MAY 2020

ROMANS: The Hopelessness of Faith, Romans 4:18-21

    I felt like I have been in situations that were difficult, and then dire, and then hopeless.

    It’s a terrible feeling to be in that phase of perceiving a situation as hopeless. However, Scripture often portrays God waiting until people get into that phase of apparent hopelessness before He works in a way that is unmistakable and evident. God did this for Abraham, and He can work in the apparent hopeless situations of our lives, too, when we exhibit steadfast faith in His promises and care.

    In Romans 4, Paul has been discussing Abraham’s faith and the benefit of the promises that God gave to him. Here in vv. 18-21, Paul points out how faith, blessings and promises continued to operate even in a situation that, from a mortal perspective, was hopeless.

    Romans 4:18 points ominously to a hopeless situation and yet asserts that Abraham still believed in God despite it. The phrase is translated “in hope against hope” (NASB) or “against all hope” (NIV). The last phrase of v. 17 alludes to how dire the situation was, by saying that God “gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.” Verse 19, too, will allude to the problem, specifically, the low possibility that a barren couple well beyond child-bearing years could have children. From a medical and biological perspective, it was a hopeless situation.

    Yet Abraham “believed.” The belief, however, was not just to have a son, but to be the father of many nations. Paul quotes from Gen 15:5, where God takes Abraham outside to look at the stars and then promises that despite this apparently impossible biological hurdle, Abraham would indeed have innumerable descendants like the innumerable stars.

    For the believer today, we also can recognize two truths from this verse. First, God will always be faithful to His promises, no matter how impossible those promises seem. A clear promise in Scripture is a guarantee of its fulfillment. Second, those who are called to accept spiritual realities – and even impossible-sounding ones – have one proper response, specifically, the response of faith. Faith helps us not only to understand what God is doing and can do, but also to embrace it fully even during the times of difficulty and challenge.

    The question addressed in v. 19, then, is how life can come from deadness. Both a verbal and a noun form of the root nekros, meaning “dead,” are used in this verse, emphasizing the apparent impossibility of the situation. Despite the deadness of Abraham’s capacities, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb, Abraham did not become “weak in faith.” He did not allow the hopelessness of the situation to dampen the power of belief in God’s promises.

    Abraham “considered” the reality of his situation from a human perspective. The word katanoeō means “to consider, think of, notice, be aware of.” It often refers to acknowledging a situation and acting upon that consideration. Sometimes it implies recognizing the reality of a situation and then changing one’s mindset or actions in light of what one observes or recognizes (Luke 12:24; Acts 11:6; Heb 10:24). In this case, Abraham recognized the biological impossibility having children at his age, and he recognized the “deadness” or “barrenness” of Sarah, also.

    The mention of Sarah introduces a double obstacle to faith. First, she was also old, even by standards at that time. She was ten years younger than Abraham, but still ninety years old when God promises that she will bear Abraham a child (Genesis 17:17). But beyond her mere age was the other obstacle that she had been barren all of her life. In reality, her womb was doubly dead. Thus, Abraham exhibits tremendous faith to believe God in light of all of the biological and medical obstacles that God’s promises faced.

    But the promise of God was not affected by the mortal and circumstantial obstacles in Abraham’s life (v. 20). Abraham did not “waver in unbelief” and did not doubt the promise despite the potential difficulties with it being fulfilled. One should note that the time period discussed here refers to Genesis 17 after Hagar had given birth to Ishmael. The promise of an heir through Sarah is reiterated in Gen 17, and apparently from that point on there was no sustained doubt on Abraham’s part that God would provide him an heir through Sarah.

    Paul suggests that Abraham did not doubt God’s promise but, in fact, his faith was “strengthened.” Except for Acts 9:22, the verb here is used exclusively by Paul in the NT (Rom 4:20; Eph 6:10; Phil 4:13; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 2:1; 4:17), and usually refers to the strengthening and sustainment that God provides. Doubt leads to a spiral of more doubt, but faith leads to stronger faith. Abraham’s faith, and the process of it being strengthened, accomplished the goal of “giving glory to God.” Faith in God’s promises gives glory to Him no matter how big the promise or how apparently insurmountable the obstacle.

    Part of faith is not merely a vague hope but a full assurance (v. 21). Paul says that Abraham had this latter, the full assurance that God who promised was able to perform what He said He would do. The verb plerophoreo means “to convince fully, assure fully” or “proclaim fully.” This verb and its noun cognate, plerophoria, refers to growing into full assurance about the truth of the faith (Col 2:2; 4:12; 1 Thess 1:5; Heb 6:11; 10:22). Full assurance, even in seemingly hopeless situations, is an ideal goal for the believer that can be achieved even in this life through the work of the Holy Spirit and through exposure to God’s Word. Paul argues that by faith Abraham had achieved this maturity relative to the revelation he had at that time.

    Often when we feel like we are in a dire or even hopeless situation, it is because we have drawn a line of impossibility. Faith should move us to erase that line, and recognize that God can do anything, even open a barren womb and even bring someone back from the dead. Thus, in reality, there is no such thing as true hopelessness if we have faith in Christ. There is still difficulty, still hurt, but never hopelessness. What God promises will come true, and we have a hope in eternity that lifts us above the seeming hopelessness of our circumstances.

POLITICAL OPINION: The Fallacy of a Secure Mail-In Voter Election

        Guest writer: Michael J. Jogan

    With the current pandemic concerns in our culture, political pundits are tossing around the need for mail-in ballot elections. If states submit to having only mail-in voting privileges, I believe they are underestimating the ease of voter fraud and growth of voter intimidation.

    All states already allow some absentee voting. Yet their idea of expanding to 100% means they are ignoring the irregularities that currently occur. These states are overlooking voters who were caught voting twice either in-person or by mail. Now thankfully, these are rare occasions.

    So, why am I so concerned that fraud and intimidation will necessarily increase with 100% mail-in voting? Put simply, fraud is easier to achieve in mail-in voting than with in-person voting. If voter fraud occurs, there is no way to redo incorrect outcomes if it is found months later.

    Those who claim that there is no wide-spread (in-person) voter fraud may be the same ones who question why there are certain requirement like “Why must I show a photo?” In Ohio, where I live and have served as an election poll worker, the majority of in-person voters use a driver’s license for their identification. Although Ohio doesn't require a photo identification to vote, fortunately the main form of identification that is offered to verify one’s identity is a driver’s license. As a screener at the polls checking to verify voters, the photo helps.

    Here is the process: While looking at the offered ID, the election screener asks the voter for a verbal verification by essentially repeating what the screener is looking at (name, address) because it is required by state law. Justifiably, many voters look at the check-in official with that puzzling look that means, “It’s in your hand, can’t you read?” The potential voter signs in on an electronic pad and their signature is immediately compared to what’s on file. Because upper management says handwriting changes readily, there is just a cursorily glance at comparing what’s displayed electronically on the screen to the voter’s signature, if at all, by the screener. That's it. If the printed name and address on certain approved documents provided by the citizen to the screener match what is in the Board of Elections electronic file, they are cleared to vote.

    Even a scrupulous person can memorize their “name and current address” to match what’s on the printed document; but will not look like the person on the photo supplied. This is why we need a photo!

    The verification process changes slightly with absentee voters. The same information is requested like their name, current address, an ID number or a copy of other specific document like a utility bill which verifies their address and their signature. The Election Board receives and reviews the data and upon spotting an identical match with in-house records sends out a ballot. Note the difference: there is neither visual contact nor a verbal verification of name and address.

    This is why I cannot understand why any Board of Election representative would say that on-site ID conformation from an in-person voter is equivalent to an absentee voting affirmation. I don’t see them being equally secure, either. The abuse on applications is more forthcoming from home, especially since you don’t have to show your face versus being at polling places.

    Here are examples of how someone can cast more than one ballot if the request is accepted. Some may get a ballot multiple times by using more than one social security number, using multiple addresses, even voting in different states. I just read about a writer from a local newspaper who submitted three applications for an absentee ballot using three different names, one of which was his. The board only approved one: one of his false names.

    Lately there is also a movement for on-line voting. In my opinion, on-line voting is just another way to remove the requirement for a picture ID and verbal declaration. Can anyone tell me how secure on-line voting will be? How can any Board of Election be sure that the person submitting their selections is the same person who requested them on-line? Did any undue influence occur to the voter’s selection behind the scenes? How do you spot this?

    The above possibilities tell me that voting in the privacy of a voting booth is being replaced with an honor system which comes with no guarantees nor safety measures. No one seems concerned that allowing mail-in voting as well as proposed on-line voting is opening the gates for potentially paying for votes. Corrupt individuals and hackers are becoming more sophisticated in how to gain personal data as well as how to influence voters.

    Let’s return to the understanding that the only non-influencing private place to vote is the voting booth. Our freedom of choosing without being influenced was the main reason voting locations were established. I can listen to others anywhere, but once I enter a voting booth, I can decide for myself. Unless I disclose it, no one will ever know how I actually voted on any issue or candidate, as it should be a truly private matter. In some households one occupant could intimidate others and make them comply with a different opinion on their “at-home” mail-in ballot. However in a voting booth this could not happen.

    Computer convenience will never be fool proof. Ohio is one of a few states that has hard copy backup. Polling locations collect on-site data electronically from recording the ballot selections and at the end of the day transfer the data via thumb drives and deliver them to the board headquarters with trailing, completed paper ballots. This needs to remain in place to avoid any questionable numbers. All states should take heed and follow changes with electronic voting with physical paper back up.

    On Election Day all Ohio poll locations are open for thirteen hours. If any voter cannot set aside one hour every six months to vote, then that voter has not taken seriously the importance of voting. Researching candidates and issues on the ballot affect the direction of one’s community, state and nation for many years.

    Let’s avoid even the potential of coercion, akin to fraud, by retaining polling locations. I believe that the most secure measure in preventing voter coercion and fraud has always been coming in person with a photo ID and voting in a private booth on Election Day. Absentee ballots should remain an option for those who absolutely are unable to get to the polls (like our military stationed overseas) and not just for convenience sake.