Dynamic tension results when learning is translated into living. That which Paul has taught in chapters one through eleven and which his readers are now learning must be lived in daily, ongoing experience. Both the learning and the living are based on faith: faith in God who has supremely revealed himself in Jesus the Christ. The foundation of faith must come to fruition in experience. The dynamic of God’s righteousness in Christ energizes the conduct of the believer. Belief in Jesus results in behavior based on Jesus. Theology and ethics are inseparable. Since salvation means the healing touch of the Master in all of life, then all of life will manifest the strength, wholeness, and love of the Master. Evangelism and ethics flow together when the totality of the Gospel comes to bear on the total life situation.

God’s total giving to believers in Jesus should result in total life response from believers. “For from him and through him and to him are all things,” (11:36a) determines the context of chapters twelve through sixteen. All things (ta panta) includes all of life. What happens when the totality of life which has been redeemed is presented to its Author in willing sacrifice? It is not a sacrifice of life which necessitates the inevitable death of the sacrificed. Rather, such sacrifice results in a continuing transformation of being which proves satisfactorily how God’s will functions in attaining his goal (12: 1-2).

All human beings live according to some norm. There is no such thing as a normless life, though the norm may be a frantic search for selfish pleasure. A norm may be either a set of rules by which life is lived (deontology) or a goal toward which life is directed (teleology).^[1]Among the many ways in which ethics may be classified or analyzed is the division between deontology and teleology. Deontology   considers rules, obligations, or commandments. Teleology considers goals, aims, or purposes. Ultimately the two divisions probably blend together. For a fuller discussion see William Lillie An Introduction to Ethics (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1961), pp. 207-223. Since the ethics that Paul presents in Rom. 12-16 easily follow this division, it will be used in this paper. In either case, the believer is not to accept uncritically the norms which his social setting, culture, has furnished him. To be schemed up with contemporary worldly norms (suschematizo-12:2a) is incompatible with the transforming power of God’s grace. To the extent that one is being transformed in life, the norms and schemes that are inappropriate and contradictory to, the Gospel are revealed as such. They then must be dealt with.

A realistic understanding of one’s self is necessary to fruitful functioning as a member of the body (12:3). Such understanding is not static, but rather dynamic. What one is at a given moment may be further transformed and gifted by the One who has received his sacrifice.

With such a firm foundation in God’s grace revealed and operant in Jesus, Paul turns to first one, then another, of the kinds of behavior that reveal basic norms, and demonstrates how that same grace provides a “yet more excellent way (norm)” for the believer’s life. That life is not solitary. It forms a dynamic union with other lives, also being transformed, which is beautifully and adequately described as “one body in Christ and individually members one of another” (12:5). Christian ethics is responsible action on the part of the believer in a community setting. Primary community for the believer is the body of Christ, fellow believers. His responsibilities in other communities of which he forms part are illuminated by and determined by this primary relationship in Christ and his body.

In addition to greetings from and to people who knew, loved, and respected one another, and which pointed up what is meant by being part of the body of Christ, Paul deals with specific situations that arose as believers related to one another in primary community and to other communities in which they also functioned. There seem to be eight such specific situations. Surely they did not at that time represent all possible relationships. Nor do they necessarily spell out the details of similar twentieth-century relationships. But the situations themselves and the questions they evoke have a contemporary ring.

 

How Should the Gifts of God Function? (12:6-13)

Having given themselves to God in response to his gracious gift to them, believers delightfully find God to be a continuing Giver. His gifts are gratuitous, yet functional. Gifts are to be used, and in being used they grow. Seven specific gifts are mentioned. The list is not exhaustive, but rather typical. Overlapping lists are found in other Scriptures.^[2]For example, see 1 Cor. 12:8-11, 28-30; Eph. 4:11. They are complementary: all are needed for the proper coordination of the entire body. They do not seem to be hierarchical: no one is more important than another. They do seem to be personal, that is, a particular gift is given to a specific individual. Yet no gift is a private matter. It is not for the private use of the gif ted individual, but for the benefit of the entire body. However, in benefiting the body, the functioning gift will help the one gifted. There is no successful way for gift to be used selfishly, for to attempt this would cause the gift to cease to function.

In addition to specific gifts (12:6-8), there are general maxims that serve to guide believers as they behave responsibly toward one another in community (12:9-13). As with other similar guides, they represent distilled wisdom which is the result of both observation and experience in living. They succinctly point out God’s pattern for living.

An unhypocritical (anupokritos) love is marked by both what attracts it and repels it. It will be repelled by and will shrink away from that which is evil, while at the same time it will increasingly stick with (kallao) that which is good (12:9). This verse in itself does not describe what is either good or evil, but does describe the direction flow of genuine love.^[3]The ethical problem is delineated and given direction in these verses. However it is not resolved. For that, two further steps are necessary. First, that which is good and that which is evil, either in attitude or in action, must be pointed out. This is done to a degree in 13:9, 13. Then motivation must be found to do the good and eschew the evil. Paul finds sue motivation in “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ” (13:14). In the actual doing of good the resolution of the problem is found. Such love will find its way of honoring others (12:10), rather than seeking ways of using others for self-aggradizement. It is outgoing rather than self-centered. There will be no need for concern about diligence or earnestness, because in glowing spirit, one with such love will serve his Lord in every way (12:11). This serving the Lord finds its beginning in serving in the community.

The Christian life, in being lived in the here and now, yet finds cause for rejoicing in a future which is always coming nearer. In such hope is freedom to be found.^[4]That hope is the arena for an ethics of freedom is spelled out in detail in Jacques Ellul, The Ethics of Freedom, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. B om1ley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), particularly in part 4. Just how much freedom is available is increasingly problematical in today’s world. See Mihajlo Mesarovic and Edward Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report of the Club of Rome (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1974) for a secular but not anti-Christian view. If in the lived moment severe trials come, the believer can, nevertheless, stay under the burden. His faith is not a fantasy world nor an escape mechanism. To the contrary, he is a realist: trouble is real and painful, and even the future’s hope does not cause it to disappear. He has resources, through constant prayer, which enable him to suffer creatively and redemptively (12:12).

The term fellowship (koinoneo) does not refer primarily to a feeling but rather to an activity (12:13, 15:27).^[5]See Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:15, 1 Tim. 5:22; Heb. 2:14; 1 Pet. 4:13; 2 John 11 or verb forms. In Heb. 2:14 Jesus the Lord is described as voluntarily sharing in humanity’s hurt with the purpose of redeeming it. In 1 Pet. 4:13, believers are admonished to be ready to share Christ’s sufferings, which will also be ultimately redeeming it. In Galatians and Philippians, believers are encouraged to share their material goods with other believers. All such sharing is fellow­shipping, meeting needs redemptively. In 1 Timothy and 2 John, believers are warned not to share (fellowship) in evil. Substantive forms of the same root bear out the primary positive meaning of active sharing, meeting needs re­demptively. Whatever feeling there is comes as a result of the activity. Sharing is the activity. Here it refers to sharing material goods with those who have a greater need: this is fellowship in its primary sense. Actively seeking the total well-being of fellow believers is both a rule to be followed and a goal toward which to strive (12:13). Such seeking is part of the transforming process in which God’s will is tested out in life. It is following the example of Christ, and being empowered by the One who is the example.

The old dichotomy between self and others, marked by battles with selfishness and egotism, is solved in the kind of responsible action in community settings which Paul describes. The self is included in the community, which one serves; thus the dichotomy is negated. For the believer, selfish independence is overcome in community interdependence. Individual believers are the channels through which God’s gifts are shared with all, self included.

 

How Should Evil-Doers Be Treated? (12:14-21)

The Redeemer has come, but the world has not experienced redemption. This statement is factually descriptive for the believer. Sin, suffering, and evil are yet present, and must be dealt with. In this passage, Paul emphasizes one facet of an obvious truth about evil and suffering: its agents are all too often human beings. There are other facets, other agents, and evil on a cosmic scale; and Paul deals with them elsewhere. The focus here is on the individual level, as the redeemed individual functions in the redeemed community and as his life is impinged on by others.

Even as the believer pushes on to actualize love for others (12:13), he may well find himself being pushed upon by evil-doers.^[6]The same root word, dioko, is used to describe both the believer who strives eagerly for good (12:13) and the evil-doer who strives eagerly for evil (12:14). The practice of hospitality requires effort. How should he respond? A seemingly natural way is to repay in kind: when pushed upon, push back, and harder if possible! If this kind of repayment is not part of man’s “nature,” it certainly is learned so early in life as to seem natural – particularly when there is no other teaching-learning available.^[7]Just what is the nature of human nature? Many unexamined presupposi­tions govern here. Much eisegesis is practiced in interpreting the Scriptures. How is it possible to distinguish human nature in its pre-Fall state from its post-Fall-State, when we have no adequate description of the formner in Scrip­ture and none in history? Perhaps it is sufficient to rest on the possibilities and powers inherent in the new creation for the believer and examine with interest the findings of the behavioral sciences for the latter. Yet this was neither Jesus’ way nor his teaching (Matt. 25-41), and cannot be such for his disciples. To absorb the evil and give back blessing is the way (12:14).

When a fellow believer has cause to rejoice, all should rejoice with him; when he has cause to weep, all should help him carry that burden also (12:15). One may be the cause for rejoicing, but should never be the cause for weeping; in either case in point, there is an appropriate response for the fellow believer. Even within the fellowship, a believer could possibly be the cause for lack of harmony, and thus objectively be named as evil-doer (12:16). One preventive remedy is a proper and realistic self-evaluation, which was earlier mentioned (12:3). Paying back evil for evil received is beneath both the rule and the goal for a believer, who has always been admonished to do both better and other (12:17).^[8]Cf. Proverbs 3:4, LXX. Peace—in both peace-making (Matt. 5:9) and peace-keeping aspects-forms the rule and goal for the believer (12:18). The believer is not only expressly forbidden to seek vengeance when he has been wronged (12:19), he is expressly commanded in the most concrete way to do good precisely to those responsible for having done him wrong (12:20). Both the negative and the positive commands (deontologies) Paul grounds, in excellent rabbinic fashion, in Scripture (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 32:35; Prov. 25:21-22). A summary of these verses is the statement that evil can only truly be overcome by good (12:21)! The summary forms also a transition to the next question to be raised, and provides the context for its understanding.

How Should Believers Respond to Ruling Authorities? (13:1-7)

In this passage, Paul sets forth the ideal relationship be­ tween God and ruling authorities, which in turn constrains an ideal response from believers ( 13:1-2 ) . In so doing, he anticipates what will become standard advice in Rabbinic Judaism. The dictum is, “Dina d’malkhuta dina,” “The law of the kingdom is the law.”^[9]This dictum is attributed to Mar Samuel (died 254 C.E.) of Babylonia. See Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (New York: Atheneum, 1969), p. 121. See also Milton Steinberg, Basic Judaism (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1947), p. 144; and David Novak Law and Theology in Judaism (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., fa74), pp. 128-29. Granted that Mar Samuel lived nearly two centuries after Paul, nevertheless he explicates what had long since been germinating and operant in Judaism. R. Chanina, possibly a contemporary of Hillel (active from 30 B.C.E. to 10 .E.), is reported to have said, “Pray for the welfare of the government, since but for the fear thereof men would swallow each other alive.” See Joseph H. Hertz, Sayings of the Fathers (New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1945), pp. 22, 46-47. R. Chanina reflects Paul’s positive evalua­tion of ruling authorities. Paul is not in contradiction to basic Jewish thought especially here where his only description of governing authorities is positive. For contrary opinion see David Polish “Pharasaism and Political Sovereign­ty,” Judaism 19 ( Fall 1970): 421-22. It must be emphasized that Paul, in describing the function of the governing authorities, does so here in the most positive light: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (13:3a, RSV), “Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval” (13:3c), “. . . for he is God’s servant, for your good” (13:4a), “. . . he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (13: 4c). In no case does Paul posit a wrongful activity on the part of the governing authorities. They are understood here only as deterrents against evil and wrongdoing. Any resistance to them would necessarily be interpreted as resistance by wrongdoers. Since believers must be neither evil workers nor wrongdoers, they will obey the ruling authorities.

Believers therefore obey such ruling authorities for two reasons: one is quite evident, given the case; the other is mentioned, but with no explanation. The first reason is that when the governing authorities punish wrongdoing, as Paul here describes it, God’s wrath is being channeled through such authorities. The other reason is that the believer’s conscience will instruct such obedience. Just what conscience is, Paul does not here explain, as he neither explains the source of conscience’s knowledge that such conduct is wrong, nor how conscience functions in the believer’s life. Within the context of this epistle (2:15, 9:1), conscience merely witnesses to the authenticity of an attitude or action that is judged to be objectively right or wrong according to some other external authority or criteria.^[10]In the New Testament, the word suneidesis is used only in Acts, the Pauline corpus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. It is not used in the Gospels. It is used once in the LXX, Ecclesiastes 10:20, where it seems to mean inwardly, in a way that will not be known to any but self. See Acts 23: 1, 24:16; 1 Cor. 8:7, 10, 12, 10:25, 27, 28, 29; 2 Cor. 1:12, 4:2, 5:11, 1 Tim. 1:5, 19, 3:9, 4:2; 2 Tim. 1:3; Tit. 1:15; Heb. 9:9, 14, 10:2, 22, 13:18; 1 Pet. 2:19, 3:16, 21. For a more general, and somewhat different, interpretation of suneidesis in Paul, see Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grabel, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955) 1:211-20. That which is legitimately due the ruling authority, taxes, revenue, respect, honor, will be willingly given for the same reasons as obedience in other matters: to avoid punishment for wrongdoing and because conscience so instructs (13:6-7).

What are the limits, if any, placed on ruling authorities? They may effectively “bear the sword” (13:4b). Does this mean the death penalty? It is likely to have been the ultimate meaning that Paul would have given. Probably it would also have been the most natural meaning that Paul’s readers would have given to the passage. Whether the death penalty, if such is meant, was understood in terms of deterrence or as just desert (simple punishment) cannot be drawn from the pas­ sage itself. Nor can an argument be made from this passage alone as to whether the death penalty is either the most effective deterrent and/ or the most just punishment. The wrong­ doing which would call forth such penalty is not described. The strongest meaning that the passage itself can bear is that the death penalty may legitimately fall within the province of the ruling authorities. How it should be carried out, for what wrongdoings, for what purpose, and whether it can al­ ways be justified are questions that must be settled on other bases.

The case that Paul makes in this passage for believers’ relationship to the ruling authorities is not the only case which can be made. Another case was available to Paul, which he does not treat: suppose the ruling authorities were to misuse their power? Suppose they were a terror to good conduct, and not to bad (the inverse of 13:3)? Suppose they executed wrath on the rightdoer? Suppose they were ministers, not of God’s justice, but of their own injustice? In such a case, what would the witness of conscience instruct? What would the     justice of God demand? Although the answer seems obvious, there is really no direct word here from Paul about this case.

Another case could be made from contemporary life that perhaps was not operable or possible to believers in Paul’s day. Suppose the ruling authorities were chosen by the people from those in their midst, as in representative government today? In such a case, the authority given by God would be channeled through the people and consequently exercised through elected representatives, and the governing authorities would be the peoples themselves. How should believers, who form part of the governing authorities, exercise their power in justice and righteousness? In a pluralistic society, how should governing authority be conceived, shared, and caused to function? Such a case is not that which Paul presents, but it is a contemporary case.^[11]This is precisely the case that Ellul makes. See his Ethics of Freedom, pp. 38, 153, 369-398 ( particularly p. 396).

 

How Should the Positive Love Commandment
Relate to the Negative Commandments? (13:8-14)

Just as the believer will keep his debts paid up to ruling authorities (13:7), motivated both by conscience and perhaps by fear of punishment (13:5), so also he should keep all other debts paid up, motivated both by the universal positive commandment to love and by the more restricted negative commandments. The negative commandments in the Decalogue that govern man’s relationship to man, when obeyed, prevent one man from actively harming another. Some manuscripts, in addition to the four commandments given in most versions or translations, also give the one prohibiting the giving of false testimony.^[12]See Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (New York: American Bible Society, 1966), p. 566, footnote on Rom. 13:9. Negative commandments are necessary in order to assign sanctions when they are violated. Their intention is not so much to define the good as to define and proscribe evil. Their conversion to good is also a commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (13:9b; Lev. 19:18). This commandment, when obeyed, not only fulfills itself but also fulfills all the negative commandments. Neither emotions nor sentimentalism are what Paul primarily refers to, but rather to positive acts. Ethics is concerned with responsible action in obedience to deontology or in fulfillment of teleology. Right feeling comes, when it does, as a result of right action. The concept of fellowship, (koinoneo, 12:13), enters once more.

Such actions are not to be postponed. There is an urgency in right behavior. This section comes closer to rebuking directly its readers than any other in the last five chapters of the epistle. The phrase, “The day is at hand (engiken),” parallels the urgent appeal in both Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s preaching (Matt. 3:2, 4:17; Mark 1:15). Time has great significance as do also the events that transpire in it. Believers should be aware of opportunities, not only to avoid evil, but also to do good. Conduct has not only temporal but also trans-historical and eschatological significance.

Believers may not have the luxury of doing little or nothing; they actually are always engaged in meaningful action. That action should be on the side of good and right. The evil conduct that Paul condemns is easily understood to be such by the believer: both the obvious wrongs of gluttonous revelry, drunkenness, sexual debauchery, and complete hedonism as well as the less obvious wrongs of quarreling and jealous envy. Following Jesus the Lord in action is the remedy for any inclination to indulge in evil conduct. Genuine love (12:9-10) as the Master lived it will crowd out quarrelsome and jealous behavior.

 

How Should Believers with Differing Behavioral
Criteria Relate to One Another? (14:1-15:14)

Since believers in Paul’s day came from diverse geographical, cultural, racial, and religious backgrounds, obviously they would bring widely varying standards or criteria by which to judge both conduct and attitudes. In working toward a solution for this pluralistic mixture of peoples, Paul points out their common ground: they all have actively placed their loyalty in Jesus as Lord and Christ. That fact they are not to doubt. They are all servants of the same Master (14:4, 18; 15:7), which is a fact beyond their province to judge.

They could be classified in two groups: those who would not engage in certain activities because they judged such activities to be wrong, and those who believed that the same activities were not to be judged by the criteria of right/wrong. The first group are labelled by Paul as being weak in faith (14:1), judgmental (14:13) , doubters (14:23) , and simply weak (15:1). The other group, among whom Paul places himself, are called strong (15:1). All are brothers (14: 10, 21) and neighbors (15:2).

Perhaps the first group included those Jews who had become followers of Jesus as Messiah. Such a view is partially supported by their belief that at least certain meats, if not indeed all, were to be considered unclean (14:2b); that certain days (sabbaths?) were more important than others (14:5). On the other hand, only certain voluntary groups in Judaism, the Nazirites, for example, abstained from wine (14:21). Judaism as a whole considered wine to be of God’s blessings.

Regardless of the origin of their standards, this group considered the activities of eating meats, not observing certain days, and drinking wine, to be wrong. Paul neither condemns them nor does he allow the “strong” to condemn them. They are to be received as brothers, but their standards are not to be imposed on all believers (14: 1-4 ), even though they them­ selves certainly may continue to live by such standards.

In not accepting the standards of the weak for themselves the strong are not, however, to offend the weak. If necessary, they will themselves abstain from eating meat or drinking wine (14: 15, 21), not because the eating or drinking is wrong in itself, but because it would be wrong to run the risk of causing the weak brother to stumble or fall (14:21, 23).

Within this pluralistic context of the brotherhood of believers, all are to welcome one another as Christ has already welcomed each one of them (15:7). Surely the concrete cases which Paul uses should also serve as examples when the same problem arises over other particulars: all are brothers who have been accepted by Christ, and differing standards can obliterate neither the acceptance nor the brotherhood. No group is to judge another group by its (the first group’s) standards. No group is to tempt another group by its actions. All are to accept those whom Christ has accepted. All believers are capable of such actions (15:14).

 

How Should Jewish Believers and Gentile Believers
Relate to One Another? (15:15-33)

When Paul wrote to the Romans, one of the most pressing theological and ethical problems had to do with the relationship between Jewish and gentile believers. The particular form of the problem resided in the manner of entry of gentiles into the community of believers, and their subsequent place in that community.^[13]See Acts 15:1-29 for one perspective on the problem. There also existed the prior problematic of a ministry (any ministry) to gentiles as such.^[14]See Acts 9: 15-16, 10: 1-48 for a biblical perspective on the problem.

Paul obviously considers himself to be God’s point of contact between the Gospel and the gentiles (15:15-16a). Just as the ruling authorities are God’s ministers (leitourgoi) to their subjects (13:6), so Paul is God’s minister (leitourgos) to the gentiles (15:16). Paul the Pharisee^[15]That was part of bis identity in Judaism. See Phil. 3:5; Acts   23:6. Paul’s identification of himself as a priest is particularly significant in the light of general antagonism between Pharisees and their contemporaries who were priests (the Sadducees). Integration of true biblical functions is actualized through Jesus. now understands his function as priestly (hierourgeo) in relation to the gentiles being received in, or receiving, the Gospel. Others had the same ministerial-priestly function in Jew-Gospel relationship, but Paul’s service is unique in a two-fold way: his calling and ministry is primarily to gentiles, and even among them his service was where the Gospel had not yet been announced (15: 19b-21). His ministry and corresponding gentile response represents the totality of the Gospel in the totality of life: in word and work (deed), in power attested by signs and wonders, all in the power of the Holy Spirit (15:18-19a). All this is reminiscent of the Pentecost experience, which was highly ethical in its happening and in its consequences (Acts 2:43-47).

So far, Paul’s ministry has been fulfilling, but there is more yet to be fulfilled. Paul wants to go through Rome, spend some time there, in his proposed ministry which will ultimately carry him to Spain (15:22-25, 28, 32). The believers in Rome may help him materially as well as spiritually in this ministry (15:24b, 32a). One function in which all members of the body of Christ should share is that of announcing, or helping announce, the Gospel. Such a sharing ministry is missions in its most basic sense. Paul’s conviction that God has this ministry for him makes him bold in suggesting that the believers should aid him.

Even at this time, Paul is instrumental in uniting Jewish believers and gentile believers in the application of the Gospel. A welcome, inevitable result of sharing the Gospel itself is the sharing of material goods. As water seeks its own level, so the fellowship of love in Christ seeks its level of meeting physical needs among believers. As the Gospel flowed out through Paul from Jerusalem (15:19b), from Jewish believers to gentiles who were to believe, just so now tangible expressions of that sharing love were flowing back through Paul from gentile believers to Jewish believers (15:25-27) . This is as it should be. This is fellowship, and in addition to supplying physical needs, prejudices and mistaken or inadequate conceptions were undoubtedly changed in the sharing process.

Why Should Believers Know One Another
Personally? (16:1-16, 21-23)

Paul genuinely wanted the believers whom he knew to know one another also. For many, he was the only point of contact with others in far away and little-known places. But for the Gospel, others would have considered themselves enemies. Some, perhaps already in prison cells for the Gospel’s sake, needed support and help. Fellow believers were those to whom they would naturally turn through this ministry of Paul.

These were leaders, already known and respected in one area, who could and should have the opportunity to serve in other areas. Phoebe was surely one of these (16:1-12). She is described as a sister (adelphe) and as a deacon (diakonos) in the church in Cenchreae. Although the word diakonos may justifiably be translated by and means “servant,” mention of this function in a particular relationship to the church at Cenchreae lends considerable weight to the more specific function of deacon. Those in lowly stations in life should have fellowship with those in more prominent places. Among these latter were Caius and Erastus (16:23).

Their names may be unknown, except for being recorded in this letter, but that is enough. Enough to be assured that in the Gospel and the fellowship of believers in Christ, there are no unknowns or unimportants, however unsung they may be. They are part of that great and mighty company who are obedient in the faith!

 

How are Deliberate Troublemakers to be Dealt With? (16:17-21)

Believers are to be neither gullible nor naive. Even at that early stage when Christianity was hardly known, there were those who saw in the believers what appeared to be an opportunity for unscrupulous gain. The words of the Gospel had been learned by them, but its power went unexperienced. By the clever use of good-sounding phrases they sought their own gain. Paul’s advice to his fellow-believers was simple and direct: when such people become known, avoid them, stay away from them, have nothing to do with them (16:17b) I

But there was a prior problem: if such people know the believers’ vocabulary, and their words sound good, how can they be known for who they really are? The answer is not in the area of theology as such, but in the area of ethics: observe their behavior and the behavior that resulted from their words and life. Dissensions and difficulties, divisions and scandal mark their lives! Their words may seem straight, but their practice is crooked.

There is no need for further action by the believers.^[16]History is filled with the tragedies that occurred when believers went beyond Paul’s admonition and tried to deal directly with the troublemakers. The tragedies were compounded when believers either dominated government authorities or actually were the government authorities. Going beyond Paul’s advice actually creates more dissent and   division in the name of resolving differences. God knows who and what they are: they are identified with the power of evil, and the God who makes for genuine peace will settle the matter to his satisfaction (16:20). Dissension, divisions, and strife cannot continue to exist in the presence of the God of peace.

 

Conclusion: God’s Purpose (16:25-27)

The point of departure, continuing basis, and ultimate goal of both theology and ethics is the sovereign God. In accord with his own design and purposes, that which he guarded as a mystery has now been disclosed, actualized, and proclaimed. It is the Good News of Jesus the Messiah! The aim and result are one: the obedience of faith. God has acted lovingly and justly; man’s response is to obey. The totality of the Good News has been and is being brought to bear on all of life. God will be glorified forever. Rules for living as well as the goal of living for the believer are brought to fruition in the life which glorifies God. This life is that of the individual believer as well as that of the community of believers.