I always see that section as simply saying we all screw up, we all make mistakes. It is through grace and love that we can pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and try again. Likewise, we should extend that same grace and love to others for we are no better than they.
If you consider the emphasis and point of Romans 7 and 8 about what God has done through Jesus Christ it takes on different characteristics.
To take Romans 7 & 8 and use it to illustrate man and his shortcomings it always seems to go to glorifying man instead of God. And emphasizes man and sin.
I think the point is about what God has done and how to live without condemnation.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Leaving out the chapter division helps to look at it a little different.
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
Although I found his invoking of postmodernism irritatingly gratuitous, the author of this piece appears to make some sound points.
[From: “Insights From Postmodernism’s Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In The Interpretation Of Romans 7,” by Walt Russell (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 37:4, December, 1994)]
quote:
(3) If Paul is speaking as a representative of his people Israel’s reception of the Law at Sinai (7:7–13) and as a representative of their struggle under its diagnostic and condemning function throughout their history (7:14–25), then the experience of Rom 7:7–25 transcends Paul’s own personal experience. Clearly Paul was only representationally present when the commandment came at Sinai (7:9). Therefore the death he experienced at that time was through solidarity with the generation of Israelites that left Egypt. This is an obvious but important point to make about this passage because it reveals the emphasis of Paul’s focus. While recent western interpretation of Romans 7 has tended to focus upon the psychology of the struggle of the “I” in 7:14–25, this is a misplaced emphasis. Granted, it is a possible interpretation of the data, but an unlikely one. Paul’s transcendent emphasis points in a different direction.
Our interest in the west in the internal struggle of the persons represented in this passage has caused us to make rather facile leaps in interpreting key terms within the passage. For example, those who see the Genesis 3 narrative in the background nimbly expand the sense of “law” to include God’s instruction to Adam and Eve. Those who see all humanity represented in the struggle with law/legalism make the same leap beyond Israel’s Law in this context. The same expansion of “law” to any kind of divine restriction or any kind of legalism is made by those who see Christians represented in the struggle of Romans 7. In other words an implicit universalizing of Paul’s terminology is rather widespread. There seems to be little hesitation in abstracting Paul’s use of “law” in any one of several directions. Of course this flies in the face of his previous forty uses of nomos in Romans 1–6 that focused on the Mosaic Law and in the face of the Mosaic Law focus in 8:1–4. But it appears that such context-specific information is ignored when confronted with a broader interpretive paradigm. Again, our Gentile eyes have not seen the Jewish elements within this passage.
Equally problematic are the theological problems that accompany the traditional interpretive paradigm. For one thing, the interpretations that see non-Christians represented in Rom 7:7–25 are hard-pressed to explain how 7:21–22 can describe the innermost desires of non-Christians: “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. For I joyfully concur with the Law of God in the inner man.” Is this how Paul would describe those apart from God—even the most earnest of unbelievers? Is this what the very core (inner person) of those who do not know God is like? If this is so, then it is very difficult to square with Paul’s overt discussion of Jews and Gentiles under sin in Rom 3:9–20.
The same theological incredulity surfaces, however, when one encounters those interpretations that see Christians represented in Romans 7. Is it really likely that Paul can be describing the experience of Christians when he describes the person of 7:14 as being “of flesh, sold into bondage to sin”? This is particularly difficult to accept following the robust declaration of the opposite in Romans 6: Christians are freed from sin’s bondage (6:2, 4, 6–7, 11, 14–15, 17–18, 20, 22). Additionally, Paul follows the morose description of spiritual bondage and impotence in 7:7–25 with an equally antithetical statement of the Christians’ freedom from sin’s bondage in Romans 8 (e.g. vv. 2–4, 9, 11, 12–13). Is the apostle swinging schizophrenically between contradictory descriptions of the spiritual state of Christians? Is he “nuancing” the freedom from sin that he asserts Christians possess in Romans 6 and 8 by stating that they really do not possess such freedom at all in Romans 7? I find such explanations both untenable and unconvincing.
Therefore the most satisfying conclusion to the identity of the persons represented in Rom 7:7–25 is that they are neither non-Christians nor Christians but pious, believing Israelites. They are not unbelievers because they represent the best and truest believers in Israel during the old- covenant era. They are true believers during the Mosaic Law era who did earnestly wish to do good (7:21) and did joyfully concur with the Law of God in the core of their being (7:22). But the difficulty they experienced was that they were still under the mastery of sin because they were still under the Law (6:14). They were true, old-covenant believers before Christ, but they were still “of flesh, sold in bondage to sin” (7:14b). This is because sin’s bondage over human beings was not broken until Jesus came and died substitutionally for his people and rose again (8:1–4). It is only in his saving acts that sin’s mastery was broken (cf. 6:1–11). The Mosaic Law could not do this because of the weakness of the flesh (8:31). Therefore God did it in the sending of his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (8:3b).
Paul’s twofold point in Romans 7 to “those who know the Law” is that it is inappropriate as a new-covenant restraint for God’s people (7:1–6) and it was always inadequate as an old-covenant constraint for God’s people (7:7–25). The problem was not with the Law’s lack of holiness but with the power of sin’s mastery over God’s people during the Law era. This is why Paul’s main point in 7:7–25 is not so much about the psychological frustration of those being represented as about the broader contours of that era regarding sin’s dominion. Sin’s dominion paralleled Law’s dominion in the Mosaic era. Those who were “in Moses” were, unfortunately, still “in Adam.” Therefore being “in Moses” was not enough to offset being “in Adam.” This is why Paul’s declaration in 8:1 is so triumphant: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Therefore the Jewish Christians in Rome should not attempt to foist the Mosaic Law as a means of Christian constraint upon the Gentile Christians. God has provided a far more appropriate and adequate way to deal with our struggle to control our bodies.
Paul’s point in Rom 8:1–17 is that “in Christ” we have been freed from the wretchedness and condemnation that characterized life in the flesh under the Mosaic Law. We have been given the appropriate and adequate means for bodily discipline in the person of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In 8:1–11 Paul asserts that bodily discipline is appropriately achieved by walking according to the standard of the Spirit, not according to the standard of the Mosaic Law of the flesh, because only the resurrecting Spirit of God can give life to our mortal body. In 8:12–17 the apostle concludes that we adequately achieve bodily discipline by putting to death the deeds of our body by depending upon the Holy Spirit who leads the children of God and produces an inner sense of family intimacy with God our Father.
To heighten the contrast between life in the flesh/under the Mosaic covenant (7:5/7:7–25) and life in the Spirit/under the new covenant (7:6/8:1–17), Paul scrupulously avoids any mention of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in 7:7–25. It is not that the Spirit was not involved in the life of God’s people during the whole Mosaic Law era. Reading the OT testifies to his presence and ministry in the life of Israel. But the old-covenant era is not characterized by the work of the Holy Spirit like the new-covenant era is (e.g. Ezek 36:24–27). Rather, by contrast, the old-covenant era is characterized by Paul as an era of bodily frailty and weakness. The tandem term to “Law” that Paul uses to express this frailty is “flesh” (sarx). The Law era was the flesh era, and Paul uses these two terms interchangeably throughout these types of discussion (e.g. Rom 8:3–4; cf. Gal 5:16–18). Therefore to be under the Mosaic Law was to be “in the flesh.” The believer in Jesus Christ has been delivered from both the authority of the Law and from the frailty of the sphere of the flesh: “However, you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom 8:9, NASB).
In contexts such as Romans 7–8 and Galatians 3–6, which center on the classification of the contrast between the old and new covenants for Jewish Christians, “flesh/Law” and “Spirit” are representative of these respective covenants/eras. This is why Paul can definitively state in Rom 8:9 that Christians have their identity in the sphere or era of the Spirit, not in the sphere or era of the flesh. One cannot have it both ways. The distinctive mark of our sonship is having the Spirit of God (8:14). Christians have left behind the identity of bodily frailty that “flesh” connotes. We have entered a new covenant and thereby a new era in God’s program. Our lives are not to be characterized primarily by human frailty but by divine enablement.
These are classic Pauline distinctions, and he is remarkably consistent in his usage of this antithesis between flesh and Spirit. This is why Paul’s statement in 7:14b (“but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin”) cannot possibly be true of the new-covenant believer. Rather, it is a definitive description that repeats Paul’s description in 7:5 of life under the old covenant: “For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit to death.” The contrast in 7:6 is of life under the new covenant, which is life apart from the flesh and the Law: “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we served in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” But once again our ignorance of the significance of this whole discussion for the Jewish Christians whom it addresses leads us in wrong interpretive directions.
From: “Insights From Postmodernism’s Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In The Interpretation Of Romans 7,” by Walt Russell (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 37:4, December, 1994)]
But once again our ignorance of the significance of this whole discussion for the Jewish Christians whom it addresses leads us in wrong interpretive directions.
So it simply boils down to the question - "to whom addressed" (Thank you Dr.Bullinger).
leave it to crazy Paul the mystery man to so artfully weave his understanding of historical/racial/spiritual contexts and spiritual individualism together in his written appeals.
there seems little difference (other than obvious things like magnitude and complexity) between how an individual spiritually develops and a race or nation or other group-tapestry develops.
and i doubt he even really had to try very hard to pull off such a thing. by this time, it had become second-nature to him.
tho, i will agree strongly with this, as it relates to a lot of modern Bible understanding...
quote:
makes sense that in the West, we are so focused on the individual that we miss the concepts and mindset concerning the children of Israel...
but also, Paul seems even more thespian in his presentations than most would feel comfortable with. he seems to jump between satire and role-playing a lot. using various forms of irony and wit. and as written form, this has been confusing to a less-than literate audience, as Peter himself wrote of.
"ok, imagine you or I am old Israel..." that sort of thing.
Thanks for posting that Cynic. That's essentially the same conclusion I came to, but the autohr presents it much more cogently. To interpret chapter seven as relating to the Christian experience rips it out of the context of chapter six and ignores the numerous references to the Law and the Covenant in the beginning of chapter seven.
I think the "inward man" Paul refers to in 7:22 is not the holy spirit, but the mind of the Old Testament believer, which is specifically referred to in verse 23.
Comcerning v.22 &23 Jerry, I agree. Thanks for that.
One of the commentaries I read on this pointed out that v. 5 & 6 set the stage for 2 major discussions that follow:
KJV Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit
unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
v5 (when we were in the flesh...ie, the Law) is elucidated in v7-25 and v6 (serving in newness of spirit) is elucidated in 8:1-14.
I'll go along with that CM...as a secondary interpretation. I think most of Paul's writings in particular, as well as the rest of the Bible, stand up well to peeling away layers of meaning. Still there is a primary meaning that is part of the long argument Paul is making.
The major point of Romans is to establish the particulars of redemption, for the Jew first, and also for the Gentile. To that end, Paul engages in masterful strings of logic to convince the Jew, without offending, that the law is indeed fulfilled in christ. That the law is effective in convincing men of sin by illuminating its sinfulness and man's hopelessness in achieving the righteousness the law demanded. That, in a nutshell, is what chapter 7 seems to be saying.
Yes, the particulars of redemption. Overall the topic of Romans seems to be righteousness. Starting with the invisible things of Genesis. And understanding the things that are made.
chapter 1
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
And ending with the mystery which I think are connected.
chapter 16
25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
interesting that Paul would say "according to my gospel"
came across this-
In the development of the first century church there were two gospels. The first gospel was that of the apostle Peter and the eleven other apostles. The second gospel was that of the apostle Paul and others who were, in time, raised up to teach this gospel with Paul. It seems to this author that the simplest and most effective manner in which to communicate this subject is to list corresponding differences in these two gospels with a concluding commentary.
Peter’s gospel was a reiteration of all Jesus said and did while in the world. It is reinforced by the Holy Spirit through its gift to those who believe.
Paul’s gospel was a revelation from the ascended Lord seated at the right hand of the Father.
Peter’s gospel is the foundation for the household of God.
Paul’s gospel is the edifice of the household of God.
Peter’s gospel is a continuation from the beginning when man was made a living soul.
Paul’s gospel has its beginnings before the foundations of the world in the mystery of the Spirit of Christ.
Peter’s gospel holds the keys to the kingdom of God.
Paul’s gospel reveals the kingdom of God.
Peter’s gospel is one of entrance.
Paul’s gospel is one of establishment.
Peter’s gospel ministers to the children coming into the family of God.
Paul’s gospel brings the children of God unto maturity.
Peter’s gospel raised Paul up unto the revelation from Jesus Christ. Peter’s foundational gospel was preached by Paul when he first went into a new area to establish a church. Before Peter relinquished the principle of law in exchange for faith, he resisted Paul’s revelation. Paul’s gospel was never preached by Peter. In one of his two epistles written near the end of his life on the future entrance into the kingdom, Peter supports the validity of Paul’s ministry.
Under Paul’s ministration these two gospels came together as the one contiguous gospel for the growth of the household of God.
Commentary: In the epistle to the Ephesians, Paul makes evident the sources of these two gospels. In Ephesians 2:20 he writes to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
And (ye) are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
The in Ephesians 3:4,5 he writes:
Whereby when you read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets.
Paul used words very purposefully. Notice this difference between verses 2:20 and 3:5. The foundation came from apostles and prophets while the mystery was revealed to “holy” apostles and prophets. There is a difference between “apostles and prophets” and “holy apostles and prophets.” Understanding this difference leads to the revelation of the great mystery given to the apostle Paul.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
I always see that section as simply saying we all screw up, we all make mistakes. It is through grace and love that we can pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and try again. Likewise, we should extend that same grace and love to others for we are no better than they.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
well said Abi
Even paul knew that he was capable of sinning, and yet his relationship with God was never in doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
If you consider the emphasis and point of Romans 7 and 8 about what God has done through Jesus Christ it takes on different characteristics.
To take Romans 7 & 8 and use it to illustrate man and his shortcomings it always seems to go to glorifying man instead of God. And emphasizes man and sin.
I think the point is about what God has done and how to live without condemnation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
For instance, if you read it like this...
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Leaving out the chapter division helps to look at it a little different.
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
So which "law" is being emphasized here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I believe the answer is, yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
That's what I like about Raf, he's decisive!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Or....
As Yogi Beara allegedly said when giving directions.. "When you come to the fork in the road, take it"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
That's pretty cool. There can be so many possible meanings. O those crafty scriptures, they sure can mess with our heads.
I'm aware that some even interpret "I was alive without law once" as an allusion to reincarnation.
Who knows...
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Although I found his invoking of postmodernism irritatingly gratuitous, the author of this piece appears to make some sound points.
[From: “Insights From Postmodernism’s Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In The Interpretation Of Romans 7,” by Walt Russell (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 37:4, December, 1994)]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
thanks, cynic, that was a good piece.
makes sense that in the West, we are so focused on the individual that we miss the concepts and mindset concerning the children of Israel...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I agree. A great piece. He "fleshes out" (forgive the pun) what I was seeing about this.
Cynic, I see the postmodern reference in the title header, but I fail to find a reference in the section you quoted. Did I miss something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
what a wild and crazy idea huh?
while we still learn, we still don't know
exactly who he's talking to....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
leave it to crazy Paul the mystery man to so artfully weave his understanding of historical/racial/spiritual contexts and spiritual individualism together in his written appeals.
there seems little difference (other than obvious things like magnitude and complexity) between how an individual spiritually develops and a race or nation or other group-tapestry develops.
and i doubt he even really had to try very hard to pull off such a thing. by this time, it had become second-nature to him.
tho, i will agree strongly with this, as it relates to a lot of modern Bible understanding...
but also, Paul seems even more thespian in his presentations than most would feel comfortable with. he seems to jump between satire and role-playing a lot. using various forms of irony and wit. and as written form, this has been confusing to a less-than literate audience, as Peter himself wrote of.
"ok, imagine you or I am old Israel..." that sort of thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
and there it is again...
a personal experience...
So who is he writng to....
does Paul even know or
is to whoever is listening-
those with ears to hear...
and who is Paul listening to
is more the flip side...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks for posting that Cynic. That's essentially the same conclusion I came to, but the autohr presents it much more cogently. To interpret chapter seven as relating to the Christian experience rips it out of the context of chapter six and ignores the numerous references to the Law and the Covenant in the beginning of chapter seven.
I think the "inward man" Paul refers to in 7:22 is not the holy spirit, but the mind of the Old Testament believer, which is specifically referred to in verse 23.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Comcerning v.22 &23 Jerry, I agree. Thanks for that.
One of the commentaries I read on this pointed out that v. 5 & 6 set the stage for 2 major discussions that follow:
KJV Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit
unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
v5 (when we were in the flesh...ie, the Law) is elucidated in v7-25 and v6 (serving in newness of spirit) is elucidated in 8:1-14.
Good insight!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks Evan. You know what they say about a blind squirrel and the nut....
:-)
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
'Fraid I don't Jerry. Enlighten me, man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
The saying goes, 'even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while'
:-)
JB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i think Paul is addressing each individual as a whole spiritual being
that they should break away from the "law" of death into the law of life within Christ Jesus
for when the law was alive i died-but the law of the spirit of life in
Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of death
which does not say do as you please but rather live to god
in newness of life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I'll go along with that CM...as a secondary interpretation. I think most of Paul's writings in particular, as well as the rest of the Bible, stand up well to peeling away layers of meaning. Still there is a primary meaning that is part of the long argument Paul is making.
The major point of Romans is to establish the particulars of redemption, for the Jew first, and also for the Gentile. To that end, Paul engages in masterful strings of logic to convince the Jew, without offending, that the law is indeed fulfilled in christ. That the law is effective in convincing men of sin by illuminating its sinfulness and man's hopelessness in achieving the righteousness the law demanded. That, in a nutshell, is what chapter 7 seems to be saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Yes, the particulars of redemption. Overall the topic of Romans seems to be righteousness. Starting with the invisible things of Genesis. And understanding the things that are made.
chapter 1
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
And ending with the mystery which I think are connected.
chapter 16
25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Which is further expounded on in Ephesians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
interesting that Paul would say "according to my gospel"
came across this-
In the development of the first century church there were two gospels. The first gospel was that of the apostle Peter and the eleven other apostles. The second gospel was that of the apostle Paul and others who were, in time, raised up to teach this gospel with Paul. It seems to this author that the simplest and most effective manner in which to communicate this subject is to list corresponding differences in these two gospels with a concluding commentary.
Peter’s gospel was a reiteration of all Jesus said and did while in the world. It is reinforced by the Holy Spirit through its gift to those who believe.
Paul’s gospel was a revelation from the ascended Lord seated at the right hand of the Father.
Peter’s gospel is the foundation for the household of God.
Paul’s gospel is the edifice of the household of God.
Peter’s gospel is a continuation from the beginning when man was made a living soul.
Paul’s gospel has its beginnings before the foundations of the world in the mystery of the Spirit of Christ.
Peter’s gospel holds the keys to the kingdom of God.
Paul’s gospel reveals the kingdom of God.
Peter’s gospel is one of entrance.
Paul’s gospel is one of establishment.
Peter’s gospel ministers to the children coming into the family of God.
Paul’s gospel brings the children of God unto maturity.
Peter’s gospel raised Paul up unto the revelation from Jesus Christ. Peter’s foundational gospel was preached by Paul when he first went into a new area to establish a church. Before Peter relinquished the principle of law in exchange for faith, he resisted Paul’s revelation. Paul’s gospel was never preached by Peter. In one of his two epistles written near the end of his life on the future entrance into the kingdom, Peter supports the validity of Paul’s ministry.
Under Paul’s ministration these two gospels came together as the one contiguous gospel for the growth of the household of God.
Commentary: In the epistle to the Ephesians, Paul makes evident the sources of these two gospels. In Ephesians 2:20 he writes to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
And (ye) are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
The in Ephesians 3:4,5 he writes:
Whereby when you read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets.
Paul used words very purposefully. Notice this difference between verses 2:20 and 3:5. The foundation came from apostles and prophets while the mystery was revealed to “holy” apostles and prophets. There is a difference between “apostles and prophets” and “holy apostles and prophets.” Understanding this difference leads to the revelation of the great mystery given to the apostle Paul.
(plagiarized)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.