Romans 4

I've put this off for a looooong time! For that, I apologize. Romans is so big, so important, and so unpackable that it's become a little daunting. I want to cover everything, explain every reference, learn about every illustration, allusion, or point, and I end up doing nothing because there's always more to do. But it's silly to feel like that! If I miss stuff, I can always go back. It's a blog, not a final exam. Shipping is a feature!

I'm encouraged to go ahead with this by three things: a book I checked out intended to be a Bible-study of Romans, a commentary given to me by a friend, and an after-church Bible study I've been attending on Sundays. I'm in different places in Romans in each of these, so if I seem a little scatterbrained or connection-heavy, you'll understand why.

Let's get moving.

Abraham Justified by Faith

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Paul uses two figures from the Old Testament (Abraham and King David) to further emphasize that we are saved through faith, not through our works. Aside from this fundamental point, this section also strengthens the idea that the Old Testament is tied to the New. Christ came not to found a brand new religion, but to serve as the Head and fulfillment of one that had existed since it was first promised to Satan in front of Adam and Eve that one of their offspring "will crush [Satan's] head, and you will strike his heel".

The picture that we are given in this section is one of an accounting book, or ledger, with assets and liabilities. God 'credits' the good things that Christ did into Abraham's account through Abraham's belief in Christ. Abraham's belief in Christ will be discussed a few chapters from now. David also says that God will not count a person's sins against them- they have been covered. We get rid of our liabilities and put them on Christ.

How do we get the right to do this? How do we switch these assets and liabilities? Some people were believing that we somehow earn this righteousness. Paul points out that the Bible doesn't say, "Abraham's belief earned him righteousness". It says "Abraham's belief was credited to him as righteousness".

From my Bible-study book:
1. Why was Abraham's faith not a work that earned the wage of righteousness?

This is a very important question! Sometimes we may think of faith itself as a good work, somewhat akin to helping old ladies cross the street. However, Paul also wrote in Ephesians that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God". Abraham's faith was a gift of God, not a work on Abraham's part.

2. In Psalm 32:1-2, David describes what God does when He credits righteousness to a person. How does David describe what God does?

An easy question: he says that God covers a person's sins and doesn't hold them against him. Jesus told this parable in Matthew 18: "the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

'The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.'"

******************************************

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This argument might be a little hard to understand if we don't know more details of the life of Abraham. The scripture that Paul was quoting in the section before was from Genesis 15. In it, God promises to give Abraham offspring and land. It's not until two chapters (and 14 years) later in Genesis 17 that he is circumcised. It's not until hundreds of years later that Abraham's descendant Moses will receive the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law. Therefore, Abraham wasn't righteous due to his observation of the law or circumcision- they hadn't been given yet. Instead, Abraham is credited with righteousness through his believing the promises of God: the promises of land, offspring, and a certain member of those offspring named Jesus, the Messiah.

3. Remember the Jews' beliefs about circumcision. Why was it important that God declared Abraham righteous before he was circumcised?

This is important because it meant that salvation is for all people, both circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles.

4. Circumcision was a sign (pointer) and a seal (outward ratification and guarantee) of the righteousness Abraham had by faith. What are the signs and seals of a Christian's righteousness by faith?

I think the signs can include the fruit of the Spirit spoken of in Galatians 5: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.". These are outer things that are visible that serve of evidence of faith.

The seals of a Christian's righteousness by faith include the sacraments of baptism and holy communion. In a way, Christ's resurrection and ascension are also seals: they show that the sacrifice given by Jesus did the job.

5. Abraham is the physical forefather of all who are physically Jews. Of whom is he the spiritual forefather?

This is another easy question. Abraham is the spiritual forefather of people who share his belief in God's promises.

**********************
This is 13 verses out of 25. I'll do the remaining half within this blog post, too.

When Marketing Insults

Facebook makes its advertisements change depending on what is in your profile. So if you say you like Sufjan Stevens in your Music section, there will be an ad that says, "This new band sounds just like Sufjan Stevens!" even though the band sounds nothing like Sufjan Stevens.

But if you put in your facebook profile that you are single, you had better be prepared to be reminded of that fact pretty much constantly. Now, I think I've written on here before about the irony involved in an ad that had a woman with a surgically enhanced chest and only the hint of a shirt with a banner reading, "Looking for a Christian girl?", but I would like to take this opportunity to point out another ad for a facebook application called "Zoosk".

This ad involves an attractive woman who definitely is not wearing a shirt, but she is in the process of passing a basketball, so it's kinda PG-13 rated. Are marketing executives so openly disdainful of men 18-25 that they will simply combine two Things Guys Love (naked chicks and sports) and call it a day? Were the lesbians wrestling in beer unavailable? Was it Megan Fox who was going to cost too much money, or was it the Abrams Tank she was going to be driving?

And what is the female equivalent? Surely Zoosk has to market towards women- it's a dating site. Are there men without shirts reading poetry? Men without shirts in a tub filled with gold? Maybe more Vampire stuff? Sexy Vampires playing the piano?

Anyway, I will not be tricked so easily, Zoosk. I am frankly insulted by your ad and will never buy your product. Now if you'll excuse me, the Cubs are on TV and Megan Fox is singing the 7th inning stretch.

Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!


TO MICHAEL DRESSEL

Augustinian Prior in Neustadt, whom Luther deposed because he could not keep the peace with the brethren.

June 22, 1516.

Salvation and peace! But not such peace as is manifest to the natural man, but that which lies beneath the cross, viz. the peace which passeth all understanding. Thou art longing for peace, but in the wrong way; for thou seekest it as the world gives it, and not as Christ does. Dost thou know, dear father, that in this matter God deals in a wondrous manner with His people, having placed His peace in the midst of dispeace, nay, in the very thick of temptation and dissensions. “Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” Therefore it is not he whom no one disturbs who has peace — that is the world’s peace, but he who is troubled on every side, and bears all quietly and joyfully. Thou sayest with Israel, “Peace, peace, and there is no peace.” Cry rather with Christ, “Cross, cross!” And yet there is no cross. For, as soon as thou canst joyfully say, “Blessed cross, of all kinds of wood there is none like unto thee.” Then, in that moment, the cross has ceased to be a cross. See, then, how graciously the Lord is leading thee to true peace in surrounding thee with so much of the cross. For he who seeks peace will find it. And the best way to seek it is, when affliction overtakes you, to receive it with joy, as a sacred relic, and cease searching vainly for a peace which commends itself to your lower nature. For God considers any such peace far inferior to His peace, which is inseparable from the cross and the troubles of this life. Farewell, and pray for me, dear father. May the Lord reign in you.

MARTIN LUTHER, Vicar.

Wittenberg.

This should not be this hard

This week, the CIA released the Inspector General Report from 2004, dealing with the enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees. It's got the Internet tubes ablaze, I tell ya! There are very serious and strident views on both sides. Commentators the world over are asking questions, the biggest of which is:

Is torture justified if it results in the saving of lives?

This question is apparently hard. I think it's a rather slam-dunk "no"- torture is a violation of human rights, and two wrongs don't make a right. Getting a straight Biblical answer is a little difficult as the Bible doesn't explicitly deal with when it's ok to torture people. But it does say that "[the condemnation of those who say] 'Let us do evil that good may result' is deserved." Also, Christians are told to love their enemies, pray for those who persecute them, to turn the other cheek, and to treat their neighbor as themselves.

A pastor from my synod gave an answer here, and while they rightly point out that there is not (nor should there be) an Official Doctrinal Position, they also point out that if dropping the Atomic bomb was justified, torture is justified. So. There's that.

But even if we are uncertain about this question, I think there are a few relevant points that it assumes away. We can argue about what to do if we know that a terrorist has information about a bomb in New York. But what if we don't know what they know? What if we don't know that this person is a terrorist? Are there other techniques we can employ to get this information that don't involve torture? All of this is swept under the rug.

But I watched FOX News Sunday this morning, and people were very pro-torture. Juan Williams was doing very well making the case against torture: it's illegal, there are other ways to get information, the information we do get with it is unreliable because people just want the torture to stop, and it hurts America's image abroad hurting national security.

Chris Wallace would have none of it. Right before ending the show, he very snidely said, "And I suppose the fact that we haven't been attacked since September 11th is just a coincidence." I yelled loudly at my television.

Bill Kristol then points out that Abu Zubaida was interrogated using pussy techniques for a month before the men got to work, used their enhanced interrogation techniques, and got him to spill the beans. But according to this Washington Post article, Zubaida's post-torture information was not all that critical. High (always anonymous) CIA sources speak on both sides. One says the information was really important and useful, another says it wasn't.

How do we know who's telling the truth? Dick Cheney isn't an anonymous source, and he says that torture provided good intelligence that saved lives. But I don't really believe him because he has a vested interest in making the program important and effective. Also, his credibility is damaged from all of the things he said about Iraq.

Maybe there should be an investigation into this so we get some better answers. Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he's starting an inquiry. Unfortunately, it will not investigate the efficacy of torture or other techniques. It will not investigate who authorized torture to be used. But it will investigate if CIA operatives overstepped their authorization in some cases. So if you were authorized to torture someone, you're fine. If you exceeded that authorization and tortured them harder than you should have, you're in trouble.

But even this weak attempt at fact-finding and accountability is being met with hostility. Another talking head on Fox News Sunday, Mara Liasson, said that it would be better for the White House if Holder's investigation were allowed to proceed, but hoped that it would not find enough evidence to do anything. Suuuuper. Another member of the panel, Bill Sammon, thought that the investigation was damaging to the national security of the United States, and that Holder is Obama's little puppet. Maybe he's too used to the Attorney General doing whatever the President says from when George W. Bush was President.

So, in conclusion, the view that torturing people should not be done and that investigations into torture are warranted and should cover administration officials who authorized torture as well as the operatives who carried it out, makes me a crazy liberal.

I make fun of my name a lot

But sometimes, it's helpful to be reminded of the person you're named for. This is why I frown on names like Brady and Apple.

David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands."

As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

Quantum Mechanics and Miracles

You know what really grinds my gears? When people misuse quantum mechanics and mistakenly apply it to explain macroscopic phenomena and miracles.

The story goes a little something like this: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the momentum and position of a particle cannot both be known at the same time with infinite levels of precision. There is a little fuzziness- electrons are better described as waves than as balls. We can draw a cloud where we are sure the electron spends 95 or 99 or 99.9 percent of its time, but you can never draw a cloud big enough to capture 100 percent of the electron. Therefore, there is a chance no matter how remote that every electron and particle in your body will jump three feet to the right. Or you could punch a wall and your hand would go straight through it as the gypsum board particles hit the cosmic lottery and jump out of the way.

This is where miracles come in.

Some people posit that miracles operate under the guidance of quantum mechanics- God plays slots with the Universe and uses his omnipotence to make sure he gets three cherries whenever he wants. I do not think this is a very good understanding of God or quantum mechanics. God does not play dice with the Universe!

For evidence of this, I suppose I could just cite a few miracles from the Bible. Pay attention to how and why Jesus performs the miracles, and what they say about him.

Then [Jesus] got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!"

He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.

The men were amazed and asked, "What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!"

How does Jesus accomplish this miracle? He 'rebukes the winds and the waves' and they 'obey him'. He could just as easily have told his disciples to turn around and close their eyes, said nothing, and when they turned back have everything be calm.

The image that we are given instead is the relationship between a Creator and his Creation: because Jesus is the Son of God and was the Word at the time the Universe was made, he can therefore have mastery over his creation and suspend any rule that he created in the first place. This is kind of like how an author who writes himself into a book has mastery over what happens to his character in that book.

Here's a second example from earlier in the same chapter of Matthew:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

Again, Jesus is able to perform this miracle because he has divine authority, like how the centurion has authority over his troops.

Why is this an issue at all?

I think it is important to think about whether Jesus performed these miracles by playing by the rules of physics and rigging the deck or if he got rid of the rules completely.

First of all, the idea that even Jesus and God have to play by the rules of physics sounds somewhat like Deism to me. Deism says that God is a Divine Watchmaker who planned the course of world history by setting the speed of light, Planck's Constant, and Boltzmann's Constant at the beginning of time and hasn't intervened since. Since it is precisely this intervention that is told in the Old and New Testaments, I don't like Deism.

Second, it puts the Creator at the mercy of his own Creation, which is a Very Bad Thing. Some people (WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS) do not believe in God because they think that events described in the Bible are physically impossible. Even though the events ARE, in fact, physically impossible, that does not mean that God cannot do them if God transcends physics.

Lastly, having this understanding of miracles develops our faith in the same way that exercise develops muscles. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says cannot be done takes a lot of faith. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says are astronomically unlikely takes less faith. And the entire point is that we are supposed to have faith in that greatest of miracles: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Will there be Quantum Mechanics in Heaven?

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!"

Romans 3

So I got a book from the church library on Romans, and I think it will help my study. It's written to help a group Bible study leader, so its translation to blog form will be a little tricky, as there is a lot less interaction and group discussion. Just reading about scripture and writing somewhat coherent thoughts about it helps me understand it better, but comments from Andy or Chrissy or Ed or Sarah or anyone help too.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

The Jews Paul is writing to may have been upset with the earlier part of his letter. If they do not follow the Law, they are just as bad as the gentiles who do not follow the Law, and they are worse than gentiles that do follow it. So what good does it do to be a Jew? Paul has a couple responses, more of which will come up in chapter 9, but in his first response here he says that the Jews "have been entrusted with the very words of God."

1. In what ways is it an advantage to know God's revelation of Himself, His promises, His deeds, and His guidance for living?

I can think of three responses to this question:

A. God's revelation is unchanging and true. The words of the Bible don't change from country to country or from time to time depending on people's whims, the spirit of the age, or recent advances in scholarship. This means that we don't have to rely on ourselves for religious guidance- God has done it for us. This is a firmer foundation than not having God's revelation.

B. A knowledge of God's past promises and His deeds gives us comfort that He will keep His promises about our salvation, too. He delivered Daniel from the lion's den, Jonah from the belly of the whale, and the Hebrew children from the fiery furnace, so why not every man?

C. As creatures created by God, he knows us better than we may know ourselves about what will make us happy and healthy. Say, for example, that you did not have the Law and that your conscience had been hardened and dulled so that you did not believe that adultery was a sin. You would still suffer the bad symptoms (both spiritual and worldly) without being sure of the cause.

2. What responsibilities go along with being entrusted with God's words?

We must first work to understand them and take care of them. They should also be preached to everyone. Lastly, they should not be misused, misquoted, or misapplied, or else a non-believer would have reason to doubt God.

Also, knowledge of the Law implies that you accept to be judged on your adherence to that Law.

3. What implications does this have for Christians, who have even more of God's words than the Jews had?

We're supposed to be even more diligent and careful with what we've been entrusted. We have been given "treasures in jars of clay", as Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

Paul also wants to address a second objection. If God looks more righteous in comparison to sinful human beings, wouldn't sinning in a way bring glory to God? For the moment, Paul just brushes this aside as absurd and will deal more with the issue later.

Moving on.

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

This is the big conclusion that Paul has been building towards so far: everyone is guilty of breaking the Law, so they cannot be justified before God by using it. The indented verses above are quotes from various sections of the Old Testament and are included to prove to Jews that they are also condemned and that this message is nothing new.

I think that this message is not communicated strongly today. Even Christians believe that they are by nature sinful. In the infamous movie featuring the Sinners in the Pit, non-believing friends of mine came away believing that Christians had never been in the Pit.

For the students of philosophy and history, I blame this on Humanism. The belief that people, when you get right down to it, are innately good, decent, and honest, is neither psychologically true nor Biblical. However, it is a comforting and compelling belief. It is also popular. The antidote is probably examination of oneself and society at large according to the Ten Commandments, but this is something of a Catch-22: if people will not accept the moral authority of the Ten Commandments, then it is hard to convince them that they have sinned against them. Put another way, it is hard to tell a kleptomaniac that he is a criminal if theft is not a crime.

4. Jews have at least one advantage over Gentiles: they have been entrusted with God's words. However, in the final analysis, why are Jews and Gentiles essentially equal?

Jews and Gentiles are essentially equal because they both have sinned and are in need of God's grace.

5. What are some purposes of God's Law (3:19-20)?

Not only does the Law tell us how we should live in accordance with God's Will, but it also points out our sin and need for a savior when we fail to follow it. Students who still have their catechisms might remember the Law serving as Curb, Mirror, and Guide. That is, it curbs destructive behaviors and attitudes, lets us see our sins, and gives us positive advice in how we should live.

To quote the Book of Concord:

1] Since the Law of God is useful, 1. not only to the end that external discipline and decency are maintained by it against wild, disobedient men; 2. likewise, that through it men are brought to a knowledge of their sins; 3. but also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law[.]

6. Sketch an outline of 1:18-3:20 by giving titles to the main section and the subsections. Try to follow Paul's logic.

My Bible has sections of its own that I find useful. I guess the NIV did this?

1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: God's Wrath Against Mankind- Gentiles willfully disobeyed God and this made God mad.
2:1-16: God's Righteous Judgment- He was right to be mad and will judge the righteous and unrighteous.
2:17-29: The Jews and the Law- The Jews have the Law and claim to be righteous because of it, but this isn't true because they don't practice what they preach.
3:1-8: God's Faithfulness- God keeps his promises even if people who have the Law don't practice what they preach.
3:9-20: No One Is Righteous- Gentiles and Jews have all broken God's Law.

My Bible also has this outline:
1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: Gentiles
2:1-3:8: Jews
3:9-20: All People

Last section (Righteousness Through Faith):

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

There are a few competing ideas that need to be resolved: if God is all-loving and gracious, he will keep his promise made at The Fall and somehow save people from their sins. Also, he is a just God who cannot stand to be in the presence of sin and will reward sin with the punishment it deserves. How does God get past this paradox or dilemma?

Paul says that he gets past it by having Jesus pay the punishment for our sins on the cross, and by faith imputing his righteousness to us. He is gracious and loving- people who put their faith in Jesus are saved. He is just- those sins have been paid for.

Paul uses a few terms that have been stripped of their meaning to me due to overuse, so I'd like to look at them carefully again. First, is 'justification'. Again, using the vocabulary of the courtroom, to justify someone is to declare them (in the positive sense) 'righteous' and (in the negative sense) 'not guilty'. We are justified before the Judge (God) through Christ's redemption, which is given to us as a free gift that we call grace.

Redemption also needs to be defined, here. We sometimes think of redemption as doing a good action to offset a bad one ("Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!"). But here the word is used in a different sense: it is a release by payment of a ransom. You could redeem a criminal or a slave by paying a price.

God could have been loving and gracious by simply suspending the rules, but that would not have been just. This is what Paul means when he says that 'we uphold the law'- God is not suspending the rules.

7. In your own words, explain how Jesus has enabled us to become righteous if we put our faith in Him.

Even though we have sinned against God, we are declared not guilty of those sins, because Christ led a righteous life and died an innocent death. "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

But why doesn't God just give big kudos to Jesus and not impute it to us? I can't force Jesus to help me. Instead, he gives those kudos that God gave him to me. He did that not to earn my loyalty or love or devotion, but because he's a really nice guy who loves me unconditionally.

8. Why is the phrase 'freely by his grace' important?

It is important because it shows that we don't buy our justification through our actions. Our salvation is dependent upon the love and grace of God, rather than ourselves. This is more reassuring and comforting than depending even in part on our own righteous deeds: our deeds may sometimes fail, but God never will.

9. Why does God's way of righteousness make it impossible for anyone to boast about himself?

If God's way of righteousness is given freely, then no one can boast and say they deserve it more than another person in the same way that I can't claim I deserve more Christmas presents: they are gifts. Jews and gentiles are justified in the same way apart from the law given to Jews only, so Jews can't boast before gentiles.

Imagine that I told two people named Andy and Jordan that I would buy them ice cream depending on how well they played Monopoly. However, I gave Jordan $6000 and Andy only $500. I stop the game later and buy them both ice cream because they played the game 'well'- they were courteous to one another, they did not cheat, they rolled the dice and moved the game pieces correctly, etc., etc. It would do Jordan no good to claim that he deserved more ice cream for ending up with more money- I wasn't grading on that criteria, anyway.

Maybe that's a bad analogy in some ways, but it gets the point across.