Romans 2:1-29 (2)
Notes
Transcript
Background
Background
Paul is towards the end of his 25+ year ministry. He wants to get a church to support him in what would be his last missionary journey—to Spain. He’s never been to Rome.
Timeline
AD 33: "Visitors from Rome (both Jews and Converts)” were converted at Pentecost. Acts 2:10
This Jewish/Gentile mix likely went back to become the church in Rome.
~AD 50: Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome. The church in Rome continued among Gentiles.
AD 54: Nero becomes emperor and allows Jews to return to Rome.
AD 56: Paul writes Romans.
AD 57: Paul arrested in Jerusalem. Acts 21:27
The Roman historian Suetonius mentions early Christians and may refer to Jesus Christ in his work Lives of the Twelve Caesars. One passage in the biography of the Emperor Claudius, refers to agitations in the Roman Jewish community and the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius during his reign (AD 41 to AD 54), which may be the expulsion mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2). In this context "Chrestus" is mentioned. Some scholars see this as a likely reference to Jesus, while others see it as referring to another person living in Rome, of whom we have no information.
In Claudius 25 Suetonius refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius and states (in Catharine Edwards' translation):
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
Suetonius goes on to later describe how Nero persecuted Christians in AD 64.
Do we every act contrary to our beliefs? Is that even possible?
Is there a spiritual advantage to being a Jewish Christian?
Can you love Jesus in your heart but not do many good works?
What practical steps you can take to make what you want to be on the inside match the outside?
Now if you call yourself a Jew, and rely on the law, and boast in God, and know his will, and approve the things that are superior, being instructed from the law, and if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light to those in darkness, an instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of the immature, having the embodiment of knowledge and truth in the law—you then, who teach another, don’t you teach yourself? You who preach, “You must not steal”—do you steal? You who say, “You must not commit adultery”—do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written: The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.
Circumcision benefits you if you observe the law, but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if an uncircumcised man keeps the law’s requirements, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who keeps the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, and true circumcision is not something visible in the flesh. On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter. That person’s praise is not from people but from God.
So what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Considerable in every way. First, they were entrusted with the very words of God. What then? If some were unfaithful, will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Absolutely not! Let God be true, even though everyone is a liar, as it is written:
That you may be justified in your words
and triumph when you judge.
But if our unrighteousness highlights God’s righteousness, what are we to say? I am using a human argument: Is God unrighteous to inflict wrath? Absolutely not! Otherwise, how will God judge the world? But if by my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? And why not say, just as some people slanderously claim we say, “Let us do what is evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved!
