Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why the Gospel Is Still “To the Jew First”

Transcript

Why the Gospel Is Still “To the Jew First” · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed thinking. What if I told you that a single
0:04
grammatical quirk in a 2000 year old letter could completely
0:07
rewrite a modern church budget? I mean, that sounds like a
0:10
stretch, but it is actually entirely accurate.
0:13
Right. You know, usually when we talk
0:15
about a medical diagnosis, there's an expectation of
0:17
precision. It is like engineering.
0:20
You break your arm, the X-ray shows that jagged white line on
0:23
the screen, and the doctor points to the fracture.
0:26
The situation is binary. Yeah, the bone is broken.
0:29
Or it is is intact. We favor that kind of visible,
0:33
neat categorization because, well, it removes ambiguity.
0:37
The diagnosis is clean and the treatment plan is obvious, but
0:41
then you step into the world of evaluating ancient texts and
0:44
suddenly that X-ray machine seems to short circuit.
0:46
It really has. We are looking at a theological
0:48
and historical landscape that is honestly quite murky.
0:52
You start reading instructions written thousands of years ago,
0:55
and the natural human inclination is to assume certain
0:58
commands were restricted to the people alive live at that
1:00
specific moment in history. Right.
1:02
Do you think that instruction was for them in their cultural
1:06
context, not for us today? Yes, precisely.
1:09
But if a historical instruction is an ongoing mandate, it
1:12
completely alters how a local congregation functions.
1:15
Right now it dictates the operating procedure of global
1:18
missions. Suing in instructions confined
1:21
to the past lets us off the hook.
1:23
We treat the text as trivia rather than a present day
1:26
obligation for the believer trying to align their life and
1:29
their local congregation with biblical commands.
1:32
Getting the diagnosis right on these specific texts carries
1:35
tremendous gravity. Misinterpreting the timeline of
1:37
a command leads to misplaced resources and flawed
1:42
methodologies. That brings us to our mission.
1:44
For this deep dive, we are investigating a highly specific,
1:47
highly debated phrase from the book of Romans, chapter one,
1:50
verse 16. The phrase is to the Jew 1st and
1:54
also to the Greek. It is a massive topic.
1:56
It is to help us analyze this, we have some fascinating source
2:00
material. We are looking at excerpts from
2:03
Arnold G Frachtenbaum's work To the Jew First in the New
2:06
Millennium, A Dispensational Perspective, alongside some very
2:10
significant historical statements tied to the
2:13
Westminster Confession of Faith. Those sources provide a robust
2:17
theological framework. They force hard questions
2:20
regarding continuity. Fruchtenbaum looks at the text
2:24
through his specific theological lens, and the Westminster
2:28
Standards represent historic Protestant thought.
2:30
And I think people might assume those two streams of thought are
2:33
completely disconnected. Oh, absolutely.
2:35
But they both converge on this issue in ways that might
2:37
surprise people. Both frameworks recognize that
2:40
God's code until actions follow a specific shape and sequence.
2:43
OK, let's unpack this. We are looking at this phrase
2:46
from the Apostle Paul to the Jew 1st and also to the Greek.
2:50
The core debate we have to resolve for you today is this.
2:53
Is this phrase a history lesson or is it a current operating
2:56
procedure for global missions? That is the $1,000,000 question.
3:00
Right. Is Paul saying this is how the
3:01
events unfolded in the past? Or is he saying this is the
3:05
sequence you must follow today, tomorrow and until the end of
3:07
the age? To evaluate this accurately, we
3:10
have to bypass our modern assumptions and look at the
3:13
literal grammar of the ancient Greek text used by the Apostle
3:17
Paul. Guessing it is intent is
3:19
insufficient. We.
3:20
Have to look at the mechanics of the sentence he constructed.
3:22
Yes, in Romans chapter one verse 16, Paul writes that he is not
3:26
ashamed of the gospel, for it is the saving force of God to
3:29
everyone who believes, to the Jew 1st and also to the Greek.
3:33
We had to paraphrase a bit there to capture the essence of the
3:35
original language, but the meaning is clear.
3:39
The gospel is God's strength for salvation.
3:42
That captures the essence beautifully.
3:44
Let us break down the two main Greek verbs in that sentence.
3:48
The first verb is epicionomi, which translates to be ashamed.
3:52
OK. Paul states I am not ashamed.
3:56
This verb is in the Greek present tense.
3:59
In Greek grammar, the present tense often shows a continuous
4:01
state or action. So he is indicating he is
4:04
continuously, constantly, not ashamed of the gospel.
4:07
Right, it is his perpetual state of mind.
4:10
He's not saying he was unashamed yesterday, but might be
4:13
embarrassed today if the cultural winds shift.
4:16
It is a constant reality for him, a fixed posture.
4:19
That is a great way to put it. The second verb in the passage
4:22
is esten, which translates simply as is Gospel is the
4:28
saving force of God. Another present tense verb,
4:30
right? Yes, this verb is also in the
4:32
present tense, again showing continuous action.
4:35
And then we hit the critical word proton, translated as
4:38
first. It is the neuter form of the
4:41
word Protoss. Let me stop you there, because
4:43
this is where the debate really centers.
4:45
It does. In Greek, proton can mean first
4:48
in time, first in place, first in order, first in sequence, or
4:51
first in degree in priority. Hold on, I am losing the thread
4:54
slightly here. That word proton carries a lot
4:57
of weight. It is not just about who stood
4:59
in line first at a bakery. No, not at all.
5:01
It can mean foremost in rank or priority, like a first violin in
5:04
an orchestra. How do we know which definition
5:07
Paul intended? This brings us to a crucial
5:09
grammatical concept called the gnomic present tense.
5:13
The gnomic present is used to communicate a universal truth.
5:16
A universal truth. OK.
5:18
Right. It does not describe an event
5:20
happening right now. It describes a reality that is
5:23
always true across all time and circumstances.
5:27
I need an example. Are you saying it works like a
5:29
proverb or a physical law? Like saying water boils at 212°.
5:34
That is a perfect parallel. Furkkenbaum's text provides
5:38
another helpful analogy for this gnomic present tense.
5:41
Think of the phrase honesty is the best policy.
5:44
Sure. We all know that one.
5:45
When someone says that, they do not mean.
5:46
Honesty was the best policy back in 1995, but today we have moved
5:50
on to something else. No, of course not.
5:52
They mean honesty is always the best policy.
5:54
It is a universal, ongoing reality.
5:57
So we have this verb is in the nomic present tense.
6:00
The gospel is the strength of God for salvation.
6:03
It always was, it is right now, and it always will be.
6:06
Here is the interpretive key we have to evaluate what that verb
6:10
is controls in the sentence. What do you mean by controls?
6:14
Well does the verb esten only control the middle clause,
6:17
meaning the gospel is the strength of God, or does it also
6:20
control the final clause, meaning the gospel is to the Jew
6:23
first? Oh, I.
6:25
See, if the present tense verb is controls both clauses, then
6:28
the mandate to the Jew first is continuous.
6:32
It is a universal truth, just like the Gospel being the
6:35
strength of God is a universal truth.
6:37
If we look at the alternative, the logic really falls apart.
6:40
If the grammar signifies a universal truth, treating the
6:43
phrase to the Jew first as a closed historical event
6:47
logically forces a person to apply that same past tense to
6:51
the rest of the sentence. Exactly.
6:53
I mean, that is spot on. You would have to say the gospel
6:56
was only the strength of God in the past, but it is no longer
6:58
the strength of God today. Obviously, no Christian believes
7:01
that the saving force of God is just as active today as it was
7:04
in the 1st century. Splitting the verse down the
7:06
middle based on personal preference breaks the
7:08
grammatical structure. If the first half is a perpetual
7:11
reality, consistency demands the second-half is also a perpetual
7:15
reality. The procedure remains as active
7:18
as the salvation it proclaims. So what does this all mean?
7:21
How have the major thinkers and scholars debated this grammar
7:26
over the centuries? Because if it is this
7:28
grammatically clear, I assume everyone just falls in line and
7:31
agrees, right? Not at all.
7:33
Looking at the historical theologians reveals a massive
7:35
tension. Let us review the views of men
7:38
like Charles Hodge, William Shed and JP Macbeth.
7:41
These are heavyweights in historical theology.
7:43
They absolutely are. Charles Hodge and William Shed
7:46
look at Romans one verse 16 and argue that the word first is
7:51
purely historical. Meaning they think it just
7:53
describes a timeline of events. The Messiah came from the Jewish
7:56
people. The gospel was preached in
7:58
Jerusalem initially and then it moved on to the Gentiles.
8:00
A timeline, nothing more. Right.
8:03
They argue that applying an ongoing priority to the Jewish
8:06
people contradicts other verses that talk about equality and
8:09
salvation. They relegate first to a
8:12
historical footnote in Chapter 1.
8:13
But wait, Paul uses this exact same phrase again in the very
8:16
next chapter. He repeats it word for word.
8:19
He does in Romans chapter 2, verses 9 and 10.
8:22
What's fascinating here is where the tension becomes a glaring
8:25
double standard. How so?
8:27
Romans 2 verse 9 speaks of judgment, tribulation and
8:30
anguish coming upon every soul that does evil to the Jew 1st
8:35
and also to the Greek. And verse 10 speaks of glory,
8:38
honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew 1st and
8:42
also to the Greek. Let me guess, Hodge and Shed
8:45
change their interpretation when they get to chapter 2.
8:48
They shift gears completely. For Romans chapter 2, Hodge
8:51
writes that first expresses order or preeminence.
8:54
Wow. He says the Jewish person will
8:56
be punished more severely because of higher privileges,
8:59
making first equivalent to especially shed does the same
9:03
thing. He says preeminence and
9:04
privileges carries preeminence and condemnation.
9:07
That is wild. They both view first in Chapter
9:09
2 as an ongoing perpetual principle of priority.
9:13
That is baffling. Why is the priority of judgment
9:16
and wrath treated as an ongoing eternal reality, while the
9:19
priority of the gospel saving force in chapter 1 is dismissed
9:22
as a thing of the past? It is a clear inconsistency.
9:25
It seems like they are bending the text to fit a theological
9:28
discomfort with the idea of ongoing Jewish priority in
9:31
evangelism. It points to a theological
9:34
framework that struggles to accommodate ongoing positive
9:37
distinctions. We see this even more starkly in
9:40
the writings of JP Macbeth. OK, what does he say?
9:43
When commenting on Chapter 2, Macbeth claims that the Jewish
9:46
people receive first place in judgement because of what he
9:49
calls defaulted responsibility. Let's pause there.
9:53
What does defaulted responsibility mean in plain
9:56
English? Macbeth argues that because God
9:59
gave them the scriptures and the covenants, they had greater
10:02
ability in calling. When they failed to uphold that
10:05
calling, they defaulted on their responsibility.
10:08
OK, I'm tracking with you. Therefore, he says, the person
10:11
most responsible is most guilty when unfaithful to a trust.
10:15
Consequently, they are first in line for judgement.
10:17
I have to push back hard on Macbeth's logic there.
10:20
If he argues that ability and calling bring added
10:22
responsibility which then leads to 1st place in judgement, why
10:26
is there such a reluctance to assign first place in rewards or
10:29
blessing or gospel priority? That is the crucial question.
10:33
There is a huge irony in affirming that God maintains A
10:37
strict order for pouring out judgement, but denying that He
10:40
maintains that same strict order for pouring out grace.
10:43
You cannot enthusiastically say judgment for the Jew first yes,
10:47
and then say salvation to the Jew first, no.
10:50
The inconsistency is striking. It reveals A theological
10:54
framework eager to assign covenantal curses but hesitant
10:58
to acknowledge ongoing covenantal blessings or
11:00
procedural priority. Just to make sure we are
11:03
speaking the same language, when you say covenantal curses, you
11:06
mean the negative consequences God promised if the ancient
11:09
Israelites broke their agreement with him, right?
11:11
Things like exile or severe judgement.
11:13
That hits the mark. The selective reading of Paul's
11:16
theology embraces the curses but historically isolates the
11:20
blessings. This tension forces us to seek
11:22
out scholars who maintain a consistent view across both
11:26
chapters of Romans. We cannot accept a framework
11:29
that changes the definition of a word from 1 chapter to the next
11:31
just to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion.
11:34
I agree completely. That brings us to John Murray
11:36
and Douglas Moo, who introduce what we can call the priority of
11:39
relevance. John Murray is a Titan of
11:42
reformed theology and his commentary on the book of Romans
11:44
is highly regarded. Murray looks at Romans chapter
11:47
1, verse 16 and flatly denies that the priority is only about
11:52
time. So he rejects the purely
11:54
historical view. He does.
11:56
He argues there is no suggestion in the text that first is just
11:59
chronological. Instead, he states, the gospel
12:02
has primary relevance to the Jewish people because they were
12:06
specifically chosen by God to receive the promises.
12:09
He connects the Gospel directly to the historic covenants.
12:12
The Gospel is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham,
12:16
Isaac and Jacob, so naturally it possesses a primary intrinsic
12:20
relevance to their descendants. Yes, exactly.
12:23
I should say you have it right. It's not a random starting
12:25
point, it is a theological necessity.
12:27
Douglas Moo, another highly respected commentator, although
12:30
a historic premillennialist, agrees with Murray on this
12:33
specific point. Wait, before we move on, for
12:35
someone who isn't steeped in seminary terminology, what does
12:39
being a historic premillennialist actually mean
12:42
in the context of this argument? Why does it matter that ME is 1
12:45
while Murray was not? That is a great question.
12:49
A historic premillennialist believes that Jesus will return
12:52
physically to earth to reign for a literal 1000 years before the
12:55
final judgment. More relevant to this
12:58
discussion, they generally believe that national Israel
13:01
still has a distinct role in God's future plans.
13:04
OK, that makes sense. John Murray, on the other hand,
13:07
operated from an amillennial perspective, which tends to view
13:10
the church as the new spiritual Israel fulfilling those promises
13:14
now 2. Very different viewpoints.
13:16
Very different. The fact that MU and Murray,
13:19
representing 2 very different views on end times theology,
13:22
agree on the ongoing priority in Romans chapter 1 shows how
13:26
strong the textual evidence is. Moon notes that in Romans, Paul
13:30
insists the promises of God have a special ongoing application to
13:33
Israel today. This shifts the entire debate.
13:35
We are no longer talking about historical trivia.
13:38
Who heard the sermon first in the year 33?
13:41
We are talking about theological reality.
13:43
It really elevates the conversation.
13:45
If we carry this priority of relevance into the future, it
13:48
changes how we view the end of the age.
13:51
Murray points out that the final judgment will take this priority
13:54
into account both for retribution and for bliss.
13:57
The final administration of reward will honor this divine
14:00
order. It is a much more consistent
14:02
hermeneutic. It respects the text without
14:05
bending it. However, while Murray and MU
14:07
excel at defining the theological reality, they fall
14:11
short of defining how this impacts modern day St. level
14:14
evangelism. Right, they established the
14:16
theory, but they leave a gap when it comes to the practical
14:19
execution for a local church today.
14:21
They give us the what and the why, but miss the how.
14:24
And that is where scholars like CK Barrett and Sanford C Mills
14:27
step in. What do they add to the
14:29
conversation? They look at the same grammar in
14:32
the same theological priority, and they insist it must
14:35
translate into ongoing literal action today.
14:39
Mills, for instance, argues that Paul's declaration is without
14:41
qualification and is just as applicable today as it was in
14:44
the 1st century. So they take it from the
14:46
textbook to the pavement. But they do.
14:49
Mills observes Paul's actual behavior.
14:51
He points out that everywhere Paul went, from city to city, he
14:54
inevitably and invariably went to the Jewish population first.
14:59
For Mills, the theology dictates the methodology.
15:02
While commentary is debate theory all day long parsing
15:05
Greek verbs in a library, someone has to step out the door
15:09
and do the work. We need to look at someone who
15:12
took this theology out of the Academy and applied it to the
15:15
streets. We find that practical
15:16
application and Joseph Hoffman Khan, he was was the general
15:19
secretary of the American Board of Missions to the Jews for many
15:22
years. A guy actually doing the work.
15:24
Yes, Khan did not just write about the phrase to the Jew
15:28
first, he built a massive missional organization around
15:31
it. He applied it rigorously to two
15:34
specific areas, literal evangelism and financial giving.
15:38
Khan's writings from the early 20th century are fascinating
15:40
because he was constantly fielding objections from other
15:43
Christians. In 1940, he wrote a response to
15:46
a Christian who claimed they were living in the Church age
15:49
and therefore all distinctions between people were erased.
15:52
People still make that argument today.
15:54
This person argued that because Galatians says there is neither
15:57
Jew nor Greek in Christ, the Mandate of Romans chapter 1 was
16:00
cancelled. Cone's response was sharp and
16:02
deeply biblical. He outlined A distinction based
16:05
on 1st Corinthians chapter 10 verse 32 where Paul writes give
16:10
no offense either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the Church
16:13
of God. Joan pointed out that the world
16:16
is divided into 3 distinct groups, Jews, Gentiles and the
16:20
Church of God. This is a brilliant
16:22
clarification. Inside the church, among those
16:25
who have already believed, all are one.
16:28
There is no distinction in value or standing before God.
16:31
But outside the church, in the realm of evangelism, looking out
16:34
at the unbelieving world, the biblical categories remain
16:38
intact. The order for reaching them
16:40
remains intact. Cohen used a fantastic anecdote
16:43
to illustrate this. He shared a story about a banker
16:46
responding to a Christian who rejected the To the Jew First
16:49
doctrine. The Baker asked the man in what
16:51
age are we living now? The man replied in the Church
16:54
age, of course. OK, setting the trap.
16:56
Then the banker asked in what age did Paul write Romans
16:59
chapter one verse 16. The man had to answer in the
17:03
church age. The trap snaps shut, the banker
17:07
says. Then there you have your answer.
17:10
Whatever was true in the days when Paul wrote the Epistles to
17:13
the Romans is just as true this very moment, for it is one in
17:16
the same dispensation. It is a brilliant way to phrase
17:19
it. It is such a clean, logical
17:20
argument. If the Church age has not ended,
17:23
then the operating instructions given to the Church have not
17:25
expired. Kohn recognized that God does
17:28
not arbitrarily change his methods midstream.
17:32
But Kohn also knew he needed to explain the logic behind Goddess
17:35
establishing this order people assumed first meant favoritism
17:39
or superiority. Yeah, that is a huge hang up for
17:41
a lot of people. To counter this, Cone provided
17:44
an incredibly helpful analogy about building a fire and a
17:46
stove. I love this analogy.
17:48
Break it down for us. Cone explained that when you
17:50
build a fire, you start by putting paper in the grate.
17:53
On top of the paper you put light wood, then heavier wood,
17:57
and finally coal. This specific sequence produces
18:00
a strong, lasting fire. Makes complete sense.
18:03
Now suppose someone says I do not like putting the paper in
18:06
first. I will put the coal in first,
18:09
then the wood, then the paper. Obviously you will not get a
18:12
fire. The order matters.
18:14
Here's where it gets really interesting.
18:16
When you put the paper in first, you are not saying paper is
18:19
inherently better than coal. Paper is not superior to wood.
18:22
It is simply the necessary material to start the sequence
18:25
spot. It has a specific function in
18:28
the process of creating the fire.
18:30
Let me play with this analogy for a second.
18:33
If I'm freezing in a cabin, my goal is to get the coal burning
18:36
because coal provides the lasting heat to warm the whole
18:39
room. But I cannot hold a match
18:41
directly to a lump of coal. It will just scorch the surface
18:43
and go out. I have to start with the paper.
18:45
That is the core of Cone's argument to the Jew first does
18:49
not mean the Jewish person is better than the Gentile.
18:52
It does not mean they have preference in their inherent
18:54
worth. It simply means this is God's
18:56
divine order for evangelizing the world.
19:00
There is peculiar function God ordained for Israel in the
19:03
propagation of the gospel. Reversing the order stifles the
19:06
fire. It frames the mandate not as
19:09
ethnic favoritism, but as a divine functional mechanism for
19:12
reaching the whole world. It is the procedure designed by
19:15
the Architect of salvation, and Kuhn noted that the church's
19:19
refusal to follow this order for two millennia has resulted in
19:22
massive loss for the church itself.
19:25
We have been trying to light the coal without the paper.
19:28
It is a tragic oversight. If we accept that this is the
19:31
divine mechanism, the necessary sequence for global missions,
19:35
the immediate question becomes practical.
19:37
Which is, how does a local church today actually do this?
19:41
How does a congregation in a town with a very few Jewish
19:44
people fulfill A mandate to take the gospel to the Jew first?
19:48
To answer that, we have to look at the intersection of
19:50
dispensational strategy and the theological framework of the
19:53
Westminster Confession. These two streams help us define
19:57
the practical application. Furstenbaum looks at this
20:00
through a dispensational lens and points out the relationship
20:02
between the Great Commission and Romans, Chapter one, verse 16.
20:05
OK, leave that out for us. In Matthew 28, Jesus gives the
20:09
Great Commission. Go therefore and make disciples
20:12
of all nations. That is the overarching goal.
20:15
That is the destination. But Romans chapter 1 provides
20:19
the procedure. It is the road map for how to
20:22
reach that destination. The goal is the whole world.
20:25
The procedure is to start with the Jewish people.
20:28
And this procedural view aligns remarkably well with historic
20:31
Reformed thought. Look at the Westminster Larger
20:34
Catechism, specifically the answer to question 191.
20:39
That is a very telling document. Now, for those who might not
20:42
know, the Westminster Larger Catechism is a massive teaching
20:45
document written in the 1640s that systematically outlines
20:48
Protestant theology. Question 191 asks what we pray
20:52
for in the second petition of the Lord's Prayer, Which is thy
20:55
Kingdom come. And the answer is very specific.
20:58
It is, the answer explicitly states.
21:00
We pray that the gospel be propagated throughout the world,
21:03
the Jews called and the fullness of the Gentiles brought in.
21:06
There is a recognized sequence there.
21:08
We see the sequence honored in actions taken by modern Reformed
21:11
bodies, The Presbyterian Church in America.
21:14
The PCA passed an overture on Jewish evangelism that is highly
21:17
relevant here. The overture explicitly condemns
21:21
as the worst form of anti-Semitism the act of
21:24
withholding the gospel from the Jewish people.
21:27
That is a staggering statement. Withholding the gospel is
21:30
anti-Semitism. Why?
21:32
Because you are denying them the very saving force of God
21:34
designed for their salvation. The Overture also strongly
21:38
rejects what is known as the two covenant theory.
21:40
Let us unpack that term. What is the 2 covenant theory
21:43
and why does the PCA consider it so dangerous?
21:45
The two covenant theory is the false teaching.
21:47
The Jewish people have a separate path to salvation
21:50
simply because the original Abrahamic covenant and therefore
21:53
do not need to believe in Jesus. OK.
21:54
It suggests God maintained one covenant for Jews and a separate
21:58
new covenant for Gentiles. The PCA rightly identifies this
22:02
as heresy because it denies the necessity of the completed
22:05
atonement. Sacrifice of the Messiah is
22:08
required for everyone, Jew and Gentile alike.
22:11
So if the atonement is necessary for everyone, and the procedure
22:15
is to the Jew first, how does a local church fulfill this if
22:20
they cannot go physically? Fruchtenbaum makes a helpful
22:23
distinction between active evangelism and passive
22:27
evangelism. Active evangelism is the
22:29
physical act of going out, doing the work of an evangelist,
22:33
speaking to people face to face. What we normally picture when we
22:37
hear the word evangelism, right? Passive evangelism, on the other
22:40
hand, is funding, supporting, and praying for those who are
22:44
doing the active work. Most local churches and
22:47
individual believers participate in the Great Commission
22:49
primarily through passive evangelism through their
22:52
monetary giving and prayer support.
22:54
This connects directly to the listeners everyday life.
22:57
When you're sitting at the kitchen table deciding where to
22:59
send your charitable donations, or when a church mission board
23:02
is drafting its annual budget. This text demands a specific
23:06
ordering of those funds it. Creates a real priority list.
23:09
The biblical precedent for this passive financial participation
23:12
is found in Romans chapter 15 versus 25 through 27.
23:17
Paul writes about Gentile believers in Macedonia and
23:20
Achaea who took up a collection to send funds to the poor Jewish
23:24
believers in Jerusalem. And Paul's reasoning there is
23:27
vital. Paul explains the logic behind
23:29
this offering. He says the Gentiles have been
23:31
made partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings and
23:34
therefore they owe a debt to minister to them in material
23:37
things. It is a recognition of spiritual
23:39
debt. The Scriptures, the covenants,
23:41
the Messiah himself all came through the Jewish people.
23:45
The Gentile church is grafted into a Jewish olive tree.
23:48
Because of that immense spiritual wealth received, there
23:51
is a tangible material debt owed.
23:54
That reframes giving completely. It really does.
23:56
Giving financially to Jewish missions, prioritizing that in a
23:59
church budget, is a direct, practical way to fulfill the
24:03
mandate of Romans chapter one through passive evangelism.
24:06
It makes the mandate actionable for any church anywhere in the
24:09
world. You fund the paper to light the
24:11
fire. But this raises a natural
24:13
question, how do we know this was a strict non negotiable
24:17
procedure and not just a good idea Paul had?
24:21
People do bring that up. People might say, sure, Paul
24:23
wrote it, but did he actually live it out with that kind of
24:26
rigidity? To prove it was a divine
24:28
operating procedure, we have to look at the actions of the
24:31
author himself. We have to trace Paul's pattern
24:34
in the book of Acts. Tracing Paul's missionary
24:36
journeys provides the undeniable behavioral evidence for his
24:39
theology. Remember, Paul was explicitly
24:41
designated as the apostle to the Gentiles.
24:45
In Galatians chapter 2, he confirms that Peter was
24:47
entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, while he was
24:50
entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised.
24:53
His specific calling was to reach the Gentile world.
24:56
You would think, given that specific job description, Paul
24:58
would head straight for the Pagan temples and the Gentile
25:01
marketplaces. I am the apostle to the
25:03
Gentiles, so I am going to the Gentiles.
25:06
But his actions in the book of Acts show a rigorous, almost
25:09
stubborn adherence to Romans chapter 1.
25:12
He never bypassed the procedure to get to his primary audience.
25:16
Let us look at a few specific examples.
25:18
In Acts chapter 13, Paul and Barnabas are in Antioch of
25:21
Pasidia. They go into the synagogue on
25:23
the Sabbath after facing rejection from the majority of
25:26
the Jewish population. There.
25:27
Paul makes a striking statement in verse 46.
25:30
He says it was necessary that the word of God be spoken first
25:34
to you. That word necessary is massive.
25:37
He does not say it was historically convenient or it
25:39
was my personal preference. He says it was necessary.
25:42
Why? Because it is a theological
25:45
necessity dictated by the order God established.
25:47
He had to fulfill the requirement before he could
25:49
legitimately turn his focus to the Gentiles in that city.
25:52
The pattern continues and becomes even more pronounced in
25:55
cities where the Jewish population was minimal.
25:58
Take Philippi in Acts chapter 16.
26:01
Philip I was a Roman colony and had a very small Jewish
26:04
population. In fact, there were not enough
26:07
Jewish men to form a traditional synagogue.
26:10
According to tradition, you needed ten men to establish a
26:13
synagogue, right? That is correct.
26:15
Because there was no synagogue, the few Jewish residents would
26:18
gather by a river outside the city gate for prayer.
26:22
Now observe Paul's behavior. He arrives in Philippi, a city
26:26
filled with Gentiles, his target demographic.
26:29
He does not immediately start preaching in the city square.
26:32
Which is what you would expect him to do.
26:33
Right, but he waits until the Sabbath, leaves the city and
26:37
goes down to the river just to find this tiny prayer meeting of
26:40
women. This is where I have to admit I
26:41
used to read the story completely differently.
26:43
I always pictured Paul just taking a stroll by the river and
26:46
stumbling upon this prayer meeting.
26:48
But he actively delayed his Gentile ministry.
26:50
He put the. Whole thing on hold.
26:52
He sat on his hands in a Pagan city waiting for the the
26:55
Sabbath, seeking out a tiny group by a river just so he
26:58
could fulfill the procedural order.
27:00
If to the Jew first was just a loose guideline, he would have
27:03
started preaching to the Gentiles on day one.
27:06
His delay in Philippi proves he viewed the mandate as a strict
27:10
non negotiable protocol. Then you look at Athens in Acts
27:13
chapter 17. Athens is the intellectual
27:16
center of the gentile world, entirely giving over to
27:18
idolatry, the text says. Paul's spirit was provoked
27:22
within him as he saw the city full of idols.
27:24
The idolatry was a gentile problem.
27:26
The Jewish population detested the idols as much as Paul did.
27:29
You can feel his righteous anger welling up.
27:31
He is provoked by Gentile idolatry.
27:33
He is the apostle to the Gentiles.
27:35
The logical next step is to March into the marketplace and
27:37
start tearing down the idols with his preaching.
27:40
But look at verse 17. Despite being provoked by the
27:43
Gentiles, the verse says so. He reasoned in the synagogue
27:46
with the Jews. Even when his spirit was burning
27:49
to confront the Pagan culture, the procedural principle of
27:52
Romans chapter 1 held him in check.
27:54
He went to the synagogue first, and only after that did he go to
27:57
the marketplace to debate the philosophers.
27:59
The pattern is incredibly consistent.
28:01
Antioch, Iconium, Thessalonica, Berea, Corinth, Ephesus.
28:07
Everywhere he goes, the apostle to the Gentiles goes to the Jew
28:10
first. The behavior validates the
28:12
grammar, but as with any theological debate, there is
28:16
pushback. There always is.
28:17
There is one major text critics used to argue that God
28:20
eventually canceled this mandate.
28:22
We need to address the counter argument found at the very end
28:25
of the book of. Acts.
28:26
Critics of the ongoing mandate point heavily to Acts chapter
28:29
28. In this passage, Paul is a
28:31
prisoner in Rome. He calls the local Jewish
28:34
leaders to his lodging and presents the gospel to them.
28:37
Some believe, but many reject his message.
28:39
In response to this rejection, Paul quotes a harsh prophecy
28:42
from Isaiah about their eyes being closed and their ears
28:45
being dull. And then he drops the hammer.
28:47
In verse 28 he declares. Therefore let it be known to you
28:52
that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles.
28:55
They will also listen. Critics latch onto that
28:57
statement. They argue that this scene in
28:59
Rome represents a final, permanent breaking point.
29:03
They claim Paul's announcing that God has shifted the program
29:06
permanently away from the Jewish people and handed it exclusively
29:10
to the Gentiles, superseding the Romans chapter 1 mandate
29:13
forever. On the surface, if you isolate
29:15
that one verse, you can see how they arrive at that conclusion.
29:18
It sounds like a closing statement, but we cannot isolate
29:22
verses. We have to look at the patterns.
29:24
If we zoom out, how does this argument hold up against the
29:27
rest of Paul's ministry? If we connect us to the bigger
29:30
picture, the critics argument collapses entirely.
29:33
We have to compare Paul's statement in Acts chapter 28 to
29:36
his previous statements in Acts chapter 13 and Acts chapter 18.
29:40
OK, let's make that comparison. In Acts 13 in Antioch of
29:43
Pasidia, Paul faced rejection and said, since you thrusted
29:47
aside, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
29:50
In Acts 18 in Corinth, he faced rejection, shook out his
29:53
garments and said, From now on I will go to the Gentiles.
29:57
I see where this is going. He makes the exact same
30:00
declaration in Antioch and Corinth that he makes in Rome.
30:03
He says. I am turning to the Gentiles,
30:05
but here is the critical data point.
30:07
What did Paul do the moment he traveled to the very next town
30:11
after making those declarations? After leaving Antioch of
30:14
Presidia he went to Iconium, and verse 1 of chapter 14 says he
30:18
entered together into the synagogue of the Jews.
30:21
After leaving Corinth he went to Ephesus, and chapter 18, verse
30:25
19 says he entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
30:28
We can deduce the pattern clearly.
30:30
Paul's shift to the Gentiles was always a local shift, never a
30:33
global or permanent shift in theology.
30:35
When the Jewish population of a specific city rejected the
30:38
message, Paul fulfilled his obligation there and turned to
30:41
the Gentiles of that specific city.
30:43
That is exactly what happened. But the moment his feet crossed
30:46
the city limits into new territory, the operating
30:48
procedure reset. The mandate remained intact
30:51
wherever he travelled next. Acts chapter 28 is not a global
30:55
cancellation of Romans chapter one.
30:57
It is simply the local application of the procedure in
31:00
the city of Rome. The Jewish leadership in Rome
31:03
rejected the message, so Paul turned to the Gentiles in Rome.
31:07
Right. If the book of Acts had
31:09
continued and documented Paul traveling to Spain or Gaul, we
31:12
can be absolutely certain, based on his established pattern, that
31:15
his first stop in those new regions would have been the
31:18
local synagogue. The counter argument fails
31:21
because it ignores the established behavioral rhythm of
31:24
the apostle. The theological defense of the
31:26
mandate stands firm. So let us bring the focus back
31:29
to your immediate reality. What does all of this mean for
31:32
you, the listener sitting in a Pew on Sunday morning, or the
31:34
pastor drafting a church budget? It means we have a
31:37
responsibility to act on what we know.
31:40
To summarize our findings, the grammatical structure of Romans
31:43
chapter 1 establishes A continuous universal truth.
31:46
The historical practice of Paul in the book of Acts demonstrates
31:50
strict adherence to this sequence.
31:52
And the confessions agree. Right.
31:53
The statements of historic church confessions affirm the
31:56
necessity of taking the gospel to the Jewish people.
31:59
All the evidence points to an ongoing procedural mandate for
32:03
missions. And there is a massive blessing
32:05
attached to obedience here. Furchtenbaum mentions the
32:08
promise of the Abrahamic covenant.
32:10
I will bless those who bless you.
32:12
Local congregations can appropriate specific blessings
32:15
by actively taking the gospel to the Jewish people first.
32:18
It is not just about fulfilling a rule, it is about aligning
32:21
with God's heart and receiving the resultant blessing.
32:24
If Romans chapter 1 is prescriptive, modern believers
32:27
and churches have a tangible historical debt to honor.
32:31
We have a clear order of operations for our generosity
32:33
and our outreach. The passive evangelism of
32:36
supporting Jewish missions is the most direct way for the
32:38
majority of believers to participate in this divine
32:40
sequence. We have to stop trying to build
32:43
the fire backwards. We owe the gospel to the Jewish
32:46
people of our generation just as much as Paul owed it to the
32:49
generation of the 1st century. The dispensation has not changed
32:52
and neither has the procedure. The mechanism remains in place
32:56
waiting for the church to utilize it properly, Which.
32:58
Leaves us with a final thought for you to consider.
33:01
If the divine order of operations for reaching the
33:04
world has been hidden in plain sight all this time, like the
33:07
paper, wood and coal of a fire, how might realigning our modern
33:12
methods to this ancient sequence spark a renewed spiritual
33:15
awakening in our own cities today?
33:17
Could it be that our neglect of the paper is the very reason we
33:20
struggle to ignite the coal? Thank you for joining us today
33:23
on Reformed Thinking. We will see you next time.