#20. Romans 5:1-2 – Conciliation, Proclaimed (Conciliation Series, Part I)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

Being then, justified by faith, we may be having peace toward God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ…

Gosh, so much to get out of the first verse. Chapter 5 is gonna be a big one, y’all. The big topic of this chapter (and the next three) are ‘conciliation,’ or, ‘making peace.’ Remember the Romans 1:8-13 portion of this letter, where we saw that Paul’s goal was to provide consolation for those in Christ? Here is where that goal begins its fulfillment. We are entering some of my favorite chapters of the Bible, and if, after reading these verses, you gloried in expectation and never read another verse in Scripture, I wouldn’t be able to blame you.

The teaching of ‘conciliation’ is not to be confused with the process of ‘reconciliation.’ There’s a major difference between these two – one represents God (being ‘conciliated,’) and the other represents man (who has yet to be ‘conciliated.’) The sin in the garden of Eden creates opposition. Man and God are no longer together, but separate. They become alienated from each other. The offense, rooted in sin, must be taken care of in order for the two to reconcile. So, God’s plan is, simply, “send My Son to defeat the enemy.” In reckoning our transgressions, our offenses, to Him, He is literally ‘conciliating’ the world to Himself.

Now, to be ‘reconciled’ is to be brought back across the barrier of sin, or, more plainly, the removal of that barrier. See, God is conciliating, that we may be reconciled. Keep this in mind – God is Subjector, we are Subjected.

Yet the question remains – how is this process being effected? Weeeeeeell, I’m so glad you asked, young padawan.

First: the previous four chapters can be summarized with the declaration here: Being, then, justified by faith… To God, this is where a believer stands. Completely justified, per Christ’s faith. The concept has been thoroughly defined, now. The terms ‘justification’ and ‘faith’ are absolutely inseparable in relation to us. You don’t have one without the other, in God’s sight. It is through faith that we are brought into this complete revelation of His heart, and the longer we dwell on it, the better our understanding becomes.

Note also that this section is founded on this topic. The two ideas, that we are justified by faith, and have peace toward God, are separate, per Paul’s ‘Then/may’ word use. Since we are justified by faith, we can have peace toward God. These concepts are mutually exclusive, but having a true peace toward God is not accomplished without being justified by faith first, which is God’s decision. Whenever Paul speaks of ‘working in the body,’ I would argue that this is one of the primary goals of anyone who has Christ’s faith within them. When Paul offers exhortations and ‘ideals,’ he is explaining the ideal acts that display a proper peace toward God. If you find it difficult to apprehend the reasoning behind any actions Paul recommends, I would exhort you to reaffirm the first couple teachings of the evangel, laid out from Romans 1:18-4:25. You may realize that there’s a critical aspect you were missing in your foundation (and this goes for me as well; this is actually my second foray into Romans, after studying the bulk of the evangel. How much more there is to gather on a second read!)

It’s no small thing, either, this whole ‘difference between justification and peace.’ God is clear and distinct on the topic of peace – the two ideas are not interchangeable. Justification by faith stems from grace, while peace is established with God as a result (Rom. 1:7.) The sin offerings and peace offerings of the Old Testament are different in nature – not that they are analogous to our justification and conciliation, but that God clearly and distinctly draws lines between the two ideas. Justification absolves, while peace, in effect, is established. Sin’s foundation is removed, and peace’s foundation (rooted in justification) can be built. On the subject of sin and peace offerings, George Rogers writes:

“The sin offerings gave the nation and the individual a righteous standing, so that God could dwell in their midst another year, but these did not give the people access to God and fellowship with him as did the peace offering. Just as we who are justified may have peace with God, so they might or might not bring their peace offerings. While sin offerings delivered the people from condemnation, the peace offering was the only offering of which the offerer himself partook.”

There are such wonderful ideas to get out of this, that I’ll only touch briefly on, here. First, sin offerings were temporary, as were the peace offerings. Up until Christ, there were no permanent offerings of any kind. Nothing here to make Israel consider an absolute truth about God, which naturally led them back to stubbornness (operating, ultimately, by their own views and thoughts, and not faith.) Yet second, Christ, in contrast, is a permanent offering. See, the peace offering was to God, Who took His portion of the peace offering, and left the rest for Israel, which is why even the offerer took it. Again, God’s issue isn’t with absolving anyone – it’s with the sin itself.

All of this ties right back to the last part of the verse above – we have peace toward God through our Lord, Jesus Christ! This is a beautiful facet of conciliation, of peace. It all occurs through Christ, per His blood.

For the already-astute reader of Paul’s evangel, you may be wondering why I’m not explicitly discovering the secret of the evangel at this time (Rom. 16:25-27, 2 Cor. 5:18-21.) Truth be told, we’re just not there yet. This verse is establishing an individual’s conciliation, but while this verse declares a conciliation, it is not declaring the secret of the evangel, but building toward it.

Nonetheless, having a peace toward God, through Christ’s faith, we are genuinely able to approach God, apart from the whole ‘offering’ nonsense, simply because Christ was God’s offering to us. It’s a complete reversal from the idea that man thinks it must stand on its head for God. Instead, it is God Who is standing on His head for us. The sin that once separated righteousness and unrighteousness now has no impact on the believer, and God is using these believers to display that sin is now defeated, per Christ’s resurrection.

…through Whom we have the access also, by faith, into this grace in which we stand, and we may be glorying in expectation of the glory of God.

Similar to Romans 1:18 and 3:21, a claim has been made. In 1:18-19, it concerned God’s indignation. In 3:21-23, it concerned our justification, through Christ. Now, in 5:1, it concerns our peace, through Christ. As 1:20-3:20 and 3:24-4:25 elaborated on the initial declarations in great detail, proving their necessity, so will 5:3-8:39 elaborate on the initial declaration of these first two verses. If you’re very technical or argumentative in nature, like I am, this structure will certainly interest you. Most don’t consider that the Bible is a structured line of reasoning, or argumentative in nature. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here!

Couple of things, to start us off, here. The words “we have the access” is not entirely accurate. The phrase is “WE-HAVE-HAD.” The CLV’s rendering doesn’t capture this very well, though it does note it, through notation, in the printed text. The same goes for “which we stand,” which is, literally, “WE-HAVE-STOOD.” The reason this matters is because it delineates the phrases a little better. Look:

…through Whom we have had the access also, by faith, into this grace in which we have stood, and we may be glorying in expectation of the glory of God.

We have had access (by faith) into grace. It’s by the faith of the One Who never transgressed against God that we ‘access’ the grace of Him, though we certainly have transgressed against Him. Grace deals with the hostility against Him – the justification deals with the injustice. The peace is established in the faith Christ has while looking in the face of death – the faith that He will be resurrected, by the power of God. The grace removes the sin, that again, the peace may be the new, replaced foundation.

We stand, or have stood, in this grace, per our justification. It should be known through this that we stand in grace, not faith. This goes back to, “People saying I’m saved by my faith” are completely missing the passage, and are standing in their own belief, not the grace of God. We have access to the grace through faith, and the grace itself is revealed in this evangel, which is God’s power for salvation (Rom. 1:16.) In fact, this is such a prevalent notion, that the subject of ‘faith,’ having been established as the channel, here, to the Source, which is grace, is now completely dropped for the next four chapters. We are not asked to ‘believe’ anything for the next four chapters, with one exception in Romans 6:8. We receive God’s righteousness through faith, and can now learn of His grace, leading to peace toward Him.

It is because of this, having a standing in God’s grace, that we may be ‘glorying’ in expectation of the ‘glory of God.’ To be ‘glorying’ is, really, to be ‘boasting.’ I don’t know exactly why A.E. Knoch changes the wording here, other than to keep from confusing the ‘boasting’ in Rom. 3:28 with this boasting, but this still interprets the words, where they need not be interpreted. However, he is correct that this ‘boasting’ carries a different weight to it. Previously, the ‘boasting’ was in yourself, in your accomplishments (after Paul clearly delivered and credited ‘living’ at all, ‘life’ in general, with Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection.) Here, there is still ‘boasting,’ but it’s been completely redirected, so as not to be associated with man, but with God’s glory.

To ‘boast in God’s glory’ is absolutely okay. See, it’s man’s inherent nature to boast in something. So if you’re going to boast, boast in Christ! Redirect your boast to One Who truly deserves it! God’s ability to save is worthy of boasting in. It’s been established, here. I know there’s this looming question some of us may have, the whole, ‘If God’s in control, didn’t he purpose the sin anyway, thus making this boast irrelevant?’ And that’s a silly question that we’ll cover when His evangel reaches it. Let’s simply focus, for now, on what we know so far from the text – this boast becomes completely sustained as His accomplishment, and not ours.

Our expectation is also now fully claimed, in this sentence. We have an expectation of the glory of God. The ‘glory of God’ is a tad ambiguous, at this stage, but it will be glimpsed in this chapter, and fully elaborated on in future letters (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, for the curious.) Whenever ‘expectation’ is referenced in almost any other version, the word is translated ‘hope.’ Guys: hope is not enough. I loathe this change in the KJV. The original Greek word is elpis, Greek element “EXPECTATION.” No reason to make this ‘hope.’

Why am I so bothered by this, you may ask? Well, I don’t like to quote secular content, but–

No, no that’s not true. I literally quote secular content all the time, usually because I find something funny. But I usually use them to draw analogies, you know? Here, however, I think there’s a difference because it’s a little more philosophical. Nonetheless, it gets my point across. This is The Daily Stoic, Nov. 16^th, titled, “Hope and Fear are the Same.”

“‘Hecato says, ‘cease to hope and you will cease to fear.’ …The primary cause of both these ills is that instead of adapting ourselves to present circumstances we send out thoughts too far ahead.’ – Seneca, Moral Letters, 5.7b-8

Hope is generally regarded as good. Fear is generally regarded as bad. To a Stoic like Hecato (known as Hecato of Rhodes), they are the same – both are projections into the future about things we do not control. Both are the enemy of this present moment that you are actually in. Both mean you’re living a life in opposition to amor fati.

It’s not about overcoming our fears but understanding that both hope and fear contain a dangerous amount of want and worry in them. And, sadly, the want is what causes the worry.”

Now, I’m not designating myself a Stoic, or inviting Stoicism by any means into Scriptural study. But on a basic level, when someone is right, they’re right. This is a case in which the Stoics are correct. To ‘hope’ for something to come true is to want something that may or may not happen, causing more worry. That word should not be present in Scripture. God doesn’t say, “you may receive this hope,” because that’s a simplification of words God didn’t say. He says “You may be boasting in expectation of My glory.” In this case, the contingency, the ‘may,’ is connected to boasting, not the expectation itself. And the word ‘hope,’ being a relative contingency in its very definition, revolves around some element of worry in relation to future events. This casts an unreasonable doubt on words and implements a human reasoning and obscurity into the passage.

In contrast, “expectation” is set. It’s not something that ‘could’ happen, but something that shall occur. You can, literally, expect it. Instead of looking aimlessly in hope, you can check your watch in expectation.