.  And in Paul's day, this is also true, there is a remnant saved not by works (Law) but by grace.  In our day too this is so.

However, for most of Israel, there is a "hardening" in effect.  An inability to see the truth of the gospel.  This is God's wrath for the sins of Manassah, and then for their rejection of His Son.  Their tickets are invalidated.  They will not get in.  What an awful fate, but the fate also of any who die without Christ.  There will be no entry to heaven for those who die in their sins.

2021 -
8 as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." [Rom 11:8 ESV]
vss 7-10 make it very clear that Israel is under a God-ordained "stupor" (the ESV word) such that they cannot comprehend grace - it's meaning, it's reason, it's person.  It is not about intelligence, or familiarity with the word, or anything like that.  They are as capable as Gentiles when it comes to the intellect.  But the "connecting circuits" between Law and Grace are not there.  They are shorted out.  For the most part, then, Israel is "stuck" under the Law.  No matter what you say or how you say it to someone like this, they will not understand because God won't let them understand.  Such a  terrible situation.  And it is the same for all the non-elect.  If God would blind his chosen people, why would he not blind the Gentiles?  Perhaps this is the reason we should support Israel despite their problems.  Out of pity for a whole people blinded to God's gift of grace.  How can we not feel bad for them?  We complain and whine that there is no justice in this world, but look at Israel.  Look at the justice heaped on them for century upon century because of their idolatry and rejection of God.  Millions have died in their sins with never a real chance to accept.  There is justice in this world, too, and for my part, I would rather just rest on grace, thank you.  I do not want justice for myself in this world, I want God's grace.  If I want that for me, isn't it only right to want it also for "the other side"?  Shouldn't I want grace for Biden and Pelosi and that whole lot if grace is what I choose for myself?  Maybe the right way to pray is to ask for grace for the lost, both friend and enemy  - NO MATTER who they might be, and add this prayer to it - 31 If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner! [Pro 11:31 ESV].

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. [Rom 11:11 ESV]
The "stumble" was the rejection of Jesus as Messiah.  Even though they messed this up, they are not forever fallen, forever under wrath.  In fact, this was inevitable, required to fulfill the prophecies about how Jesus would die and who would be responsible, and required to open the gospel to the Gentiles - as part of God's wrath against Israel, they lose the exclusivity and favoritism that they had always boasted of.  They are now just like everyone else.  The further purpose of all this is to provoke Israel's jealousy in that Gentiles now have what was once only theirs, and they don't have it at all anymore.  In the last days, it is this realization that God will use to bring the Jews to Jesus in great numbers.  But until the age of the Gentiles is over, they are mostly blind.

This verse makes it very clear that Paul's audience has shifted somewhat:
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. [Rom 11:13-14 ESV]
Paul is telling the Gentiles that he is wielding God's own plan for the Jews to try and win some of them by the level of success he has with Gentile conversions.  The numbers are what makes the Jews jealous....Paul is "giving it all away to the unworthy".

And this verse, admonishing Gentiles not to get boastful about their own place in the whole scheme of things:
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. [Rom 11:18 ESV]

This dire warning to the Gentiles:
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. [Rom 11:21 ESV]
God blinded the natural branches.  If the Gentiles - as a whole - get to the point of rejecting God as the Jews have - God will cut the Gentiles off just as severely as he did the Jews.  Is this the trigger that will usher in the Tribulation?   The great "falling away" will be a falling away of the Gentile nations of the world, with the result that God hardens Gentiles then even as he opens the eyes and hearts of the Jews.  It will flip flop yet again.  That is why the conversions during the tirbulation will mostly, almost exclusively, be the Jews.  With the Gentiles hardened, and Gentiles aren't even God's chosen but just people who got lucky when the chosen messed up, they will refuse to convert even in light of the escalating judgements God sends on the world.  They will not convert, and will receive the stored up wrath of God against the world even as He saves the Jews who are in it.  The church, made up almost exclusively of saved believing Gentiles, will be raptured out somewhere near the beginning of this time period, and very few more will be saved.

Don't believe it can happen this way?  This verse:
24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. [Rom 11:24 ESV]

This needs to be on the website.  First the verse about hardening, then verse 11 showing our entre' and the reasons for it, and then the warning of what is going to come.  I don't think it will work on FB, but it will on the website.

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." [Rom 11:26-27 ESV]
This is about the Millennial.  The Deliverer in Zion is Jesus in the Millennial reign, and the covenant is the one that says "I will put my law in their hearts, and they won't need to be taught, and their stony  (hardened) hearts will turn to flesh.  This seems to corroborate the interpretation above.  The Gentiles will be hardened for the tribulation, and the Jews will come in great numbers and populate Jerusalem in the Millennial, since God will have saved them out of tribulation by hiding them in the desert.

Wow!  The Bible is a spectacular book.  Who could ever doubt its source?

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. [Rom 11:29 ESV]
This verse is NOT about perseverance of the saints per se.  This verse is about God's promises to Israel ultimately being fulfilled.  They are His chosen people.  He will be their God and they will be His people.  This is irrecocable.

32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. [Rom 11:32 ESV]
The Jews disobedient that the Gentiles can be saved.  The Gentiles disobedient so that the Jews can be grafted back in.  Each is "assigned" a period of disobedience deserving of God's wrath so that the other might be prompted to repentance.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! [Rom 11:33 ESV]
This is what I tried to say above, starting with "Wow!".  Paul says it a lot better.

Chapter 12
At the end of the extended revelation of mystery in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 starts with "Therefore...":
1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. [Rom 12:1 ESV]
Our "correct" reaction to what God is doing in the world, in history, in His plan.  How can one not be humbled completely in the light of this knowledge.
2021 - And also, Paul is pointing again to his original point. If we are part of this, in our bodies, then it is NOT for us to indulge and compartmentalize the things of the body from the things of the Spirit.  Our bodies are to be holy, what we do in them is to be  holy.  Because we are so unworthy to occupy this place grafted into the "cultivated" olive tree that we dare not corrupt our position.
2022 - It is also a tie to the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law.  Those sacrifices were external and physical.  The New Covenant is a spiritual, internal covenant.  But it requires sacrifice still, and that sacrifice is our own bodies - corrupt and insufficient just as bull and goats were insufficient - and live in the Spirit and not in the physical.  This is why he puts it this way.

This verse:
3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. [Rom 12:3 ESV]
In the context of what came just before, this is about our pride, but about knowing our place in God's plan.  We are wild olives grafted in, NOT the chosen of God.  The Jewish Christians in Rome were the remnant God was saving to continue with His promise until the chosen time to save the whole nation.  These few are saved, but how many of their brethren are doomed to perish because of the hardening, and they have individually done NOTHING to be the ones chosen for heaven.  Do not be proud of yourself!

2022 - Does this also say that not everyone can be Billy Graham, and ought not to try.  That what we ought to do is find our place, our role, our gifts, and do the things that God puts in front of us to do.  MSB seems to say the same thing.  We are each gifted in the exact proportion required to carry out the roles assigned to us by God - and I would add in service to the church.

Paul goes from here to Spiritual gifts, to be used humbly by each person according to what God has given him:
4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. [Rom 12:4-8 ESV]

How should we live?  Paul has a list.  A very long list that runs to the end of the chapter.  Still, it is very worth copying in entirely:
9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. [Rom 12:9-21 ESV]
2021 - This needs to be copied and pasted into the note on "How are we to live", if it isn't there already.  Comparing each of these lists - all written by Paul I believe - would make a good study.

MSB note organizes these characteristics of the Spirit filled life under four headings:
1) Personal duties.  vs. 9
2) Family duties, vs. 10-13
3) Duties to others, vs. 14-16
4) Duties to those who consider us enemies, vs. 17-21

Chapter 13
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [Rom 13:1-2 ESV]
Give up your guns, pay your taxes to a government that promotes abortion and atheism...they are there because God put them there.  We are to be examples of submission, according to this verse, not examples of rebellion.  Oppose what you want to oppose so long as you are not breaking the law.  If the law goes against you, obey the law.  There's no getting around this.  If you don't like the government, pray for God to change it.  Vote to change it.  But do it in submission, within the law.

MSB note says the Greek word used here for "subject" was used for the absolute obedience a soldier owed to his commanding officer.  There was only one exception, and that was if the order was in direct opposition to the word.  If the government orders you to abort your baby, you can say no.  Like that.

Beginning in 12:9, Paul begins to talk about Christian behavior.  First there is the long list, itemized in the text and summarized above into four categories.  Then he turns to the government.  This letter is to those living in Rome, which was not a great place for Christians at this time.  Yet they were living in the seat of what was essentially the "world government" of that day.  The government was very corrupt, very anti-Christian, very power-oriented.  But Paul told them to submit without hesitation to that government in non-Biblical matters, without exception.

2022 - This verse:
7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. [Rom 13:7 ESV].  
Look at how far Paul goes with this.  He doesn't say pay taxes if they are fair, but pay them if you owe them.  Revenue is translated custom in the KJV, and "fees" in the NLT.  Then the last two - paying respect and honor where it is due.  Surely Paul means that we are to respect authority - respect the position - even if we don't much care for the person.  Paul was writing this to the Christians in Rome in about AD 56.  Nero became emperor in AD 54, and I see no way around the fact that Paul is saying Nero should be respected and honored BECAUSE he is emperor.  Just look back to vs 2 in this same chapter:  2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [Rom 13:2 ESV].  God put Nero in office as surely as he put Trump and t hen Biden in office.  Doesn't this mean that sharing cartoons or memes derogatory to either of them "will incur judgment"?  If we are Christians, we need to stop behaving as if we have a pass to ignore this one.  We don't!  And then look how Paul ends this chapter.  Love your neighbor.  He says to focus on that.  I think he is redirecting the Roman Christians from Nero bashing to neighbor helping.  The world changes from the neighborhood to the statehouse, NOT the other way around!
Possible FB post...but that last needs rewording.

Then beginning in 13:8, he says to love your neighbor, as a summary instruction for the last five commandments.  If you love your neighbor, then you fulfill the law.

Paul closes the chapter by imparting a sense of urgency to these instructions, noting that things of the flesh are transient and with salvation (rapture) imminent, there is no time for those things.

This is the last verse of the chapter:
14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. [Rom 13:14 ESV]
Back to the theme - the theme of the book of Romans, but to my mind, a theme pushed to the front of Paul's thinking by the circumstances in the place from which he wrote.  The Corinthians were carnal.  They were about the flesh.  And for that reason, Paul wants to preempt any incursion of this debasing philosophy in the church at Rome.

(((2021 - So...a FB post on 2/4 about blinded Israel as an explanation for blinded people.  Then, Rom. 12:14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 as a way to get along in the world despite mistreatment, persecution, rancor towards us.  And then Rom 13:1-7, Do what the law requires no matter who represents the law!!!  Is it a coincidence that all these things are lined up this way???)))

​

Chapter 14
Vss 1-4 are about NOT judging each other over what we eat...within the church.  So though we are to judge others in the church for sin, we are not to proscribe every little part of their life by our own rules.  There are only certain "infractions" that are to be judged.  How do we know what those are, and know what is NOT included?  
MSB notes are helpful, but not definitive.  Romans is written to the Jewish Christians in Rome.  But there were Gentiles in that church, and there were synagogues in Rome.  In those synagogues, the Jews still held strictly to the dietary requirements of the Mosaic Law.  It was from this background of strict adherence to the law that the Jewish Christians came.  The Gentiles in this same church had come from worshiping idols.  The meat sacrificed to idols was then sold in meat markets for cheap rates - easily affordable meat.  New, or immature believers were not yet confident enough in the freedom of the New Covenant to just "discard" a lifetime of training in what to eat.  It still seemed wrong to them to eat some things.  Likewise, the Gentiles did not want to "be part of" the idol that the meat was sacrificed to - as Paul describes in Corinthians.  They did not yet have the freedom of conscience to realize that idols were just wood and stone.  They had vestiges of believing that these idols had power, and that eating meat sacrificed to them was to acknowledge their power - and to support their temples monetarily.  Paul makes it clear that these things - violating the dietary laws and eating sacrificed meat - are not sins.  God has released Israel from the old Law, as we see with Peter's vision of the unclean beasts - we know that nothing is unclean any more.  However, trying to teach these young believers to disregard what their conscience is telling them about these things promotes a dangerous precedent.  Ignoring conscience will quickly get you into trouble.  So Paul says the mature believers are to "honor" the consciences of the immature in matters like this.  I am sure the idea is to continue teaching them so that as mature Christians, they too realize the freedom they have in Christ.  Be patient and loving, teaching them what they need to know, not pushing them too quickly, letting God work in them to sanctify them.  

These actual verses:
2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. [Rom 14:2-3 ESV]  I note that this seems to imply that some were vegetarian for religious reasons.  If it is just a matter of preference and not conscience, then it isn't what we are talking about.

I rebel at women wearing provocative clothing to church.  Dresses too short, pants too tight.  Is this immature of me?  Well it is certainly not that these women think wearing non-provocative clothing is a sin and so should be "allowed" to do something that is unnecessary, such that asking them to let the hem down would be to violate their conscience toward God.  I might be immature not to like it, but this passage does not prohibit me from discouraging it.  It does not weaken their faith surely.  

Raising of hands, musical instruments....Is that about maturity?  Or just about tradition?  I don't think either one is in the law.  The law didn't say play music so when it went away it became ok not to play music.  The Law required neither that we raise hands in praise or that we not.  Some Psalms talk about it but not as "commands" from God.  But these are somewhat different, somewhat "Gentile".  We grow comfortable with what we grow up with.  For me to raise my hands during singing would feel awkward to me.  I don't feel awkward for other people when they do it though.  Musical instruments don't bother me at all - they are within my "tradition of acceptance".  But not having one doesn't feel "wrong" to me.  It feels wrong if you think having an instrument is a sin.  They think it is a sin to play music, though there is nothing in the Law or in the NT that proscribes it.  This is about tradition.

And tradition has its place, but tradition NEVER gets to over ride scripture.  There are a LOT of things scripture does not mention that we still do, and don't have a problem with.  Why is music bad?  Because in the early church, I think we have evidence that they didn't play music.  Augustine addresses this as a controversy in his own time - whether to play music or not.  

So the "test", first and foremost, is whether the command for a certain behavior is in the Law which is now moot, is elsewhere in scripture - especially in the NT, or whether it is based solely on tradition.  If the first or the third, we need to be mature about it.  If the second, we need to follow the teaching of the apostles.

This verse also:
4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. [Rom 14:4 ESV]  The Master is God.  If we judge another church member, we are judging God's servant for Him.  That would put us in way over our heads.  In matters like this.  We are still to judge matters of sin...maybe that's the way to put all this.  We are to judge sin but not conscience.  If you think homosexuals should get marriage, it does not matter how strongly your conscience tells you this is right, because it is against the teaching of scripture, and is still sin, and that sort of thing we ARE to judge.  But Saturday church vs Sunday church?  There is no scripture.  Piano vs a cappella?  No commandment.

Paul next adds the "chosen day of worship" to eating.  As long as you worship when you do to honor God, you are fine to do that.  Tuesday's are ok if that's what your conscience tells you to do.  

2022 - I was drawn this year to vs 4:
4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. [Rom 14:4 ESV].  I thought it would be a good post.  If a woman is wearing her dress shorter than you think is ok, who are you to judge the servant of another.  That's where I thought I was going.  But that is not the right way to look at it.  The Bible does speak out against immodest dress.  The Bible prohibits judging those without, but we will judge angels so surely we can judge each other.  So here is the key to this problem, and it is something I considered after Sunday School last week.  If you see someone who's dress is just plain too short - and this happens pretty much every Sunday - your first thought shouldn't be "what a slut".  First question should be "Is she a Christian?"  I think that before you start criticizing other people AT CHURCH you need to know who you're talking about.  If that person is unsaved, you may NOT judge them.  If you tell a stranger her dress is too short, and she's unsaved and searching, you will likely drive her away from salvation forever, and that soul is and ought to be charged to your ignorance.  You really want someone to go to hell because they didn't realize their dress was too short for church?  You cannot treat such people as evil sluts trying their best to introduce impure thoughts at church.  Not unless you know them, and you know what kind of person they are.  What you ought to do instead is befriend them, find out about them, pray for them unceasingly, and witness to them.  Set an example that they will WANT TO EMULATE, don't correct them in a way that runs them off.  I believe there is a line.  I believe there is clothing - or lack of it - that should not be tolerated.  But it is not up to the rank and file to decide where that is.  That is a preacher and deacon decision.  And even there, we need to know who we are talking to.  
2022 - In this verse, Paul is clearly talking to Christians about Christians.  He is talking about those who "abstain" or "refrain" because of conscience, he is not talking about Christians who are practicing works righteousness.  Thinking that abstaining from meat offered to idols will count towards your points to get into heaven is clearly wrong and if that is the reason, it needs to be addressed.  But if it is a matter of conscience, that should be left alone.  For me, to drink is sin.  But for the visitor from Germany, beer is ubiquitous.  It is water to them.  They should not criticize me, nor I them.  
2022 - Vs 6:
6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. [Rom 14:6 ESV].  It is not possible for me to drink to honor the Lord.  Drinking for me always compromises.  I don't believe it is sin for most people.  But for me, it is.  For me, God is honored by my drinking.  That is how I'm put together, and it ought not be criticized.  But that is a two way street!

Vss 10-12....We shall all stand before the judgement seat....Only a few days ago I decided that the saved will not have their sins read out, and have to answer for them.  Only the lost will suffer this humiliation and public failure.  So what do I do with this passage?  Here, as in 1 Cor 3:13-15, believers will answer for the decisions they made - whether they were the best, or whether they were half-hearted.  Whether we "took up the cross" or shirked our testimony.  We will be judged like those servants given some to invest.  How did we do with the treasure we were given?  The judging will be about our reward, because our eternity is already determined.  Did we spend our time on things of eternal value or on things of only worldly value.  MSB says we will not be judged for sin, because the consequences for that were paid in the past.

2022 - ho bema ho Theos.  This verse is part of the same passage.  There's been no re-direction to the lost.  The saved will stand before God.  It is possible that Paul is using Theos and Christos interchangeably here.  Basis for that is the quote, which ties so very well to every knee bowing to Jesus.  But that quote is also from Isaiah, and was clearly, at THAT time, about the Father.  And vs 12 sort of hammers it home.  An account of himself to God.  I believe the bema judgment will occur immediately post-rapture, and that God will be on the throne and Jesus will be our advocate.  We will all bow to Theos at that judgment.  Only Christians will be there.  I think 12 makes it clear that this is a judgment where God pronounces judgment.  I think it will go along the lines of "You did all this, committed all these sins", and Jesus will say "I have already served the sentence for those sins", and God will say "Innocent, come on in!".  
So, WHO IS ADDRESSED IN 2COR 5:10, where it talks about ho bema ho Christos?
Here is that verse:
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. [2Co 5:10 ESV].  I put this as the pre-millennial judgment, by Christ, of those living at that time.  Some go into the Millennial with Christ, the rest are sent on to hell.  I think this is the sheep and goat - it is the same judgment as the pre-millennial.  Those who were "Christian" during tgt come on in, those who were not, go on to hell.  And it is Christ who is on this throne, thus, ho bema ho christos.
[Mat 25:31 ESV] "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[Mat 25:32 ESV] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
[Mat 25:33 ESV] And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
MSB says this is the pre-Millennial judgment, not the Great White Throne.  That is, MSB makes the sheep and goat judgment and the pre-Millennial judgment one and the same.  How is this time set?  We need to look at any references to Jesus coming in glory, and we need to see when exactly he comes with his angels.  We need verses for that to nail down this judgment as pre-Millennial.  That is one task.  
Moving on through the MSB note to Mat 25:31, it says those subject to this judgment seem to be only those who are alive at his coming.  These, then, would be the survivors of Great Tribulation.  All alive, and only the living judged.  Divided into sheep and goats.   What happens to the sheep?
[Mat 25:34 ESV] Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
They take their places in the Millennial kingdom.  There is every implication that they will have responsibilities there.  
What happens to the goats?
[Mat 25:41 ESV] "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
[Mat 25:46 ESV] And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

This verse concludes it:
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. [Rom 14:13 ESV]
The judgement referred to is whether these things done in the flesh - evaluated by the one who is master of us all and not by each other - were done to honor God or not.  If not, they are not rewarded.  If so, then they are, and only God will judge which was the case.  So we do not judge on matters of tradition or  that are not spoken to in Scripture apart from the Law.

2022 - How can you argue with this verse?:
14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. [Rom 14:14 ESV].  There is NOTHING unclean.  It is about how we think about what we are doing.  And we need to be very careful before condemning anyone else for what THEY are doing, since we cannot know how they are thinking about it!

If we do things that make other believers feel bad for us, if we grieve them by our actions, then we should adjust our actions according to those who witness them.  So mature Jewish Christians could have dinner together and eat ham.  If the whole Sunday school class was there, including some very new converts from Judaism, then serve chicken instead.  Consider who will be there!  Our freedom in Christ should never "keep new believers at a distance".  Our actions should never make them doubt their commitment.  Most of all, our behavior should never ever be to indulge in sin because we won't go to hell for it.  

It seems that in this chapter, Paul is talking about day to day matters - and indeed he is - in a general way.  He hasn't received a report that the Romans are having troubles with these matters, BUT, he is seeing the kind of trouble that can arise from them there in the church at Corinth.  It is the Corinthian problems that he is instructing Rome about so that they don't fall into the same problems.  That's what "franchises" do.  What one franchise encounters is bumped up as instruction for all.  
14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. [Rom 14:14 ESV]  This verse seems to make sin a "relative" idea.  Seems to say that the more mature you are the more you can do and it won't be sin.  But this isn't what it is about.  Sin is sin is sin, past, present and future.  This is about our conscience making things into sin when they are really not.  There is NO implication here that if you are a mature enough Christian, adultery is no longer a sin.  In Corinth, they were looking at it that way...or at least saying that sins of the body did not affect the spirit at all.  The bottom line was the same.  They were committing sins and calling it ok.  Paul, I think, knows that the Holy Spirit works in and through our conscience to keep us from sin, and he is saying that we ought not oppose the conscience that warns others of their sin.  Leave it to the Holy Spirit to give them freedom when they are mature enough for freedom - when tradition or history carry less weight with them than the Word.  But don't  "mess around" with de-sensitizing someone else's conscience.

I note that in vs 21 "drink wine" is one of those things we ought not do if there are those present who cannot in good conscience participate.  It is stated as if for a mature Christian, drinking wine with a clear conscience would work.  But for me, tradition still reigns, telling me alcohol is sin, so for me to drink - in my immaturity - does not honor God, and so I SHOULD NOT DRINK.  Might be different for Lutherans, Germans, etc. with a tradition of alcohol consumption.  Their conscience, not mine, and God's eventual judgement, is what matters.  And I think that is what is being clearly stated by these verses:
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. [Rom 14:22-23 ESV]

One last thought on this chapter...this seems to be an open letter to the church at Rome, not a letter intended for the leadership only, or the "mature" only.  So the immature Christians will read this and see that if they don't like eating meat sacrificed to idols, that's ok, but when they are more mature they will see it is not a problem.  How is putting this in the letter not doing the very same thing that Paul is telling them not to do?  He has to assume that all will read the letter.  So...his purpose is to prevent division and ill will over these things by helping all to understand the underlying principles.  I would think immature Christians, upon reading this, would aspire to grow in truth and spirit - but never ever in violation of what their own conscience tells them.  And because mature Christians read and follow these guidelines, the church will be a "safe place" for new Christians.  They won't be expected to run a marathon the first day, but will be helped, trained, brought along, in full fellowship and without having their training over done.

2021-2, Is it for us to tell a woman her dress is too short for church?  Only God knows if she is doing it to honor him or to honor herself, so only He can judge.   Perhaps the right thing is to point out this chapter, and inform her that her clothing choices may be causing problems with others about how far their freedom in Christ lets them go.  She may see the dress as fine, but others may see it as sin for them.  If, upon having this made clear to her, she continues, then she is revealing not her maturity but her immaturity.  But even then...shouldn't mature Christians be above such fleshly temptations?
Next day 2021-2, Perhaps the key is that if mature Christians are wearing their dresses too short and drinking wine with dinner, for them, realizing their freedom and doing what they do in celebration of God, then it is ok, unless it is a stumbling block for me the less mature.  But baby Christians are exercising the wrong kind of freedom when they wear those short dresses.  They are being Corinthian, not mature.  In either case, interestingly, short dresses should not be seen at church.

2022 - How can this question be so hard?  I think it is most likely that Paul is not talking here about short dresses, and trying to make this passage apply to short dresses just heaps another layer of confusion on that subject while missing the point of what the passage is really about anyway.  This chapter is about what some Christians choose NOT to do, what young Christians choose not to do, and how mature Christians out to accommodate matters of conscience in new Christians.  It also gives some comfort to new Christians who see older Christians doing things that still seem wrong to the new Christians.  They ought not worry, necessarily, that the older Christians are not Christians at all, but are exercising their freedom in the New Covenant.  But those on both sides of this discussion are pre-supposed to ALL be saved Christian believers.

Chapter 15
2022 - This verse, that's slipped by me every time before:
1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. [Rom 15:1 ESV]
Think of the implications...getting twisted off every Sunday because weaker Christians are irreverent...or too reverent.  Upset about how the weaker Christians take the best parking spots and you have to walk further?  Angry because the young wives wear their dresses too short up on the stage?  Hmmm...doesn't that mean you are not behaving as a strong, mature Christian ought to behave?  We have an OBLIGATION to to overlook these things.  This verse can be used for self-evaluation.  If we truly ARE strong, then we bear.  If not, we bitch.
Possible FB post.

A good verse for why we have the Bible:
4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. [Rom 15:4 ESV]  No intimation of additional written instruction to come.  This was not a quote from the OT, but Paul's own evaluation.

Vss 8-13 quote many OT scriptures saying that the Gentiles will be included in the Kingdom.  2 Samuel, Deu, Psalms, and Isaiah are all quoted and show that the Gentiles are included in God's plans.  Again, remember that most of the church in Rome was made up of converted Jews.  Almost certainly the leadership positions were occupied by former Jews.  Paul is making sure they do not "divide" the church along those lines.  

Paul then characterizes his own life's work as a ministry to the Gentiles, and not to those who have already heard, but to those in remote areas - distant at least - where Jesus' name has not been preached.  He is a missionary to the un-reached, not a shepherd of the already saved.  

2022 - This verse:
15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God [Rom 15:15 ESV].  Surely this verse says that the church in Rome did have a few problems, though the problems are not so intense as to threaten that church.  But Paul writes to remind, and I think to preempt the kind of problems he's seeing in Corinth.  Rome, like any other church, like every other church, did have some internal problems.  That's because it had people in it.
Vss 16-17 seem to indicate that the Jews in the Roman church were treating the Gentiles as lesser Christians.  This would of course cause some problems.  Maybe that is even what Paul meant by "bearing with the failings of the weak".  The Gentiles did not know the OT like the Jews did.  They simply could not be as mature without a lot of work and study.  But that doesn't mean they ought to be treated poorly.  That is likely the real point of vss 5, 6, where full unity is encouraged, rather than "us and them".

Paul says this missionary work is what has kept him from visiting Rome all this time.  But now, having preached to just about everywhere he can, he has some freedom to come and see them - though on his way to another un-reached Gentile area in Spain.

2021-2, For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.
Romans 15:26 ESV
It was for the church to help the poor among the saints.  Not to hand out meals to the poor in the community at large as an outreach program.  Are there no needs among the body?  A d If you are outside and in need, come in and begin to grow in Christ and be fed spiritually AND physically.  Perhaps that is why churches no longer have the truly  needy inside?  That, and the lack of willingness to confront sin inside the church, unwillingness to judge our own, and no real discipling of individuals who are making errors.

Vs 27 gives us an ongoing reason to support Jewish believers where ever we can:
27 For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. [Rom 15:27 ESV]

Chapter 15 closes with Paul's "Amen".  This is the end of the doctrinal part of the letter.  The next chapter is headed "Personal Greetings".

Chapter 16
Phoebe is introduced to the Roman church, from Cenchreae.  Apparently she was planning a trip to Rome.

2022 - Well this is liable to get a bit long, but I am going to take the time because I think I will see this again somewhere.  This verse:
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, [Rom 16:1 ESV]
1  I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: [Rom 16:1 KJV]
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. [Rom 16:1 NLT]
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. [Rom 16:1 NIV]
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cen'chre-ae, [Rom 16:1 RSV]
1 But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea; [Rom 16:1 DBY].  Also the YLT
Also, in the ESV, there is a footnote to the word servant that says "Or deaconess".  The Greek word is diakonon (transliterating here), a specific form of diakonos.  In this form the word is accusative singular feminine and Strong's G1249.  It is used 31 times in the KJV, and is translated servant 20 times and minister 8 times.  Only three times do we find it translated "deacon".  First argument of those who prefer deaconess is that the KJV was subject to it's culture, where women were oppressed by men, so it wouldn't even occur to them to translate this correctly.  Ok...but it stayed that way for the first 1800 years of church history.  That's a lot of occasion for this to get corrected if "servant" was the wrong translation.  Second, Romans is written by Paul, and with the other things he says about women in leadership roles, if he had meant that it was ok in all the churches for women to be deacons, he'd have made that clear.  So no, I don't think Paul was making Phoebe a deacon by the use of this word.  
Here is the Strong's definition box:  
διάκονοςdiákonos, dee-ak'-on-os; probably from an obsolete διάκω diákō (to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess):—deacon, minister, servant.  Does technically mean actual?  Does it mean "could be" or "usually" or does it mean "if you want to translate it that way, there's no rule against it".  Does it mean "it very often means deaconess in the Bible" or does it mean "it is possible that they could have meant this, even though it never ever happened in the early church".  This is a stretch to say it could mean deaconess.
Let's look at those three places where it is translated deacon:
1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: [Phl 1:1 ESV].  Deacons is G1249, but is dative plural masculine.  Is there a neutral form?  Or do we have to say that very often in Greek the masculine form is used when both sexes are in view?  Can we find examples of where the masculine form OBVIOUSLY refers to both men and women?  As written here, in ESV, there is not footnote that says "or deacons and deaconesses". There IS a footnote n the ESV saying that deacons could be translated as servants or ministers.  So not necessarily a reference to the "office" of deacon, it could just mean sort of generally everyone there.  Except...it is masculine - diakanos.  
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. [1Ti 3:8 ESV].  So first, I would note that this is the passage in 1Ti where Paul is instructing Timothy as to the qualifications required of those who would serve in the specific office of church deacon.  It is not about those who generally want to wait on tables or deliver food to the poor.  This is the office of deacon, as Paul taught it.  The word used here is diakonos.  Accusative plural masculine.  Further, the adjective semnos is used to modify "diakonos" and is translated "must be MEN" because it to is the masculine form of the word, reinforcing what we have already discussed.
12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. [1Ti 3:12 ESV].  This is a continuation from verse 8.  To say that deacons in this verse includes women is well night impossible.  Husband of one wife simply did not EVER mean that lesbians could be deacons - either the office of deacon or the function of deacon.  The Greek word here is diakonoi, which is the nominative plural masculine form.
That's the only three times this word is translated "deacon".  I would argue that in the two verses from 1Ti, there is just no doubt at all that it is about the OFFICE of deacon and not the "function" of deacon.  The use of semnos as an adjective hammers it on home.  In Phil 1.1 it is less clear, but since overseers - elders - was an office, a good case - though not airtight - can be made that this use also is about the office.  
Lastly, since I've spent a full hour now on this one verse, I would point out that the translations that use either deacon, deaconess, or minister in this verse, are NOT literal translations, nor do they pretend to be.  NIV and NLT are interpretations that purport to give us in English what the writer 2000 years ago that they never met actually MEANT by his choice of words.  They are sometimes ambiguous as to "word" but in this case at least, the are not AT ALL ambiguous as to gender.
Conclusion:  To me, the office of deacon is restricted to men only.  The ESV translation recognizes this, and in Rom 16.1 chooses the English word servant, because Phoebe does NOT hold the office of deacon...or deaconess.  As they do elsewhere with their constant footnote about "or brothers and sisters", ESV gives a not to feminism and/or I guess you call it "inclusiveness" by putting in a footnote that says we really don't know what Paul meant, because we cannot read his mind.  
The ONLY argument against translating this servant instead of deaconess would be a demonstration of the multiple times in the Greek texts of the NT where the masculine form of a noun is used to mean BOTH male and female.  There may be some, but I am unaware of them.  A good argument that they don't exist is that same practice in the ESV of footnoting "brothers and sisters".  Had Paul meant brothers and sisters, Greek provides a specific word for each, JUST AS ENGLISH DOES.  If he didn't want to go to the trouble of using two words, he could have said "ALL" or "EVERYONE".  But he did not!
One more possibility - Phoebe is called a patron:
STRONG'S G4368:                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
προστάτις, προστατιδος, ἡ (feminine of the noun προστάτης, from προΐστημι);
a. properly, a woman set over others.
b.a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources (A. V. succourer): Romans 16:2; cf. Passow on the word and under προστάτης at the end; (Schürer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, as above with (Leip. 1879), p. 31; Heinrici, Die Christengemeinde Korinths, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. for 1876, p. 517f).
So...this too is about the things she did, the service she provided - from her own resources - which is NOT something required of the OFFICE of deacon.
Not once through vs 16 do we see anyone given a "title".  No one else in the list is called a deacon, a prophet, a preacher.  But all are praised for their contributions to the church, their service, their faith, their willingness to take risks for the church and for those who serve the church.
 

2022 - Addendum - Here's one for you.  If you say that the Bible is only written like this because it so culturally affected by then current views on the minor role of women, then what do you do with this verse:
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [Gal 4:4 ESV]
or this verse:
9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. [Eph 1:9-10 ESV].
Both of these say that Jesus came at the absolutely perfect time in the history of the world.  If God wanted women in the church to have an expanded and fully equal role in all respects - including leadership and authority - then why didn't He wait until our time, when we are so much more informed as to the equality of women?  Why then, instead of now, when we are so much more enlightened and would not have used such confusing language?
This is the answer to ANY cultural argument.  God could have sent Jesus whenever he chose to do so.  He sent him in the first century AD because that was the BEST time to do so.

Prisca (Priscilla?) and Aquila are next introduced.  The list goes on.  Looks like a lot of these were people Paul had met along the way and who were now in Rome, and part of the church there.

2021-2, I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
Romans 16:17 ESV
2022 - So if you challenge the meaning of diakonon in vs 1, is vs 17 about you?
Simple.  Avoid them.  Give them no place, no forum, don't let them teach.  Don't eat or drink with them, don't go to the gym with them.  We get more detail on this in the Corinthian letters.   Here's the question and the greatest difficulty...who decides if their doctrine is wrong?  Is creating division and obstacles the test?  If so, orthodoxy is to be held onto without fail.  Any teaching that divides - as whether women should preach for example  - is contrary to doctrine.  Not only should the doctrine be shunned but also the one who teaches it.
Possible FB post

​