Okay but the poster addresses me first
No, I did not. I asked tow very op-relevant questions:
- What has that to do with the placement of Romans in the chronology of the Pauline epistles?
- Where did you read anyone asking for the meaning of the resurrection or a definition of justification?
Neither question is about the poster. And, for the record, the definition of "
justification" is incorrect. It's a theological definition that does not fully include how the word is used in Greek outside of post-Biblical man-made doctrine. The word ("
dikaiōsis") simply means "
defense." It is a legal term pertaining to the ability of someone to have sufficient standing to make one's case. Every day, all day long, courts around the world make decision regarding what cases will be heard by asking, "Does this case have any merit? Is there any legal basis for this case to even be heard?" If there is no basis for pleading the case then the case never gets heard. An obvious example of that in American jurisprudence would be what cases the SCOTUS decides to hear and which ones it does not hear. Any case that has no Constitutional relevance is never heard. It is always referred back to the lower courts. This is the
denotative meaning of the word
dikaiōsis. Quoting extra-biblical sources defining the word connotatively to fit later doctrine does not change the original meaning of the word.
We are justified first and foremost by Christ and his blood. Absent that basis, absent that justification, there is no grounds by which anyone could stand before god to even plead their case!!! Why not? Because the judgment and the verdict has already been rendered.
John 3:18-19 NIV
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Every single human ever created stood in a state of condemnation simply for not believing in Jesus. Scripture speaks of "judgment day," but according to John 3, the judgment has already been rendered. What judgment day really means is sentencing day, the day when the just recompense for sin is meted out. Everyone will be called to account for every word spoken and every deed done. Blessedly,
there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. No one has any excuse for sin, and no one will escape the consequences thereof. Those covered in the blood of Christ will be called to account but for them they need make no case. They and they alone have justification, the privilege, the legal right to stand before God and plead their case and their case will not be couched in their own thoughts, their own feelings, their own choices, nor their own actions. They may not even have to utter a word because their robes will be washed white in the blood of Jesus. God will recognize His own work. The verdict for that person will be...
Justified:
Washed
in the blood of
My Son
(gavel falls)
The op asks about JbF, implicitly treating JbF as a given, regardless of its definition. The only question asked in the p is, "
why did not Paul write the book of Romans first, since the book of Romans is foundational to the article of justification?"
When that question was highlighted, the answer was, "
That part Im not interested in..."
NOT interested in the one question asked in the op.
There are many reasons why Romans was not written first and the idea the importance of a doctrine should dictate what should be written when is unfounded, unexplained, and incorrect. Justification by faith is found throughout scripture beginning with verses like,
Genesis 15:6
Then he believed in the LORD; and He credited it to him as righteousness.
That is a pre-Law example. What was it Abraham believed? He believed his
Christological descendants would outnumber the stars.
Job 40:8
Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
Little, if anything Paul wrote in Romans was new. Like Jesus, Paul simply restored the
original meaning of scripture. No one has ever had any means by which s/he could even claim a basis to stand before God and make some case explaining his/her sin and why s/he should not be destroyed.
Job 32:2-3
But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram burned; against Job his anger burned because he justified himself before God. And his anger burned against his three friends because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.
God's answer, instead, is...
Job 33:29-33
Behold, God does all these oftentimes with men, to bring back his soul from the pit, that he may be enlightened with the light of life. Pay attention, O Job, listen to me; keep silent, and let me speak. Then if you have anything to say, answer me; speak, for I desire to justify you. If not, listen to me; keep silent, and I will teach you wisdom."
God justifies and He desires to do so for those who will simply shut up and listen. He'll pour the blood of His Son all over a person, drench him/her beyond the point of saturation say that He and He alone is glorified. No word need be spoken when justified by the blood.
That's one of the reasons Romans was not the first book written. Another would be the gospel hadn't
fully reached the Gentile populations who for centuries had been rooted in salvation by either works or knowledge. In Rome, Paul (and Peter) had the God-ordained privilege to preach the gospel in the courts of Caesar
(and they were murdered for doing so because no one could tell Caesar he was going to have to bow his knee to Jesus and survive - there is no justification in Caesar's court for that case).
