Pip:Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the footnotes go six layers deep and the baptismal theology is somehow more soaking wet than you’d expect.
Mara: Scott Stocking has been doing a deep dive into Romans, and what surfaces is a case that baptism and the call to be a living sacrifice are more tightly connected than most readings let on. That’s the territory we’re covering today.
Pip: Let’s start with that connection — baptism as theology, not ceremony.
Mara: The central claim here is that Romans 6 and Romans 12:1 are not two separate ideas — they are one continuous argument, and baptism is the hinge between them.
Pip: And the evidence for that hinge is a single Greek word that shows up five times in Romans 6 and then reappears exactly when Paul says what he means by a living sacrifice.
Mara: Right — the word is paristēmi, translated “offer.” It appears throughout Romans 6 as Paul urges believers to offer themselves to God and then surfaces again in 12:1: “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God — this is your true and proper worship.”
Pip: So the living sacrifice of chapter 12 is not a new instruction — it is a callback to what baptism already accomplished.
Mara: Exactly. And to understand why, you have to follow Paul’s logic from the earlier part of Romans 6. The setup is verses 3 through 5: “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.”
Mara: What that means in practice is that baptism is not primarily a public declaration — it is the moment of union with Christ’s death and resurrection. The believer does not merely symbolize something; they participate in it.
Pip: Which reframes the famous last verse of Romans 6 considerably. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” — usually read as a warning — is actually, on this reading, an affirmation for people who have already come through baptism.
Mara: That is precisely the argument. Because Christ paid the wages of sin on the cross, and because baptism unites the believer with that crucifixion, the verse functions as a confirmation of what has already happened, not a threat about what might.
Pip: The obedience Paul keeps returning to — his stated theme from Romans 1:5 all the way to 16:26 — is not a checklist. It is what life in Christ’s presence actually looks like after baptism.
Mara: And that reading is reinforced in the earlier post on the mystery of immersion, which makes a closely related case: that immersion is “the glue that ties the two pillars of the faith — Christ’s death and his subsequent resurrection — together.” That post works through the benefits linked to each pillar separately, from justification and reconciliation on the death side, to bearing fruit and victory over death on the resurrection side.
Pip: Both posts land in the same place — baptism is not peripheral, not merely a work of the flesh, not optional color commentary on the real theology happening elsewhere.
Mara: The phrase from the immersion post is worth sitting with: immersion is “a near-complete picture of who we are and what we have in Christ.”
Pip: Romans as a unified argument, baptism as the hinge, and the living sacrifice not as a new ask but as a return to the starting point.
Mara: There is more in Romans to surface. We will be back when the next posts land.
Pip:Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the word “therefore” is never just a transition — it’s a theological event horizon.
Mara: Scott Stocking brings us two sermons this episode, both circling the same gravitational center: how Christ’s faithfulness, not just our own, is what justification actually rests on. We move from Romans 5 to the temptation in the desert and back again.
Pip: Let’s start with what Paul is actually arguing in Romans 5 and why the word “faith” might be doing double duty.
Mara: The post works through Romans 5:1–12 as part of a longer Romans study, and the central question it raises is whether “faith” in Paul’s letters refers only to our belief — or also to Christ’s own faithfulness to his mission.
Pip: And the answer, apparently, is both, which changes the weight of the whole argument considerably. The post frames it this way, reading from Romans 1:17: “For in the gospel the Righteousness of God is revealed — from faithfulness into faithfulness, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faithfulness.'”
Mara: What this means in practice is that the “Righteousness of God” Paul invokes isn’t an abstract moral standard — it refers to Jesus himself. Jesus is the Righteousness of God, and his faithfulness to the cross is what makes our justification possible in the first place.
Pip: So when Paul writes “justified through faith” in 5:1 and then pivots to “justified by his blood” in 5:9, he isn’t contradicting himself — he’s showing the two sides of one coin. Christ’s faithfulness is the foundation; our trust is the response.
Mara: The post also tracks a structural shift in Romans that’s easy to miss as a casual reader. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul uses words for faith or faithfulness 27 times and words for life only twice. In chapters 5 through 8, those numbers nearly reverse — 25 occurrences of life and live, and only 2 for faith.
Pip: That’s a deliberate rhetorical gear change, not an accident.
Mara: Exactly — and it lands hardest in verse 8, which the post calls “somewhat profound”: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” No prior cleanup required.
Pip: The historical context sharpens that. Paul is writing to a Roman congregation where Jewish believers had been expelled and were only now returning to find Gentile house churches still thriving — so the unity argument isn’t abstract theology, it’s pastoral triage.
Mara: And perseverance under that pressure is precisely what builds the character and hope Paul describes in verses 3 through 5. That thread connects directly to what Jesus himself modeled when his own faithfulness was put to the test.
Mara: The second sermon takes up Matthew 4:1–11 alongside Romans 5:12–19, and the framing question is pointed: where Adam failed under temptation, what did Jesus actually do differently, and what does that mean for everyone who comes after?
Pip: The post opens with a comparison most sermons wouldn’t lead with — that Satanism is an oxymoron — but it earns the setup, because the whole argument depends on understanding what Satan is actually after.
Mara: The key move comes in Romans 5:19, quoted directly: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
Pip: So the upshot is that Jesus’s obedience isn’t just a moral example — it’s the structural reversal of Adam’s failure. One act of faithful obedience undoes what one act of disobedience broke.
Mara: The post draws a careful parallel: Satan used the same three categories against Jesus in the desert — appetite, spectacle, and power — that he used against Eve in the garden. Jesus refused each one by knowing exactly what God had actually promised, not the distorted version Satan offered.
Pip: And the post makes the point that what made the crucifixion uniquely effective wasn’t only perfect legal obedience to the Law — it was love. Bulls and goats couldn’t love anyone. Jesus could and did.
Mara: Which is why the post lands where it does: believers are “in Christ” in a concrete sense, baptized into his death, freed from the law’s demands, and called to walk in the righteousness he earned and extends to them.
Pip: Two sermons, one through-line — Christ’s faithfulness is prior to ours, and that sequence matters for everything that follows.
Mara: Romans keeps pulling the thread. There’s still the second half of Romans 6 ahead, so this conversation isn’t finished.
Part 1 of the Romans podcast series may be found here.
Pip: Welcome to Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the coffee is hot and the participles are passive — and sometimes that’s the whole point.
Mara: Scott Stocking is our guide this episode, working through Romans with a close eye on the Greek text — what words like pistis and dikaiosyne actually mean, and why the translation choices matter for how we understand salvation.
Pip: Let’s start with the Romans Road and what happens when you read it in the original language.
Pip: The post on Romans 3:23–24 opens a question most readers skip right past: when Paul says we are justified by faith, whose faith is he actually talking about — ours, or Christ’s?
Mara: The post frames it this way: “For all who are being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came through Messiah Jesus sinned and are lacking the glory of God.” That rearrangement of word order is deliberate — the participle dikaioumenoi, meaning “who are being justified,” attaches directly to “all,” making justification an ongoing process, not a completed event.
Pip: So the grammar itself is doing theological work. Being justified is present tense, active right now, not a box you checked at conversion.
Mara: Exactly. And that present-tense framing connects to a comparison with Ephesians 2:8, where the parallel construction swaps “through the redemption in Christ Jesus” for “through faithfulness, and this not from yourselves.” The argument is that the faithfulness in view is Christ’s — his obedience to the cross — not a quantity of belief we have to produce on our own.
Pip: Which dissolves a question that has quietly tormented a lot of Christians: do I have enough faith to be saved? If the faithfulness is Christ’s, the answer is structurally irrelevant to us.
Mara: The post makes that point directly. If salvation rests on our faith, it becomes relative — how much is enough? But if it rests on Christ’s faithfulness, the statement becomes absolute. Our own trust in Jesus is, as the post puts it, “not so much for the purpose of being saved but the result of being saved.”
Pip: That’s a quiet but significant inversion of how the passage usually gets preached.
Mara:The companion piece on pistis across Romans 1–5 develops this at length. It argues that the phrase pisteos Iesou Christou — “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” — in Romans 3:22 is a subjective genitive: Christ is the one being faithful, not merely the object of our faith. The post traces that reading through the whole arc of Romans 1–5, from God’s wrath under the Law in chapters 1 through 3, to Abraham’s faithfulness in chapter 4, to the application in chapter 5.
Mara: The inclusio that brackets the entire letter is telling: the phrase eis hypakoēn pisteōs — “into obedience of faithfulness” — appears in both 1:5 and 16:26, the first and last occurrences of pistis in Romans. That structural frame suggests Paul’s whole argument is about faithful obedience, not faith as a discrete interior event.
Pip: So Romans is less a manual for how to believe and more a demonstration that Christ already did the believing on our behalf — and we walk in the wake of that.
Mara: With the caveat that our own faithfulness still matters — the post is careful to say this doesn’t imply universalism or unconditional security, but rather a call to trust more deeply because God has already demonstrated his reliability. Works, confession, and obedience all follow from that trust.
Pip: From the mechanics of justification to the question of who the righteous one actually is — that thread runs all the way back to Romans 1:17, which is where the deeper argument begins.
Mara: The thread connecting both posts is really one question: what kind of faithfulness is Romans built on, and does the Greek text change the answer?
Pip: Turns out the grammar has opinions. Next time, we’ll see where else those opinions show up.
Pip: Sunday Morning Greek Blog is back, and if you thought Paul’s letter to the Romans was just a greatest-hits playlist of salvation verses, Scott Stocking is here to walk you through the whole road — construction specs included.
Mara: Scott Stocking covers two connected territories this episode: what righteousness actually means in Romans, and how the phrase “obedience of faithfulness” functions as the letter’s spine from opening greeting to closing benediction.
Pip: Let’s start with righteousness — and what it costs to define it carefully.
Mara: The central question in this segment is what Paul means by “the righteousness of God” in Romans 1:17 — and whether it’s something God hands over to believers, or something embodied in a person.
Pip: The answer lands hard. The post sets up Romans 1:17 carefully, then offers this reading: “The righteousness of God then isn’t an object to be given. It is embodied in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the righteousness of God.”
Mara: The upshot is that righteousness isn’t a transaction — it’s a participation. Because Jesus fulfilled every requirement of the law, he alone is called righteous, and believers share in that only by being “in Christ.”
Pip: Which reframes the familiar Romans Road considerably. The post uses a road-construction metaphor that actually earns its keep: righteousness is the substructure — the rebar, the compacted earth, the dowel bars — and Jesus’s faithfulness is the surface we walk on.
Mara: Romans 1:17 gets parsed as “from faithfulness into faithfulness” — Jesus’s perfect obedience to the law moving into his faithfulness unto death on the cross. The post ties that directly to Philippians 2:8: “he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross.”
Pip: So “obedience of faithfulness” in Romans 1:5 isn’t just a theological motto. It points, specifically, to the crucifixion.
Mara: Romans 2 extends this. Paul warns both Jews and Gentiles against hypocrisy — knowing the law isn’t the same as following it. The post notes that circumcision and baptism function as parallel initiation rites in Paul’s argument, and reads Romans 2:25–29 as groundwork for the baptism discussion coming in chapter 6.
Pip: The small-group kickoff context matters here — this is a congregation being asked to read Romans one chapter at a time, and the post is honest that chapters 1 and 2 alone carry enough freight to slow anyone down.
Mara: That honesty is part of the argument. The post closes the Romans 1 and 2 discussion with a summary worth quoting directly: if we remain faithful to living in the righteousness of Christ, then as Romans 2:13 says, “we’ll be declared righteous when we stand before our maker.”
Pip: Which brings us to the phrase that holds all of this together — and how it functions across the whole letter.
Mara: The question the second post takes up is whether “obedience of faithfulness” is a throwaway greeting formula or the actual organizing theme of Romans — and the answer is the latter.
Pip: The post on “Obedience of Faithfulness: A Walk On the Romans Road” opens with personal testimony but arrives at a precise textual claim. Paul, it argues, “told us what he was going to say, he said it, and he told us he said it” — the phrase appears in Romans 1:5 and again, word for word, in the closing benediction of Romans 16.
Mara: That’s not a coincidence. The Greek is only two words, and the post explains that the structure implies the terms define each other: “obedience is faithfulness, and faithfulness is obedience.” Faith, in this reading, is never purely intellectual — it always carries action with it.
Pip: The post traces this through baptism in Romans 6, reading immersion as the believer’s own enactment of the pattern — buried with Christ, raised to new life. That’s the “obedience of faithfulness” made physical.
Mara: And Romans 12:1–2 closes the arc: “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God” and “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” The post is careful to note these are promises for life now, not only for life after death.
Pip: Two posts, one through-line — the road Paul built was always meant to be walked.
Mara: Righteousness as foundation, faithfulness as the road you actually travel — that’s the frame Romans keeps returning to.
Pip: Next time, we’ll see where else on the blog that road leads.
I preached this message on July 12, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church. Although my mom wasn’t there, as I say in my opening remarks, my dad decided at the last minute he would come hear me speak. I’m so grateful to still have both my parents around.
Good morning! May the Lord be with you.
I’m feeling kind of bittersweet this morning. I think this is first time I’ve preached here that my mom isn’t in the audience. She and my sister have had a great time at Niagara Falls and will be flying back this evening.
Well, it seems like I started something a few weeks ago when I decided to preach on Romans chapter 5. I understand Al preached on Romans 7 last week, so I’m back to keep it going. One of the reasons I’ve come to love studying, teaching, and preaching on Romans is that the more I study it, the more structure I see to the whole letter. As Christ-followers, sometimes we forget that when we’re reading the epistles, we’re reading the author’s response to a story of the church and its members in a community we may not know much about. The author knows the stories and histories of his audience, but he rarely lets on what that entails. Unless we have evidence from elsewhere, like say, from the Book of Acts that detail much of Paul’s ministry activity, we’re often guessing at the context or trying to understand why Paul and the other writers are saying what they’re saying, and sometimes even how they’re saying it.
It’s important, then, to pay attention to how the epistle is organized. Paul isn’t just putting together a random set of platitudes in Romans with a few memory verses for his readers. He’s crafting an argument, by way of storytelling in some spots, to address the concerns he has for the two communities who have recently reunited in Rome. The Gentiles have been permanent residents there, but the Jews had been kicked out Rome a few years before Paul wrote Romans and had only recently returned, perhaps within the last two years, at the time he’s writing this letter to them. In a situation like that, you might expect there’s going to be some tension!
I’ve hinted at some of this in my past messages, but it bears repeating here, that Paul’s letter can be divided into two main sections. In chapters 1 through 11, Paul builds a theological case for salvation for both the Gentiles and the Jews. Chapters 12 through 16 are the practical chapters: how do you live for Jesus in such a diverse culture.
We can break up chapters 1 through 11 into three subparts. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul speaks of the importance of faithfulness, even to the point of contextualizing it a bit for the Romans. The Romans, as pagans, would have had a deep respect for nature and thus what some call “natural philosophy” or “natural theology.” That’s why Paul makes the argument in chapter 1 that nature itself reveals the very character of God, but then he challenges these Gentiles by saying one of their biggest “sins” is that men and women have corrupted and abandoned their own natures, something that would have been quite contrary to their natural philosophy. They were “unfaithful” to their natures.
But then Paul turns to the Jews and essentially says to them they’re in the same boat. They’re doing some of the same things the Gentiles are doing and ignoring the foundations of the Jewish law, that is, the Ten Commandments, that had been their heritage. That’s why Paul can say to them in the first part of chapter 3, “There is no one righteous, no not one.” Paul then brings in the big guns in the last part of chapter 3 and explains how the work of Christ on the cross has won salvation for Jew and Gentile alike. Then he wraps up that first section in chapter 4 with a story about Abraham’s faithfulness.
I’ll come back to chapters 5 through 8 in a moment, but I just wanted to say that chapters 9 through 11 speak of how God is reconciling both Gentiles and the Jews back to himself. Those are probably the toughest chapters to read and follow, but they do have a purpose of sealing the bond between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ.
To the degree that chapters 1 through 4 were about “faith” and “faithfulness,” chapters 5 through 8 are about being “alive” in Christ and the “life” that we have in him, especially through the Holy Spirit as our passage today discusses. I said it a few weeks ago and I’ll say it again here: chapters 1 through 4 have over 25 occurrences of the word for “faith” and “faithfulness” and only two occurrences of the words that mean “life” or “alive.” But chapters 5 through 8 flip those numbers around with words for “life” and “alive” used about 25 times while “faith” and “faithfulness” are only used twice in the first two verses of chapter 5.
This theme of life becomes obvious as we start reading chapter 6 that this life is represented by baptism our connection with the death of Jesus and his resurrection. Chapter 6 is the central chapter in chapters 1 through 11, literally and logically. And here’s where I think the structure of Romans takes his argument to the next level. He’s not changing subjects from chapter 6 to chapter 7. Remember what the last verse of Romans 6 is: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” That verse is not just a summary of chapter 6 as I said a couple weeks ago, but it also states the subject of chapters 7 and 8 to tie those four chapters in a nice, neat bow.
In chapter 7, we see how destructive sin is to our lives if we continue to be slaves to it. The “I” of last weeks passage from Romans 7 is not Paul specifically, but the “I” is I. The “I” is you. The “I” is anyone who understands what it means to try and live a faithful life in the midst of a sinful world. But even with that expression of struggle, Paul still finds a way at the end of 7 to say, “Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”[1]
The very last part of Romans 7:25 is our transition into chapter 8, then. “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”[2] He summarizes chapter 7 and sets up the dichotomy he’s experiencing, by setting us up for the only thing that can truly transform our sinful nature and get our hearts and spirits in sync with our brain that knows Jesus is Lord: the Holy Spirit.
This why again we see Paul use the word “Therefore” at the beginning of chapter 8. We’ve seen how baptism works in the spiritual realm in chapter 6. Paul makes the first connection of this event with the Spirit in Romans 7:6, looking forward to chapter 8. Chapter 8 has, in some respects, the same purpose for the Romans as John 14 through 16 had for the disciples at the Last Supper: teaching about the Holy Spirit and how he works in the life of the believer.
When Paul says, “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” he’s following up on what he said in chapter 7. The condemnation that would have been ours under the Law has been swallowed up in Christ’s redemptive act on the cross. As Jesus promised at the Last Supper and reaffirmed at his ascension, the Holy Spirit has come and given us life, completely dispensing with the law of sin and death. That law never offered the chance to bring life; it was always about punishment.
Paul goes on to say that the righteous requirement of the Law, which we could not earn because our flesh was weak and we faltered, is fully met in us because we live in the Spirit. Thus, there is now only affirmation and assurance of our salvation, not condemnation.
Although our salvation is by grace and we can do nothing to earn it, it does always require our mindful attention. In verses 5 though 8, Paul gives a great deal of attention to where our minds are dwelling. There’s likely a subtle reference here to Deuteronomy, where Moses repeatedly exhorts the Israelites to “be careful.” For example, in Deuteronomy 4:9, Moses says this to the Israelites, shortly before they repeat the recitation of the Ten Commandments:
9 Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. [3]
Paul uses a similar exhortation to the Ephesians, in 5:15–17:
15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.[4]
God never expects us to rest on the laurels of our salvation and faith. When Paul says some have their minds set on what the flesh desires, he’s essentially saying that those people are living on pure instinct. Get what you can while you can. Go for the gusto. It’s a selfish way of life if you’re only looking out for number 1. Paul has even defined the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19–21:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.[5]
But those who have their minds set on the Spirit have a completely different focus in mind for how to live their lives, a focus that puts God and others first and trusts God to provide for their needs. Paul goes on in Galatians 5 to describe the results of a mind focused on the Spirit, and you’ll recognize this passage I’m sure:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.[6]
Before I get back to the rest of Romans, I want to take a moment and talk about why the NIV used “forbearance” instead of the word most of us are used to: “patience.” When that word (μακροθυμία makrothymia)[7] is used of God, it typically refers to God “holding back” his judgment on unbelievers. In Romans 2:4, it’s used in parallel with different word that’s translated forbearance: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”[8] In fact, the word is translated “patience” in every other occurrence in the NT. I bring this up primarily because of the challenges we see in our world today. We see a lot of angry people in the news these days. “Patience” or “forbearance” doesn’t mean we have set our anger aside at the evils in the world. In fact, one of the roots of the Greek word means “anger” or “rage.” It refers to a higher form of anger that isn’t controlled by our flesh and our instinct. Another way to look at it is that it is anger that keeps its distance from the situation. It calls us to have the same patience and forbearance that God himself has for the sinful, no matter how awful things may be. It’s scary to see the surveys out there where people increasingly think violence is the answer to get their way. We have a higher calling as Christ-followers, but we shouldn’t be patsies either.
Paul closes out the last half of our passage this morning by essentially repeating the same thing in different ways and drills down to make the relationship increasingly more personal and familial with each step. If we live by the Spirit, then we belong to Christ and have access not just to living a life of love here on earth, but to that eternal life we eagerly await in the heavenly realms. He repeats the connection to the resurrection of Christ as well. Because Christ lives, we also will live.
He also repeats the warning of chapter 7 as well in verse 13: “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”[9] Those misdeeds are the do’s and do-nots of Paul’s subtle lament about the flesh in chapter 7.
Finally, we have the wonderfully reassuring promise that not only are we in Christ when we walk in the Spirit, but we are in fact called “children of God.” We’re no longer slaves; we’re sons and daughters of God, family. And God does not stand aloof in his relationship to us. He tells us to cry out, “Abba, Father!” Abba is essentially the baby word for “da-da” in Hebrew. It’s an intimate and emotional connection each of us can have with God to experience the unconditional love he has for each of us. As family, we are also heirs of God and coheirs with Christ. We share in his sufferings and glory, not just in our baptism experience, but in daily life as we walk faithfully with God and experience the victory that is in Christ.
I pray that each of you will have some experience of that victory in the weeks to come. God is good, even when life is challenging. The Spirit brings us life by reassuring us of the peace and presence of God in our lives, especially in the difficult times. May the peace of God go with you this morning. Amen.
I delivered this message June 14, 2026, (Proper 6, Year A, Third Sunday after Pentecost). I broke from the practice of preaching from the gospel passage this day because I recently did some pretty intense study and writing in Romans (the epistles passage from the Lectionary for this Sunday) and wanted to share my thoughts.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
This past semester, the church Jill and I attend had their small groups going through the book of Romans. In seminary, one of my professors had published an article about Romans 1:16–17, the passage about “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes,” and it opened my eyes to a whole new understanding of what Paul meant when he talked about the relationship between our faith and Christ’s faithfulness.
Prior to that, I had spent a great deal of time in Ephesians, memorizing the entire epistle. But the more I studied Romans, the more I saw the connections and the organization of Paul’s logic as he built the theology of justification by faithfulness. I began to understand why it was placed first among the Pauline epistles, and I was not disappointed. I was asked to speak for the kickoff of our Romans study at the church, so with those thoughts fresh in my mind, I wanted to share some of my insights the next couple times I’m with you using the Romans passages from the Lectionary readings for those respective Sundays. We’ll look at the first half of Romans 5 this morning. In two weeks, I’ll tackle the last half of Romans 6.
Since we’re diving into the middle of Romans here, I want to give a brief summary of chapters 1 through 4 to catch us up. Broadly speaking, chapters 1 through 11 form a cohesive argument about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and how each group understands their own respective shortcomings in the eyes of God. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul’s theme seems to be centered around what “faith” looks like for both Gentiles and Jews in spite of their lapses. After Paul introduces the overall theme of “the obedience of faithfulness” in Romans 1:5, he finishes his introduction with the statement: “For in the gospel the Righteousness of God is revealed—from faithfulness into faithfulness, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faithfulness.’”[1] You might be interested to know that this “Righteousness of God” that is revealed is NOT a concept or abstract idea; it refers to Jesus himself. Jesus IS the Righteousness of God.
In the rest of chapter 1 and the first part of chapter 2, Paul addresses the Gentiles in the church at Rome, primarily indicating that nature itself demonstrates the existence and glory of God, and that those who violate their natural state are not respecting that natural order that God has otherwise made obvious to them. From the middle of chapter 2 to the middle of chapter 3, Paul makes the argument that the Jews have the benefit of having been chosen by a God who revealed himself to them directly, and yet, like the Gentiles, they still refuse to acknowledge God, causing Paul to quote Psalm 14:1: “There is no one righteous, not even one.” This is as much a criticism of the Jewish believers as the last half of chapter 1 was to the Gentiles.
From the middle of chapter 3 to the end of chapter 4, then, Paul begins to talk about what true faithfulness looks like and what it accomplishes, that is justification, first in Christ, then in the life of Abraham. He brings home the point that it is Christ’s faithfulness to fulfill God’s purposes through the cross and the resurrection that is the foundation of Paul’s mission to bring Jews and Gentiles to “the obedience of faith.” We even will get hints of this overarching theme in 5:19 and 6:16 as we move forward.
Now the other thing going on in the text of Romans is something that the average reader might miss. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul mentions the word “faith” or “faithfulness” 27 times, while only using words for “life” and “live” twice. But in chapters 5 through 8, Paul flips those numbers around. Paul has 25 occurrences of the two Greek terms for “life” and “live” while only 2 occurrences of the word for “faith” or “faithfulness,” and those two occurrences are found in the first two verses of chapter 5, so let’s dive into that text this morning.
Paul begins chapter 5 with the conjunction “Therefore.” If you’ve been in church long enough, you probably know the old saying: “When you see the word ‘therefore,’ we should find out what it’s (say it with me) ‘there for.’” Well, we already covered that briefly in the summary I just gave. What I want to unpack here is the summary that immediately follows the “therefore”: “Since we have been justified through faith.” That’s the point he just demonstrated in the first four chapters.
The verb “justify” (δικαιόω dikaioō) simply means “to be made right with God” in the context of Scripture. In some contexts, the word is translated “declared righteous,” so the noun “justification” (4:25, 5:16; δικαίωσις dikaiōsis) is closely related to the word “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη dikaiosynē). The word is used several times throughout Romans 3 through 5 but not always associated with the same phrasing.
In 5:9, Paul says something similar to 5:1, but he swaps out one key word: “Since we have now been justified by his blood.”[2] Why does Paul switch from talking about “justified through faith” and “justified by his blood”? Let’s look at few more verses to fill that out.
In Romans 3:22, Paul indicates that God’s righteousness, or justification, is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, the “Righteousness of God” whom the Law and Prophets point to.
In verse 24, Paul continues by saying “all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”[3]
In verse 26, Paul puts the emphasis on our own faith in Jesus: “[God] did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”[4]
From these verses, we can see that the concept of “justification by faith” has two components to it. The first is that the word for “faith” can also be translated “faithfulness.” In that sense, it refers to how Christ’s sacrifice brings about the possibility of our own justification: “By his blood,” “through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” In other words, he’s referring to Christ’s faithfulness to his earthly mission as I mentioned earlier.
On the other hand, we also see the importance of our response to that faithfulness: putting our trust (i.e., our faith) in Christ. We see the great love he showed us through his sacrifice and his victorious resurrection from the dead and are compelled to make but one response: declare our love and allegiance to Jesus.
Now I mentioned earlier that there is a shift from chapter 4 to 5 about Paul talking about, primarily, the faithfulness of Christ and its relation to our faith to the life we live when we are “in Christ.” We see that in vs. 3 as Paul begins to write, in general, about the sufferings they have endured for Christ. He doesn’t get specific with the Romans, because I’m sure each of them recognize the sufferings they’ve all endured, especially since the Jews had been expelled from Rome prior to Paul’s writing Romans and have just recently returned to find the Gentile believers still thriving in their house churches in Rome.
This is another reason why Paul had to address both Gentiles and Jews in Romans 1–4, so he could get the returning Jewish exiles on the same footing as the firmly established Gentiles. He knows that if they persevere under these difficult conditions, they will build a strong character that can withstand further challenges and help unite them as they were before. As they grow in unity, they will also grow in hope. They will truly experience and share the outpouring of God’s love through the Holy Spirit as they once again gather together to worship.
Paul also reminds them that there wasn’t anything Jews or Gentiles in Rome did to earn this blessing. Verse 8 is somewhat profound if you think about it: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”[5] Did you catch that? We didn’t have to do anything, because God was already at work through Jesus on our behalf “while we were still sinners.” We didn’t have to clean up our lives first. He reemphasizes that in vs. 10: “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son [there’s the “how” of justification again], how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”[6] Not only are we set free from God’s wrath, but we also have confidence to boast in God about the reconciliation we have received through Jesus Christ.
As we head into the summer months, I would encourage all of you to read through Romans at least once. You will begin to see why the early Church Fathers chose to put it as the first book, the shining star of Paul’s epistles in the New Testament. It is full of encouragement and hope and will help you see more clearly your place in the kingdom of God and in the local congregation. Paul wrote compassionately to those who were reuniting after a long separation, and he helped to restore the unity of the church in Rome so they could continue to be a mighty witness for the Gospel. I pray that you all will continue to be a mighty witness here at Mount View. Amen.
It’s been a busy week with family stuff, so I apologize for the lateness of this week’s Lectionary Help. I’ll offer a few quick helps here since Palm Sunday and Holy Week offer so much material for us to preach on.
In Rigged Trial; Real Redemption (Luke 22:54–62) | Sunday Morning Greek Blog, I cover the injustices of the way the Jews used their own “legal” system to condemn Jesus. Everything about the trial before the Sanhedrin was contrary to their own laws and customs. It’s an early example of what we’ve come to call “lawfare” today.
Matthew indicates that Judas threw his blood money back in the temple and hanged himself after betraying Jesus. The pharisees bought the field where Judas hanged himself with that money (Matthew 27:5–10), which is why in Acts 1:18, Peter can say Judas bought the field. It was by proxy through the Pharisees, because they didn’t want their name associated with the title to the land because it was purchased with blood money.
Most scholars believe the description in Acts about Judas’s body bursting open is not a contradiction to Matthew’s “hanging” account. The Acts account comes from Peter to a small group of believers who were already familiar with the full story. It’s likely that Judas’s body started to bloat after he died on the tree and either the rope or the branch it was hanging from broke and caused the gruesome scene.
I also came across the following note on Matthew 27:28–31 in my files:
“The Greek text here has several words with the /pt/ sound or /p/ followed by an unstressed vowel sound. I have to think this is intentional on Matthew’s part to emphasize the mocking (ἐνέπαιξαν, from ἐμπαίζω) aspect of the scene. This passage is a chiasm as well, centering around the mocking (but true) statement, ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’”
One final note: Golgotha is likely the exact location (give or take a few hundred feet) where Abraham had taken Isaac to sacrifice him. The Hebrew text where Abraham says “God himself will provide the lamb” can be repointed (i.e., have a different vowel arrangement below the consonants; vowels weren’t added to the Hebrew text until about AD 1000) to say “God will provide himself as the lamb.” Consider the significance of that for a hot minute.
Peace to you as you approach Holy Week and the Easter season.
We have a long gospel passage for the fourth Sunday in Lent. In the congregation I preach in, I will typically read the entire gospel passage prior to the message. I have not previously preached on this passage for lent, but three years ago when I preached on John 4 for the third Sunday in Lent, I showed the clip from that scene in The Chosen instead of reading the passage. Here is the YouTube clip of healing of the man born blind from Season 4, Episode 3.
Jesus repeats his “I am the light of the world” statement in 9:5 (originally spoken in 8:12), which seems to close the loop on that description of Jesus and his actions. The miracle of bringing light to the man’s eyes for the first time is definitive proof of that claim. In the broader context of Scripture, this harkens back to Isaiah 9, as I’ve indicated in other passages where light is a significant theme. This also seems to be the final proof that John offers for his opening statements in chapter 1 about Jesus being “light,” especially the “light” of Genesis 1:3, the firstborn of all creation. Jesus would be the physical, visible representation of God’s divine nature in his incarnation.
This passage is unusual in that a large section of it (vv. 13–34) happens apart from the presence of Jesus and his disciples. This only happens a couple times in John (the other occurrence is in 11:45–57, where the Jews are plotting to kill Jesus after he raised Lazarus from the dead). It would seem reasonable that the healed man would have relayed the story to Jesus or his disciples when Jesus sees him again in 9:35. The greater the miracle, the more intense the religious leaders’ desire to take Jesus out.
This section of the passage gives us some sense of how the Pharisees seemed to operate to protect their legalistic view of the Law. It shows how they participated in the darkness, having important discussions about the nature of sin and the impact of healing on the Sabbath behind closed doors and coercing (unsuccessfully) the healed man to recant his claim of Jesus healing, especially on the Sabbath. Worse yet, they were trying to get him to say something damning about Jesus, but he was too excited and too grateful to turn his back on the savior. You can almost feel the power of the Pharisees draining from their fingertips before their very (blind) eyes.
The healed man’s courage to speak the truth about who Jesus is and what he’s done for him is a testimony for all believers in this day and age where Christian persecution seems to be increasing in the heartland of America and elsewhere. But people are responding with a desire for faithfulness in Christ in great numbers in spite of (or because of?) it.
I’ll close out here with a couple links to my articles on “I Am the Light of the World” if you want to dig deeper into that topic. Peace to you in the next week. May God richly bless your ministry as you proclaim his word to those within your influence.
Lectionary Help for Third Sunday in Lent, March 8, 2026, Year A.
Taking a look at the literary context and historical setting of the account of Jesus speaking to the woman at the well in Samaria can help answer a few questions people may have about this passage. For example, why was Jesus so insistent that he “had” to go through Samaria? Consider the following points.
John begins his gospel by saying Jesus is the light of the world and has been around “from the beginning.”
Jesus shows his earthly authority over the Temple at Jerusalem by overturning the tables of the money changers, yet that doesn’t seem to be enough for him to insist that Jerusalem is the proper (or only) place of worship.
The well where he meets the woman is Jacob’s well. Jacob, of course, is one of Jesus’s earthly ancestors, so Jesus is in the land of his ancestors when he first reveals (at least in John’s gospel) he is the Messiah. That fact shouldn’t be overlooked.
“He establishes Jesus is fully divine and that God is his Father. Since he’s God’s “only begotten” on Earth, Jesus then is the primary authority in the Temple, which the Jews believed was home of God’s presence. Finally, Jesus, having been established as the authority for the Jewish religion, essentially abolishes the long-standing prejudice against Samaria by going to the place where his ancestor Judah’s father, Jacob (renamed Israel) first established himself in the Promised Land after returning from Laban’s home. I think this aspect of the story lends to its credibility and to the principle of worship he puts forth.”
The epistles passage is Romans 5:1–11. This is where Paul makes the point that Christ died for us “while we were still sinners.” This ties in nicely with the woman at the well story, of course, as Jesus is offering the woman living water in spite of her current social and relationship status.
A few Old Testament passages can provide some background for the “living water” Jesus speaks of. Isaiah 49 (esp. vv. 6 & 10) speaks of springs of fresh water, while Jeremiah 2:13 and 17:13 both describe the Lord as the Jews’ “spring of living water.” Of course, we can’t forget Ezekiel’s prophecy in 14:8–9:
“On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter. 9 The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one Lord, and his name the only name.”
I pray this helps you prepare this week. I’m updating my previous message, which includes both NT passages, to reflect some of the things I’ve learned or rediscovered in my recent work in Romans.
Option A is John 3:1–17, which I’ll cover in this post.
On “born again” in John 3:3, 3:7:
A word study of ἄνωθεν (anōthen) along with the context of the discussion between vv. 3 & 7 suggests that the more likely meaning here would be as an adverb of place (“born from above”) as opposed to an adverb of time (“born again” or “born anew”). “Born of water” (vs. 5) most likely refers to natural birth, while “[born of] the Spirit” refers to being renewed by Spirit through his infilling, which of course can only come from above.
Regarding the Serpent on the pole:
God told Moses to fashion what in Hebrew is called a saraph (שָׂרָף śārāp̄), a bronze serpent that itself must have had a fiery appearance in the desert sun and put it on a pole so the Israelites who were bitten could look upon it and live. However, it did nothing for those who had already died. This bronze serpent was not an idol originally[1] but rather something akin to a sign of judgment on the Israelites. It couldn’t save them from the pain of being bitten by the snakes, but it would save them from the poison that had entered their bodies. Something else was absorbing the fatal penalty of their disbelief. It’s a bit of a mystery why the word for the winged angels, or seraphim, of Isaiah 6 is also translated snake or serpent elsewhere. Regardless of the specifics of what it looked like, it must have fostered some measure of fear among the Israelites. “You can look at the scary bronze snake, or you can die from the real ones.”[2]
The serpents were cursing the Israelites with death, but if they would look upon the image of the curse, they would live. Jesus took on the curse of sin for us by being lifted up on a cross. We need to look to Jesus to be saved.
May God bless your sermon and lesson preparation this week as we settle into the season of Lent.
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 