THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 3, Chapter 1 cont.
The subject matter of the Book of Romans necessarily lends itself to much interpretation,
application, and preaching. We won’t be shying away from any of it, so here we go.
Last week we dealt with the opening words of Romans chapter 1 because how one interprets it
sets Paul’s tone for the entire letter. The first 6 verses behave as a sort of preamble. And let
us remember that while in Christendom the rather lofty term Epistles is used of the books that
Paul wrote, in common speech each of these books is but a letter written and sent to either a
person or a specific congregation in a specific city, and each is meant to address certain
issues pertinent to that person or group. There is no universal agreement among Bible
scholars on how many New Testament books were actually written by Paul; the number is as
few as 8 and varies up to as many as 13. However Paul is universally agreed as the author of
the Book of Romans. This letter is to Believers in the city of Rome; not Rome in the sense of
the entire Roman Empire, and so not “Romans” in the sense of all citizens of the Empire.
Paul’s preamble contains some important information that applies to our faith. This information
has been historically misconstrued and we dealt with that in depth in our previous lesson. As a
reminder: there were two terms or phrases that together define the opening tone. Those terms
were “slave of Messiah Yeshua” and “Apostle”. Unlike what it might seem at first glance, the
phrase “slave of Messiah Yeshua” is not meant to indicate exceptional humility or even self-
effacing. Rather in Hebrew thought pattern those words indicate a high honor; a position of
high status. Second, the term Apostle (an English word) comes from the Greek word
apostolos. Apostolos more or less indicates someone who has been sent with instructions to
carry out an assignment. In Roman society this word was used in the realm of the military and
in commercial shipping. However its use misses the mark on the concept that the Jewish Paul
was trying to get across. The term Paul would have preferred to use was shaliach (a Hebrew
word). However there is no direct equivalent to shaliach in Greek, so he chose the best
approximation the Greek language offered: apostolos. Shaliach carries more weight and
authority than apostolos. A shaliach is an agent who carries all the power and authority of his
master. A shaliach has a great deal of personal choice and autonomy (acknowledging, of
course, that whatever he does he does on behalf of, and in the name of, his Master). In
Christian thinking an Apostle is more or less an authoritative messenger; but the original 12
Apostles, and Paul as the 13
th
Apostle, were far more than mere messengers. This is why they
were able to do miracles, and it is why the Apostles expected Believers to obey them.
Paul begins his letter by telling the Believers of the congregations in Rome that they were
obligated to consider him as their ultimate earthly authority. He says this is so on the grounds
that since Yeshua personally appointed Paul as His shaliach to the gentiles, and since
Yeshua also called (or elected) those gentiles in Rome to faith as Believers, then it follows that
regardless that it was NOT Paul who established these Believing congregations in Rome, they
should, nonetheless, subject themselves to his authority.
1 / 9

Bottom line: Paul was not being humble; rather he was being insistent and authoritative, and
he had every reason to believe that he was right in being so.
Let’s continue by starting at verse 7. We’ll re-read most of chapter 1 beginning there.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 1:7 – end
The words of verse 7 are basically the way Paul starts most of his letters. It is a customary
greeting and it states to whom the letter is intended. Although without doubt this letter
addresses mostly the gentile Believers of Rome, it also includes the Jewish Believers. So
when Paul says “to all in Rome whom God loves, who have been called by Yeshua and set
apart for him”, it is referring to all Believers in the city of Rome, Jew and gentile.
Notice something important at the end of verse 7; Paul refers separately to God the Father and
to Yeshua the Messiah. Paul sees the Father and Yeshua as two distinct entities. Or perhaps
as two identifiable parts of a whole. Thus for Christians who believe that essentially the
essence of the Father has been rolled into the essence of the Son (Christ), and thus the Father
has either retreated from the scene or is no longer relevant, that is certainly not how Paul sees
it. Some in Christianity make this claim of irrelevance of the Father in modern times because of
Yeshua’s statement in John 14 that if “you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father”. They are
wrong. Rather it is that just as Paul is an agent of Yeshua, but still is subordinate to Him, so we
find Christ pronounce that while He has been given all authority on earth and in heaven, He is
still effectively an agent of God and thus subordinate to His Father. I don’t want to get hung up
here on a controversial theological issue of the substance and nature of God. However just
know that Paul’s theology does not allow for the Father and the Son to be the same person or
for one to have abdicated his position. Both exist, both are relevant, and both have their own
attributes and functions. There is a definite hierarchy with the Father at the top.
Now one other important item. The CJB doesn’t do a good job with verse 7 as it leaves out a
word; the word is hagios. Typically hagios is translated into English as “saints’. So here is this
verse in the much more literal KJV.
KJV
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you
and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Beloved of God” and “saints” are essentially synonyms and they are Old Testament terms
used of God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. So Paul is extending the use of those terms to
Believers, Jew and gentile. The reason I point that out is that it is often erroneously claimed in
Christianity that “saints” is a more or less a new and exclusive term coined for New Testament
Believers in Christ.
In verse 8 thanksgiving is Paul’s priority (as it should be for all of us in all of our prayers). What
is Paul thanking God for? It is for the living reality of the trust exhibited by some Jews and
gentiles in Rome to accept Yeshua as Messiah. But what ought to draw our attention is where
Paul says “I thank my God through Messiah Yeshua”. This word through (dia in Greek) is
there in all extant Greek manuscripts of the Book of Romans and I am yet to find an English
2 / 9

translation that leaves it out. I’m sure Paul didn’t mean to create a heated doctrinal argument
by inserting that word “through”, but he did.
If he means what he said (and I see no reason to believe otherwise), then he envisions Christ
as an intermediary between God and Man. Now while some Jews today claim that such a
concept as there being a heavenly intermediary is a show-stopper, in fact in the non-Biblical
but authoritative Jewish writings of Enoch and Tobit, and a few other ancient Jewish sources,
2
nd
Temple Judaism believed that archangels were intermediaries between Man and God. And
perhaps if “intermediary” isn’t the perfect English word to use, then maybe “intercessor”
helps to define what is meant. We could spend significant time on this theological issue, but I
don’t want to get parked here. What is unambiguous as it appears in ALL NT versions is that
Paul is rendering thanksgiving NOT to Yeshua, but rather to the Father THROUGH Yeshua
(with Yeshua providing the understood mediating role that many Jews in the 2
nd
Temple era
took for granted). So the issue that Judaism would have had with Paul is not the concept of
there being an intermediary; but rather who or what fulfilled that role? And Paul says that it is
Jesus Christ who is the intermediary (at least He is from now on).
As an application then, to whom do we direct our prayers? The Father or to the Son? Are we to
pray to Yeshua or are we to pray to the Father? Or does it make any difference? Yeshua knew
with His advent that this was already an issue among His disciples, so rather than leave them
hanging He told them (and us) exactly how we should pray. I’ll use the King James Version
because it is by far the most familiar to Christians.
Matthew 6:9-13 KJV
9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name.

10
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11
Give us this day our daily bread.

12
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Just as Yeshua instructed us in the previous chapter of Matthew (chapter 5) that He did NOT
abolish the Law, here in Matthew 6 He instructs us to pray to the Father. Pretty definitive. So it
is as Paul said: we pray to and deal with the Father; but we do it through the agency of
Yeshua. How that all happens and is processed in the Heavenlies I don’t know. But the
protocol and what our mindset about it is to be is clear. The Father remains not only relevant,
but supreme; nothing has changed. And why would it? The Father has always had a Son,
since eternity past. It is only that at a point in temporal history His Son, Yeshua, became flesh
and appeared on earth.
3 / 9

Paul tells the Believers in the city of Rome that not only is he aware of them, but that they are
important to him such that he prays for them. Remembering that Paul is a Pharisee, then when
he says that he regularly remembers them “in his prayers”, what he is referring to is the
standard 3 times per day prayers that the most pious of Jews (the Pharisees) followed as a
tradition. I’ll repeat what I’m about to tell you at regular intervals because it is the Rosetta
Stone for what we are studying: Paul thinks like a Jew, and behaves like a Jew, because he is
a Jew. When we read his writings, we need to see them from his Jewish viewpoint. Thus when
he writes his letters (his Epistles) he unconsciously does so from a Jewish perspective. Why?
Because he is not a gentile, even though he has some familiarity with gentiles. More, as he
has stated plainly, he is a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee of Pharisees; he is among the
most pious and most strict of Jews. He said this many years after becoming a Believer and an
Apostle. His zealous and highly educated Jewishness is the underlying context atop which he
has layered the meaning and impact of the arrival of the Messiah. It is the context upon which
he understands what a Messiah is, what a Messiah does, and how people are to relate to the
Messiah. Paul’s Pharisee training under Gamaliel is also his underlying context upon which he
builds an understanding of who Messiah is in relation to God. And, Paul believes that Yeshua,
as Messiah, is the Son of God who sits at the Father’s right hand (he got this from Daniel).
This is not the Tom Bradford perspective; it is what Paul says. And very recently this is also the
so-called new perspective on Paul that has been adopted by many eminent Bible scholars
such as E.P. Sanders, Douglas Moo and James D.G. Dunn.
This won’t be the last time I say these things to you because I know firsthand how difficult it
can be to let go of the Christian doctrines we’ve been taught most of our lives in exchange for
the Scriptural truth. We unconsciously read the Bible through the lens of gentile Western
Christianity as formed and defined by our early Church Fathers. They were right about much of
it; but wrong about some critical areas that their anti-Jewish bias blinded them to. And it has
fallen to us, in this present generation, to try to right these wrongs so that we can see God for
who He really is, His plan of redemption for what it really is, His Jewish people for who they are
to Him, and where we (as His followers) fit in to all that. Why is this revelation happening now,
in our day? I think it is a sure sign that Messiah is getting ready for His return, and the Holy
Spirit is preparing us.
At the end of verse 10 Paul expresses his desire to come to Rome to visit this congregation.
He indeed will, in about 4 years, go to Rome; but it will be in chains and there is no evidence
that he ever had contact with those to whom he was writing this letter. He follows this up by
explaining why he’s so eager to come to Rome; he wants to impart some spiritual gift that may
encourage and strengthen them. I’ve read many comments about exactly what Paul has in
mind here but I think it is a general comment that comes from a Jewish mindset of his day and
that Paul fully expects that no matter which congregation he visits he will, through God’s
grace, impart a spiritual gift at God’s discretion because he is, after all, Yeshua’s Apostle to
the gentiles.
This concept of spiritual gifts is not a New Testament concept. The Essene community at
Qumran believed in spiritual gifts and wrote about it. When I compare what I read in the Dead
Sea Scrolls with certain words and terms used by both Yeshua and Paul, it is clear there was
close contact between them. I’m in no way saying that Paul or Yeshua were Essenes. At the
4 / 9

same time, Essene theology is very close to New Testament theology and clearly Yeshua and
Paul were familiar with it. Listen to this short excerpt from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls called
1QS.
And these are the ways of these Spirits in the world. It is of the Spirit of truth to
enlighten the heart of man, and to level him in the ways of true righteousness……and to it
belongs the Spirit of humility and forbearance, of abundant mercy and eternal
goodness……and almighty wisdom with faith in all the works of God and trust in His
abundant grace……and the spirit of knowledge in every design and zeal for just
ordinances…….Such are the councils of the Spirit to the sons of truth in the world…..The
fountain of righteousness, the reservoir of power, and the dwelling place of glory but
God has given them an everlasting possession to those who He has chosen. He has
granted them a share in the lot of the Saints….
To our ears this sounds like it could have come straight out of the New Testament. It is full of
truths and principles and terms that, for centuries, have been said to exist only in the New
Testament. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed all that. So Paul had
something rather culturally familiar in mind when he spoke about imparting spiritual gifts to the
Believers in Rome and it would have fallen along the lines of what I just read to you.
Interestingly in verse 12 we find Paul backtracking a bit on what he just said. Rather than
defining the spiritual gifts as something rather ethereal that he will bestow upon them he now
says that what he meant to say was that there would be mutual encouragement from what they
give to each other. There have been a number of theories as to what Paul was backtracking
from. The one that makes the most sense to me is that he realized that gentiles would have
had no understanding of what he means by spiritual gifts (such a thing is only known within
Jewish society). So he sort of redefines his term “spiritual gifts” as meaning a gift of mutual
encouragement that Believers ought to give one another.
Paul proceeds to explain why he hasn’t shown up in Rome. He says that he has wanted to
come for some time, but circumstances have conspired to prevent it. Anyone with Paul’s
aspirations would of course want to establish a congregation in the capital of the known world:
Rome. But because unforeseen conditions arose to prevent Paul from going, other evangelists
went and established the Believing congregations. This meant that they would have also
planted their doctrines and their understanding of Yeshua. Paul wanted in. As he says, he was
hoping to come and to have some fruit in their congregation, just as he has fruit in so many
other congregations where gentiles are a part. Translation: I’d like to have a role in your
congregation so that my efforts and teaching would directly produce some good and righteous
outcomes.
Let’s never forget that as inspired a man of God as Paul was, he was just a man. Paul felt
much ownership for the gentile congregations that were established. He was used to selecting
the leadership and laying down the rules and regulations, and it was his doctrinal viewpoints
that were adopted. The truth is, what little reward on earth that he would ever get for his hard
word and dedication was that he would see good fruit come from it. He didn’t want Rome to be
the exception, especially when (outside of Jerusalem) it was the most important and influential
5 / 9

place on earth at this time.
In verse 14 Paul continues his explanation by essentially saying, “Sorry but I’ve been very
busy”. And because he had begun his letter by describing himself in the lofty term “slave of
Messiah Yeshua”, he continues this thought by saying that he has an obligation (to Yeshua) to
go to both civilized Greeks and uncivilized barbarians. In our CJB where it says “uncivilized
people”, that is incorrect. The Greek says barbarians. Barbarians were first and foremost
people who didn’t speak Greek. Non-Greek speakers were considered less civilized according
to the worldview of the Roman Empire. Together Greeks and barbarians constituted the
gentiles of the world. Paul then adds that he is also to bring the Gospel to both the educated
and uneducated. So every gentile, regardless of language or intelligence or status, is entitled
to hear the Gospel and he intends to see to it that it happens. He concludes that thought by
saying that therefore he is also eager to proclaim the Good News to citizens of Rome. In other
words, they certainly fall within the definition of the people he is obligated to evangelize.
Clearly verses 16 and 17 are the powerful theme of the entire letter. The principle emphasis is
on the saving power of the Gospel. But the “why” of it is also briefly explained; that is, why is
the Gospel able to save? The answer is that the Gospel manifests God’s righteousness.
These verses (and what follows) are so dense with theological principles that are the heart and
soul of our faith that we’ll take as much time as needed to flesh them out.
Paul begins with the strange statement that he is “not ashamed” of the Gospel. What does
that mean? Very likely it is a Jewish expression. First, understand that there is a difference
between being shamed, and being ashamed. Being shamed is a social condition. Middle
Eastern societies were shame and honor societies. That is, perhaps the supreme societal goal
of all the people was to be living in a state of honor. The worst thing that could happen was to
be shamed and thus have the social status of “shame” assigned to you. Shame was so
serious of a societal status that there was literally no limit on how far one would go to regain
their honor; it often involved killing the person who brought shame upon you.
Ashamed, far from being a social status, is a psychological condition. It involves guilt, the
deepest sense of regret, and feeling very badly about yourself for having done something, or
somehow being associated with something, which society says is socially unacceptable. Being
ashamed does not change your societal status, and one cannot do something to solve being
ashamed since indeed it is a state of mind and not a state of your actual status among your
community. In a shame and honor society, being in a state of shame means that people will
shun you; you have lost your place in the community.
So Paul is not talking about being ashamed of the Gospel in the sense of shame and honor; it
has nothing to do with social status. Many language experts believe that this was a well known
expression in Paul’s day, even if it has been lost to history, because one would have to ask
why anyone might feel a sense of deep regret or guilt (be ashamed) over the Gospel
message? It doesn’t fit. Rather, very likely it is a negative way of communicating that one has
the fullest confidence in the Gospel, or perhaps only to confess or declare the Gospel. It is not
uncommon in English to use the negative to express something positive. For instance: I was
not unimpressed means I was impressed. I was not disappointed means I was pleased. So I
6 / 9

maintain that Paul was using a negative (not ashamed) to express a positive (I have
confidence in) as merely a figure of speech or a manner of speaking in his day.
The next clause in verse 16 is not expressed well in the CJB. A more literal translation is: for it
is the power of God to everyone who believes. What does this mean? To Paul “the power
of God” is a mysterious, but real, force that has the ability to bring about a strong, transforming
effect on human beings. This is not the only place that he uses the term “the power of God” or
“God’s power” or “power” in relation to God.
1Corinthians 1:18 CJB
18
For the message about the execution-stake is nonsense to
those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved it is the
power of God.
1Corinthians 2:3-5 CJB
3
Also I myself was with you as somebody weak, nervous and
shaking all over from fear;
4
and neither the delivery nor the content of my message
relied on compelling words of "wisdom" but on a demonstration of the power of the
Spirit,
5
so that your trust might not rest on human wisdom but on God's power.
2Corinthians 6:6-7 CJB
6
We commend ourselves by our purity, knowledge, patience
and kindness; by the Ruach HaKodesh; by genuineness of love
7
and truthfulness of
speech; and by God's power.
Paul uses this “power of God” concept in several more places as well. Even more this same
force, this “Power of God”, is a continuing divine force that sustains the new and better life that
it creates.
So the saving nature of the Gospel is a transformative force that only God wields. But the main
point is that it is from God the Father. One can trust in Christ for salvation; but the actual force
that brings about salvation is the Father’s. The idea that God’s word has actual power to
transform and save is an Old Testament idea and one of the most obvious references has to
be in Psalm 107. There we find this:
Psalm 107:19-20 CJB
19
In their trouble they cried to ADONAI, and he rescued them
from their distress;
20
he sent his word and healed them, he delivered them from
destruction.
There is a change, however, in Paul’s idea of the concept of salvation as it refers to Christ and
to His Believers. In the Old Testament, saving or delivering was about being rescued from an
actual situation. There was danger, but the person was rescued from that danger. There was a
probability of death, but the person was rescued from that deadly circumstance. In the context
of the Gospel salvation is a spiritual matter. In fact, its immediate effects may be minimal from
an earthly perspective. One can be in a dire situation, receive salvation in the forgiveness of
sins, but yet one’s physical life might not be delivered. In fact Paul tends to see the primary
importance of salvation as a delivery from a future judgment of God that occurs in the End
Times. So while one can be “saved” immediately, its most important effect (being spared from
eternal death) will not come until later.
7 / 9

There is another interesting, and I think nearly lost, aspect of salvation that regards the person
who is being saved. While it is long held Christian doctrine that “trust” in Yeshua as Savior is
the requirement to obtain salvation, that is not exactly what Paul says. Here the CJB gets it
correct as opposed to most other English translations that say, “salvation to everyone who
believes”. The Greek verb used is in the present tense; so this means that we have a
continuing action. One must continue, persistently, to keep on trusting or believing. The
doctrine of Eternal Security, once saved always saved, essentially says that one can believe
briefly, and then it simply doesn’t matter from that time forward. If I believed for awhile, but
now I fell away and stopped believing, I’m still saved because “once saved, always saved”.
That is not what Paul says; he says that salvation continues only so long as we continue
trusting. If our trust ends, our salvation ends.
I have heard all manner of theological apology for the once saved always saved doctrine and it
usually revolves around a severe twisting of God’s Word and instead injecting a personal
opinion. The most common rebuttal is that once a person is saved, they would never recant
their salvation at any time, ever, for any reason either because 1) they have lost the freedom to
make such a choice, or 2) if they do recant (they renounce Christ) then they never actually
believed in the first place; they were just pretenders. And why is that? In a circular argument it
is because it is not possible for a person who believed to stop believing. Nowhere in the
Scriptures is that idea supported, but in many places the opposite is said. Here is a very small
sampling.
Matthew 7:21-23 CJB
21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants.
22
On that Day,
many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel
demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in your name?'
23
Then I will
tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of
lawlessness!'
Hebrews 6:4-6 CJB
4
For when people have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly
gift, become sharers in the Ruach HaKodesh,
5
and tasted the goodness of God's Word
and the powers of the 'olam haba-
6
and then have fallen away- it is impossible to renew
them so that they turn from their sin, as long as for themselves they keep executing the
Son of God on the stake all over again and keep holding him up to public contempt.
James 5:19-20 CJB
19
My brothers, if one of you wanders from the truth, and someone
causes him to return,
20
you should know that whoever turns a sinner from his
wandering path will save him from death and cover many sins.
2Peter 2:20-22 CJB
20
Indeed, if they have once escaped the pollutions of the world
through knowing our Lord and Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah, and then have again
become entangled and defeated by them, their latter condition has become worse than
their former.
21
It would have been better for them not to have known the Way of
righteousness than, fully knowing, to turn from the holy command delivered to them.
22
What has happened to them accords with the true proverb, "A dog returns to its own
vomit." Yes, "The pig washed itself, only to wallow in the mud!"
8 / 9

The Bible never contemplates the idea of pretenders. It never considers that all one has to do
is trust momentarily and then wander away and never trust again but still remain eternally
secure. Rather, one must continue to trust and believe.
Paul ends verse 16 by saying “to the Jew especially, but equally to the gentile”. Clearly Paul
says the Gospel is God’s Power of Salvation for both Jews and gentiles. This means that the
supposed Two Covenant Theology, whereby there are two routes to salvation, is nonsense.
The Two Covenant concept is that the Jews are saved by following the Laws of Moses (the
Mosaic Covenant) and gentiles are saved by following the New Covenant (the Covenant in
Christ). That concept is utterly put to shame right here. The Gospel of Yeshua is for both Jew
and gentile; there is no other option. But the other thing that we must see is that in the words
“to the Jew especially” reflects a heavenly priority. Jews had, and continue to have, a priority
over gentiles when it comes to salvation. The people of Israel are the bearers of the promise
contained in the Abrahamic covenant that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.
Gentiles (the nations) are a recipient of that blessing; but it happens THROUGH Israel.
Please also notice that Israel was also Christ’s priority. He took his message to Jews, not to
gentiles. That duty would fall, in time, to his Apostles. In a famous story when Yeshua went to
the northern coastal region of Sidon and Tzor, gentile territory, a gentile woman approached
him and here was the exchange.
Matthew 15:21-24 CJB
21
Yeshua left that place and went off to the region of Tzor and
Tzidon.
22
A woman from Kena'an who was living there came to him, pleading, "Sir, have
pity on me. Son of David! My daughter is cruelly held under the power of demons!"
23
But Yeshua did not say a word to her. Then his talmidim came to him and urged him,
"Send her away, because she is following us and keeps pestering us with her crying."
24
He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Isra'el."
Yet after the woman begged and pleaded, Yeshua relented and healed the woman’s
daughter. Immediately Yeshua left and went back to the Galilee. The meaning is obvious. The
Jews have priority. But, for gentiles who have faith in Him, Yeshua will save them, too, is
asked. How ironic that for 1900 years Christianity has switched up God’s priority and made it
“to the Gentiles especially”, but NOT to the Jews.
We’ll continue this next week and deal with a most serious matter that is perhaps the
dominant issue of our time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9