Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Church History Essay: Jan Hus

A Summative Assessment of Jan Hus Focusing on his Contribution to the Church both then and now, and his Contribution to the Development of Christian Theology.

Hus preached the word to the people of Bohemia, He steered them towards biblical truth, spoke against abuses, and was persecuted and burned alive by the religious authorities. While he did not manage to divest himself of all religious tradition, he was an important precursor to the Reformers, inspiring both them, and the people of the Czech Republic ever since. In more recent times he has been approved of by people from many branches of Christianity.

Jan Hus, mostly following Wycliff, preached the Word of God to the well-prepared Bohemian people, condemned wicked aspects of the church, inspired the Reformers, and inspired the Czech people.

Born circa 1369[1] in Husinetz in the Kingdom of Bohemia, Jan Hus was a learned and studious man, although it has been suggested his fondness for chess was often a distraction. He earned himself a B.A., B.D. and an M.A.  Over time, Hus served God in varied capacities: as a rector in the University of Prague, as a preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel, as a philosopher and a theologian who sought biblical truth, and most notably as one of the earliest reformers to challenge the papacy.[2]

Before Hus began his exegetical communications to the assembled crowds there were some notable men who had provided Bohemia with exceptional spiritual nourishment: Konrad of Waldhausen, Milicz of Kremsier and Matthias of Janow.[3]  In fact there was a mass exodus from the churches of the Mendicant orders due to blandis sermonibus.   This prepared the ground for Hus to bring the Gospel and reform to God’s Bohemian elect.[4]

The reform Hus brought was to steer the church of Bohemia back to biblical truths and foundations.[5]  He castigated those in ecclesiastical office who were misusing privileges and living lives which were inappropriate for clergy.  Simony was a common practice to which Hus was vocally opposed.[6]  Hus also called the laity to reform by invoking them to consider their consciences and to live lives in keeping with repentance.  His popularity in Bohemia was such that when he was excommunicated by one of the popes a riot broke out.  Eventually Prague was excommunicated and he was required to leave for a time.[7]

There were problems with the papacy, the church and the inquisition at the time of Hus, and he opposed the prevailing conditions in these institutions. 
Relying upon Augustine’s definition that the church is the body of the elect, they [Wycliff and Hus] contested the proposition that what the visible church teaches must be believed because the church teaches it. They turned away from an infallible pope and infallible visible church to the living Christ, who rules personally in the hearts of believers and in the scriptures. They questioned or denied the church’s right to punish heretics and schismatics with physical punishments.[8]

Hus challenged the papal tradition that Peter was the head of the church and appealed to Augustinian theology for inspiration.  Hus, like Augustine, believed that Christ is the rock on which the church is built and that the correct definition of the church is the body of the elect.
At the early period Huss took the ground he afterward assumed in his Treatise on the Church, that not Peter, but Christ, is the rock on which the church is built. In favour of this interpretation, he quoted the famous passage from Augustine’s Retractations and confirmed it from 1 Corinthians 3. . . . He refers to the abuse of the power of the keys and claims for all the Apostles equally the right of loosing and binding. In these sermons the church is defined as the whole number of the elect – totus numerous predestinatorum.[9]

Praha makes mention of this in his paper and notes that there is much agreement between Hus and Wycliff in their writings and arguments of the definition of the church and he states that they deny the existence and functioning of the church as an institution.[10]  Hus was well versed in the theology of Wycliff and did agree with him on many points. They both believed that every elect person should participate in communion.  However he did differ from Wycliff in his theology behind communion; Hus was in favour of transubstantiation.[11]

Another way in which Hus was closer to Catholic views that Wycliff was in his continued veneration of Mary. He preached many sermons about her and he taught that she was in God’s presence interceding for sinners. He also believed that she ascended into heaven but was uncertain “whether Mary ascended in soul only or enveloped with her body”.[12]  

When Hus was a student he purchased an indulgence but later in his life he came to the realisation that this practice was unbiblical and unnecessary. Schaff made mention that Hus was opposed to the sale of indulgences.[13]

Hus took an interest in eschatology, particularly in the passage of the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15.[14]

Hus started to question the authority of the church and the pope.  Hus saw the Scriptures as the highest authority and if a pope or clergyman was acting in contradiction to the Word of God then he need not be obeyed.[15]  In his De Ecclesia Hus stated “. . . he who commands ought only to command things in agreement with the law, and the person obeying ought to the same extent to obey them and never act contrary to the will of God Almighty”.[16]

In 1414 Hus travelled under safe conduct, provided by Emperor Sigismund, to the church council at Konstanz. By this time Hus had been declared a heretic. “The charges against Hus were that he had disobeyed the discipline of the church and rejected sundry of its doctrinal tenets.”[17] Hus was condemned without a trial and burnt at the stake on the 6th July 1415.  Erasmus said that “Hus was burned but he was not convicted”.[18]

One hundred and four years after the death of Hus, Martin Luther was acquainted with writings of the man he was taught had been a heretic.  Accused of being a Hussite, Luther delved into Hus’s De Ecclesia and realised that indeed he was, at least on many of the major theological points.  This had an impact on Luther’s theological ideas that would be invaluable for the German reformation.[19]

Lubomir Batka, who wrote a paper describing the theology of Hus from a Lutheran view point said, “Luther's enthusiasm for Hus does not relate to all central aspects of Hus' teaching. Luther moved beyond Hus' understanding of original sin, of medieval ecclesiology and piety, of the law of Christ and of the difference between the visible and invisible church. These changes are based on the importance Luther ascribed to the external word of the preached gospel. This is what changes the heart of the sinner and creates faith, the church, and life everlasting.”[20]

In more recent times it has been suggested that Hus was focused on the reformation of the church.  Paul Kubricht, in a paper, gave a brief insight into this opinion:  “Matthew Spinka, the leading American scholar on Hus has written: "His [Hus] overwhelming motive was the reformation of the church; his theology was only a means to this end." Hus felt he had a spiritual call and purpose to his activity and noted that he, in his own life, had undergone a change in values and goals that led him to focus on the less worldly concerns of life.”[21]

Among Hus’ critics is Thomas Fudge, an historian specialising in medieval and reformation history.  Thomas Fudge has claimed that “Jan Hus and the Hussites in the sixteenth century were mainly utilities both in the hands of their admirers and their detractors.  The historical, theological, social and religious realities of Hus and the Hussites were of secondary importance at best.”[22]  If that were the case, there would be little talk about Hus and his followers, and his plight would not have encouraged the Reformers, like Luther, to the extent that it did.

The Polish-American historian, Piotr Wandycz, has made the point that the Czech reformation, instigated by Hus, and the Hussite movement, was an inspiration for the Czech people in more recent history.  This was important for nationalism going into and coming out of Communism.
The Hussite upheaval was variously appraised as part of an all-European crisis that surfaced first in Bohemia, or as a manifestation of specifically Czech conditions; as a pre-Reformation or Czech reformation; and as a national or bourgeois revolution. It was perhaps the most important single development in Czech history. Both universal and native elements mingled to produce a revolution that affected religion, culture, politics, economy, and society. Even if a certain mythology grew around it, Hussitism served as an inspiration for Czech democratic tradition in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.[23]

It is also worthy to note that Hus played another important role in the history of Bohemia.  Wandycz propounded, “Hus’s contribution to the Czech language, its grammar and spelling, is comparable to Luther’s impact on the German tongue. A Czech translation of the Bible was preceded only by German and Italian, and followed by the French. Hussite influences were responsible for the first translation of the Bible into Hungarian”.[24]

On a more recent and international scale Hus has received acclaim from participants in various theological traditions.  Vilem stated “Hus was recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, and has been honored as God's witness by Reformed churches and, since its inception, by the Czechoslovak Hussite Church”.[25]  In recent years the Vatican has been considering changing the views it currently holds regarding Jan Hus. In 1996 an article appeared in the periodical Christian Centuary stating that, “Several Roman Catholic experts have urged Pope John Paul II –who during a visit to Prague in 1990 spoke of Hus’s ‘personal integrity of life’ – to condemn the treatment of Hus”.[26]

The contribution Hus has made to the church over the centuries has been to impact in a penetrative yet humbling way through the inspiration of the example he set.  “John Hus was condemned . . . and they supposed that his name was obliterated forever.  Yet now he is shining forth with such glory that his cause and his teaching have to be praised before the whole world, while the pope’s cause lies ignominiously in the manure.”[27]

Hus was inspired by Wycliff, and intur inspired the Reformers and the Czech people. He preached God’s word, and highlighted abuses in the Catholic church. Hus was against unspiritual institution, and an advocate for the body of Christ.  “The blood of the martyr produced seed. The ink of the scholar brought forth substance and the ‘man’ made ‘saint’ in the hands of others gave birth to a myth that whispered in Prague, sang in Constance and shouted across Europe.”[28]

Batka, Lubomir. “Jan Hus’ Theology in a Lutheran Context.” Lutheran Quarterly 23, nο.1 (March 1, 2009): 1-28

Di Domizio, Daniel G. “Jan Hus’s De Ecclesia, Precursor of Vatican II.” Theological Studies 60, no.2 (June 1, 1999): 247-260

Fudge, Thomas A. “ “The Shouting Hus”: Heresy Appropriated as Propaganda in the Sixteenth Century.” Communio Viatorum 38, no. 3 (January 1, 1996): 197-231

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. 2nd Edition.  New York: Harper Collins, 2010.

Vilem, Herold, and David, Zdenek V. “Jan Hus: a Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?.” Communio Viatorum 45, no.1 (January 1, 2003): 5-23

Hus, Jan. The Church. Translated by David S. Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915.

Kubricht, Paul. “The Impact of Historical Interpretations on the Popular Press: the Case of John Hus in Modern Czechoslovakia.” Fides Et Historia 12, no.1 (September 1, 1979): 29-43.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Reformation: Europe’s House Divided. London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Schaff, David S. John Huss: His Life, Teachings and Death, After Five Hundred Years. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915.

Tomkins, Stephen. A Short History of Christianity. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2005.

“Vatican Reconsidering Views on Jan Hus.” Christian Century 113, no.11 (April 3, 1996): 368.

Wandycz, Piotr S. The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present. 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge, 2001.

[1] Other sources may claim as early as 1362 or as late as 1371; see the following for details: {}; {source 2}.
[2] David S. Schaff, John Huss: His Life, Teachings and Death, After Five Hundred Years (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 20-21.
[3] Schaff, John Huss, 33.
[4] Schaff, John Huss, 28.
[5] Diarmaid MacCulloch,  Reformation: Europe’s House Divided. (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 37
[6] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. 2nd Edition.  (New York: Harper Collins, 2010), 416-417.
[7] Stephen Tomkins.  A Short History of Christianity. (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2005), 126.
[8] Schaff, John Huss, 30-31.
[9] Schaff, John Huss, 36.
[10] Herold Vilem, and Zdenek V. David, “Jan Hus: a Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?.” Communio Viatorum 45, no.1 (January 1, 2003): 13.
[11] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 416.
[12] Schaff, John Huss, 36.
[13] Schaff, John Huss, 271.
[14] Schaff, John Huss, 30.
[15] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 417-418.
[16] Jan Hus, The Church, Translated by David S. Schaff. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 194.
[17] Schaff, John Huss, 264.
[18] Schaff, John Huss, 266.
[19] Herold Vilem, and Zdenek V. David, “Jan Hus: a Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?”, 10.
[20] Lubomir Batka. “Jan Hus’ Theology in a Lutheran Context.” Lutheran Quarterly 23, nο.1 (March 1, 2009): 20.
[21] Paul Kubricht. “The Impact of Historical Interpretations on the Popular Press: the Case of John Hus in Modern Czechoslovakia.” Fides Et Historia 12, no.1 (September 1, 1979): 31.
[22] Thomas A. Fudge, “ “The Shouting Hus”: Heresy Appropriated as Propaganda in the Sixteenth Century.” Communio Viatorum 38, no. 3 (January 1, 1996): 198.
[23] Wandycz, The Price of Freedom, 43.
[24] Wandycz, The Price of Freedom, 36.
[25] Herold Vilem, and Zdenek V. David, “Jan Hus: a Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?”, 10.
[26] “Vatican Reconsidering Views on Jan Hus.” Christian Century 113, no.11 (April 3, 1996): 368.
[27] Thomas A. Fudge, “The Shouting Hus”, 207.
[28] Thomas A. Fudge, “The Shouting Hus”, 197.

Monday, September 10, 2012

My Garden (and a brief update)

So I've been really slack and haven't posted in a while. I got a high distinction for Hebrew last semester and passed Church History satisfactorily. This semester I am continuing Hebrew and I am doing the second Old Testament unit which is prophets and writings. I expect to do an essay on Proverbs which I shall post once I have my marks. I did an essay on Jan Hus last semester which I will post sometime soon.

My Garden
We have put in two veggie boxes with a variety of veggies, a small herb garden and I have scattered some edibles through the garden beds as well.

In the veggie patch I have tomatoes (hidden from frost), chives, kale, parsnips, carrots, broad beans, dwarf butter beans and lettuce. I planted most as seeds so there isn't really anything to see but I noticed yesterday, when I watered in the evening, that the lettuces were just peeking through. Rather exciting considering we couldn't see them at lunchtime when we showed Craig's mum around the garden. The only issue I've noticed is the broads grow up to two metres. I thought I got dwarf broads and I didn't realise my mistake until after I had planted the seeds. I did some research and it looks like I can make a little frame for them to grow up and if I pinch off the tops that will keep the plants to about 1 metre and apparently there should be more beans. I'll just have to wait and see. I also have some seedling trays and little pots in which I am trying to grow celery, cabbages and chillies. I plan to keep the chillies potted but I will transplant the celery and cabbages into the main veggie patch when they are stronger.

I have a sunny herb which contains rosemary cuttings and sage, thyme and oregano seeds. I haven't seen much progress there but the rosemary looks alive which I think is a good start. I have a sheltered garden bed where I will put dwarf sunflowers and basil. I have put my mint, parsley and nugget pumpkins in a damper and shadier regular garden bed. There were a few bulbs around and some dead shrubs so I thought it would be nice to have some greenery as a ground dweller. I also want the mint and parsley to become weed-like because I desire to harvest regularly. I have ideas of relaxing in the shade in the hammock drinking my own iced mint tea, then munching on a home-grown salad.

While I was out and about with the camera this morning I took a picture of the nectarine blossom. We have five fruit trees: nashi, nectarine, apple, greengage and cherry. I think they're all starting to bud. I'd like to add a lemon tree to our collection. If we lived in a warmer climate I would definitely want oranges, limes, mangos, bananas and avocados too. 

There is something so special about being able to see God's creation coming back to life in spring. I heard bird calls today which I haven't heard in months. I saw young steers gallivanting around the paddock and enjoying the sun (and obviously unaware of what will befall them once they fatten up). And there was the smell of flowers and freshly cut grass. Ah! what joy it brought me.

So aside from study and indoor housewifery, this is what I have been doing of late.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Sorry it's been so long!

I didn't mean to take so long to get back into posting. Well, I didn't mean to have a break at all.

I'm back into study: Hebrew and Church History (Early church to 1550)
I love Hebrew. I love singing in Hebrew. I don't love writing it so much just yet because it takes me a while.

 My toilet door memory verse - Genesis 1:1

Not much has been happening here. Just the usual summery things: Swimming, sunburn, gardening, being lazy.

We took a nice trip to the Lavender Farm for Craig's birthday just before New Year.

I'm trying to get back into the things I love doing like reading, sewing and developing recipes.
I'd really like to make one of those cushion covers with the material roses all over it.
A bit like this:

But more rosy and with pretty patterned material. I think it would look really nice on my mother-in-law's special arm chair. Mother's day is getting closer....

I shall try to post a bit more frequently.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Our New Little Man

We have adopted a little Maltese doggy!

We called him Proton because he's like a positively charged particle . . . .

. . . . except when it's raining outside.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Another Diagram

Why did Paul Write his Epistle to the Romans?

In this essay the varied and probable reasons Paul might write to the Romans are outlined, and brief but important information concerning who the Roman believers were and who Paul was is presented for consideration and illumination on the subject.

To properly understand why Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, it is necessary to consider the information pertaining to the people involved, to remember the major cultures of the time, and to examine the key themes of the book.

The Roman Christians were a mix of Jewish and Gentile converts who had most probably been converted by the witness of travellers who had been in Jerusalem during Pentecost. Positioned in the hub of the known world, Rome was a bustling city with a full and vibrant culture. The Gentiles in the Roman church would have come from a large variety of backgrounds and would most likely have been the larger people group in the church. Evidence in favour of this and pointing to an important reason for Paul to write his epistle is presented by Thomas Schreiner in his exegetical commentary on Romans:

What tilts the scales in favour of a Gentile majority is other internal evidence in Romans. In Rom. 1:5-6 Paul addresses the readers, identifying his commission as the apostle to the Gentiles, and he specifically includes the Roman readers within the orbit of the Gentile commission. The language should not be pressed to exclude the Jews, but it implies that the majority of the readers were Gentiles.

. . .

The church in Rome was likely raised on Jewish roots through the preaching of the gospel in the synagogues. Thus Gentile Christians would have had a keen knowledge of the OT Scriptures. From the very beginning Jews would have debated Jewish Christians and Gentiles over their interpretation of the Scriptures. Paul needed to demonstrate in Romans that his gospel fulfilled what was written in the Scriptures. His gospel was probably under suspicion in Rome precisely because both Jews and Jewish Christians hotly disputed his interpretation of the Mosaic law and the OT Scriptures.[1]

Paul, so it seems, wrote his epistle to the Romans after penning 2 Corinthians. It is thought he wrote the letter in, or near, Corinth. Paul had not yet visited the Roman believers and he desired to meet with them.[2]  The date of this writing is thought to have been approximately AD 57 due to the nature of what Paul was addressing in regards to possible Jewish and Gentile clashes. Claudius had been in power in Rome and had expelled Jews in AD 49 but he died in AD 54. [3] The Jews had returned: some were also Christians and it is likely they had very different ideas from the Gentile believers. The Roman church probably faced challenges similar in nature to some of Paul’s other “church plants”. [4]  

The composition of Romans has been considered an exposition of Paul’s theology for many years but more recently this theory has been revised by a variety of scholars in favour of a developmental process in Paul’s theology. Whilst other scholars suggest that in writing Romans Paul was summarising objections to his theology which he received in Galatia, Philippi and Corinth. The latter view is fairly superficial; every person is affected by their experiences and will of course express thoughts on the influences by which they have been changed. Those factors must be considered but to say Romans is specifically a backlash to certain objections is to miss the abundance of brilliance contained therein.

Paul was a man who had been moulded by God through his early years, for a task which no other apostle could have fitted into more perfectly. Having grown up as a Jew in a Hellenistic society, trained in a practical trade, followed by impeccable education under Gamaliel, Paul would have had the ability to relate to and converse with virtually every person who he came in contact with. Ladd makes mention of Paul’s background and says we must interpret Paul’s ideas against a very diverse background if we are to understand the historical influences that moulded Paul to be the first Christian theologian.[5]

Marshall discusses how the problems in the Roman church may have been known to Paul and how this was a factor in Paul’s decision to write to them. He also makes mention of Paul’s situation and how that would have affected his writing:
The elements that make up the situation and the relative significance of each of them continues to be a matter of debate. As a letter addressed to Rome, it introduces Paul and his particular understanding of the Christian message to a congregation that he had not founded, although the length of the list of people greeted in Romans 16 indicates that he had a rather good knowledge of the congregation and its problems. At the same time, coming as it does at the point where Paul was about to journey to Jerusalem for what (so far as we know) was the last time, the letter may reflect some of the concerns in his mind at this decisive juncture in his career. The crucial problem is the place of Jews and Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation and their relationship to one another. This practical problem emerges particularly in the closing, practical section of the letter (Rom 12-16, especially Rom 14-15), where the “strong” and “weak” believers appear to be basically Gentile and Jewish respectively. The body of the letter is concerned with the nature of the gospel for Jews and Gentiles, and it takes up in a fresh way the issues that surfaced in Galatians.[6]

Like all of Paul’s letters, Romans contains some of his theology but it is not an exhaustive or conclusive systematic theology. The letter contains what some call Paul’s gospel but that label is somewhat deceptive. Marshall aptly dispels the notion that Romans is simply a summary of Paul’s theology because it is not a comprehensive treatment.[7] Justification by faith is a theme in Romans which has such a profound affect through the ages that we are still feeling the aftershock today. The sovereignty of God and salvation are the other key themes which are found in Romans. Like Justification, those themes arose out of necessity because of the Jewish/Gentile clashes within the church.

The Roman church hadn’t been established by an apostle and it would seem Paul wanted to cement the Roman church with integrity and give them a firm grounding. In doing this he needed to show them who he was as an apostle and that he was worthy of their trust. Paul also wanted to continue to fulfil the commission his Lord had given him.
Romans 1:9-13[8]:
For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you - that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine. I want you to know, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.

Paul’s other motives for making contact can be seen where he expresses his interest in continuing on to Spain with their help[9] and he states his hope was that the church would be an encouragement and a refreshment[10]. Another way he saw they could help him was through prayer.[11] 

John MacArthur provides a clear summary of why he thinks Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans:
And so, the letter really was to be an introduction of himself as an Apostle, of his doctrine so they would have no question about it. And so he pens a monumental treatise to establish them in the truth to show that he was truly an Apostle, to give them confidence in himself, and just in case he never gets there, to give them the absolute last word on the gospel of Jesus Christ so they will be established.[12]

In conclusion, the reasons Paul wrote his letter to the Roman believers are diverse in nature and span a considerable range of topics. Understanding why Paul wrote this marvellous letter is central to understanding the book itself. Paul's epistle to the Romans was a self-introduction and proof of apostleship, to ensure their clarity on his doctrine, and to establish a relationship with them, both as a basis for them to have confidence in him, and, in tandem with his doctrine, to establish them in the faith.

Blomberg, Craig L. From Pentecost to Patmos. Acts to Revelation. An Introduction and Survey. Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 2006.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Edited by Donald A Hagner. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

MacArthur, John. Romans: The Man and the Message. Panorama City, California: Grace To You, 1 March 1981.

Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Theology. Many Witnesses, One Gospel. USA: InterVarsity Press, 2004

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1998.

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1998), 14-15
[2] In Romans 1:11 Paul expressed his wish to meet the Roman Christians.
[3] In Acts 18:2 Paul meets Aquila and Priscilla who were Jews expelled from Rome.
[4] Craig L. Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos. Acts to Revelation. An Introduction and Survey. (Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 2006), 234-235.
[5] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, ed. by Donald A Hagner. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), 398-399
[6] I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology. Many Witnesses, One Gospel. (USA: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 305-306
[7] Marshall, New Testament Theology, 15-16
[8] English Standard Version
[9] Romans 15:28
[10] Romans 15:32
[11] Romans 15:50
[12] John MacArthur, Romans: The Man and the Message. (Panorama City, California: Grace To You, 01 March 1981).