Psalm 37

I was reading Psalm 37 this morning. It is amazing the depth and breadth of this hymn by David as the King compares the wicked and the righteous. It is an acrostic hymn; in other words, each verse begins with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. I would urge a regular reading of it. Verses 1-8 are full of exhortations. Jesus' quote from the Beatitudes about the meek is found in this Psalm (v. 11). Here are a few more gems:

"The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delights in His way" [v. 23].

"I have been young and I have been old; yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken, or His seed begging for bread" [v. 25].

"Delight yourself also in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart" [v. 4].

And one more—

"Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright; for the future of that man is peace."

I especially like that last one—it is a promise to hold on to.

 

 

 

THE BIBLE’S GREATEST VERSE

John 3:16
I thought I might share outlines of some of my favorite sermons from the last few years.
Max Lucado has rightly stated that John 3:16 is the "Hope Diamond of the New Testament." I would not argue with the many who believe it is the most important verse of the Bible. On this verse we stand upon God's plan for the ages. Let's break the verse down and give it some of the attention it deserves [though admittedly we can't scratch its surface].

• God—it all begins with Him. I think Isaiah 40:12-31 is all the commentary we need for this fact. I would urge you to read the entire passage, but here are just some of them: Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand…Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has taught Him? …Behold the nations are as a drop in the bucket…All the nations before Him are as nothing…It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers…He brings the princes to nothing…To whom then will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal? Says the Holy One. Well the answer to that question is obviously—No one and nothing! In the beginning God…The greatest of all verses begins where the Bible begins and ends—with God.
• So Loved—God is love [John 4:8]. Because love is His very nature, He must do more than just say He loves. He must demonstrate it. We'll get to that in just a bit.
• The World—who is the object of God's great love? It is the world. "The world" in the 4^th Gospel refers to sinners [3:19; 7:7; 16:20]. God so loved sinners. Let's not keep this too generic, however. It is helpful I think to replace the word with "me". God so loved me—a sinner. Now it's particular. Now it's personal.
• That He gave—love is always demonstrated by giving. You will give to the object of your love. You're going to give freely and abundantly.
• His only begotten son—what is God's gift of love? It is a "who." It is His only begotten. It is His "unique," "one of a kind" son. Of course that is Jesus. It is He 'who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age" [Gal 1:4].
   
  Why did God do this? Why did He give His one and only Son?
   
• That whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life—the purpose statement of the Bible's greatest verse draws an eternal dividing line that cannot be ignored. Now let's work backwards.
   
  Everlasting life—ultimately of course everlasting life is heaven. Jesus said the night before His death that He was preparing a place (John 14:2). Heaven is not a state of mind. It is a place prepared for God's children by Christ Himself. Everlasting life is also a present possession [John 5:24].
  Would not Perish—here's the part most people would like to see omitted from the Bible's greatest verse but cannot. How would you know good news without bad news? The bad news is that there is everlasting punishment. Jesus talked about it just as surely as He spoke of everlasting life [Matthew 25:46]. There is a dividing line. There is a heaven and there is a hell. What determines where eternity will be spent?
  Believes in Him—faith is the key. Faith is not just mental assent; it is a yielding of self to God. It is not just saying I believe; it is handing over one's life to God. Notice "in Him." You must hand your life over to God in Christ. You cannot get to the Father but through the Son.
  Whoever—this is my favorite word of the Bible's greatest verse. Who can believe? Whoever. That means me. That means you. That means anyone. That's good news. Eternal life is not just available to a holy few or a number of people already determined. Eternal life is available to anyone willing to believe in God through His Son whom He gave as a gift of His love to the world.

If I might quote Lucado again—John 3:16 'unrolls the welcome mat of heaven to humanity.' It is the greatest verse in the Bible.
It comes with four realizations:

God loves

God gave

You believe

You live
 

You must decide.

 

                

Issues in Romans #5

Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ [5:1 NET].
The issue that is discussed in all the commentaries is whether or not the verb underlined (one word in Greek) is an indicative as it is understood above or a subjunctive ['let us have peace'] as it is read in several important manuscript witnesses [01 A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* lat bo]. Those are some high powered witnesses. However, the indicative is not without its own persuasive lineup [01¹ B² F G P 044 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1739^c 1881 2464].

When one weighs just the external evidence; the subjunctive gets the nod. While the first corrector is often of equal importance as the original hand and there is a good cross section of witnesses for the indicative, the subjunctive reading carries the day. As the NET Bible critique makes clear the "A" rating in UBS⁴ is much too confident. At best the external evidence warrants a "B" rating for the indicative. 

With that said, the indicative is likely the correct reading. Taking the possibility of a hearing error for granted, the strongest internal argument is that Paul has established what the NET notes calls the 'indicatives of the faith.' There is only one imperative and only one hortatory subjunctive used up to this point in the letter. After chapter 6 there are 61 imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. It seems an exhortation is out of place in this part of the epistle. 

The overall argument of the letter quite frankly demands the indicative. In 1:18-3:20 the apostle has been clear that all are sinners and in need of God's righteousness. In 3:21-up to this point—sinners are declared righteous by faith. Both are absolute standings with results. The state of sin results in the litany of OT texts in 3:10-18. The state of righteousness results in peace with God (5:1). Peace is not something to which the believer aspires; it is a result of a righteous standing. To add to the strength of peace as a result of justification Paul adds that believer also stands in the state of grace [5:2]. An indicative in 5:1 just fits the overall argument.

I'm not sure quite frankly that the subjunctive is good theology. Would it not imply something a person must do? The subjunctive would call for the individual to strive for peace or perhaps guard it. To me that would hardly be a Pauline thought. Peace with God is something God Himself provides and protects—not the sinner. As Cranfield notes, "it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing at this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them."

I would not quibble with a "B" rating in the UBS text. I would agree that the external evidence makes all conclusions a little less than absolute, but I believe the internal evidence makes it probable that the indicative is the original reading. The believer is justified and thus has peace with God—now and forever!

[By the way I greatly appreciate the NET Bible notes on textual issues such as this one!]

 

ISSUES IN ROMANS #4

In the first three chapters of his magnum opus Paul focuses on two ideas. First and primarily, all people are in need of the righteousness of God. Every person is a sinner and has fallen short of His glory (3:23). Sinners are hopelessly lost, cannot hope to be righteous on their own (3:11-18), and in fact left to themselves sinners will worship the creation rather than the Creator (1:25). Second, God provides His righteousness to those who turn to His Son Jesus by faith (3:22). The Father placed all His wrath against sin upon His Son (3:25) so that He might be both just (in that God judged sin as He must as One who is righteous) and the justifier (One who can now show mercy upon sinners).

It's time to illustrate the second point particularly and Paul does so in chapter 4 by using one of the Old Testament 'big guns.' The apostle uses Abraham as his example for justification by faith. He focuses upon Gen 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." His primary point, especially to those in the church who were Jewish believers, was that righteousness was credited to Abraham before he was circumcised. Why is that important? Gentiles too could claim Abraham as 'father.' I am sure that fact was news to many a Jew and good news to many a Gentile.

The bottom line for Paul was the person who can look to Abraham as 'father' is the one who believes. It makes no difference whether that person is a Jew or a Gentile. Concerning the result of Abraham's faith Paul wrote: And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have righteousness credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised [NET]. Abraham is the father of all believers.

Why does Paul deal with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles at all? When reading chapter 4 one needs to understand a bit of the background of Romans. There seems to have been friction between Jewish and Gentile Christians in the church. It is likely Jewish believers still looked at Gentiles with the disdain of their upbringing. Jewish Christians probably felt Gentiles in the church were 'lesser' to some degree because of their Jewish pedigree. Paul uses Romans for several purposes, but one was to remind both camps of their brotherhood in Christ. All, both Jews and Gentiles, were sinners. All, both Jews and Gentiles, had to believe in Christ to receive God's righteousness. All, both Jews and Gentiles, could look upon Abraham as the father of the faithful. All believers, both Jews and Gentiles, were family.

The Jew/Gentile friction that seems apparent in the Roman church is the reason for Paul's discussion of Israel in chapters 9-11 (I'll get to that later). This friction seems to be at the forefront of some of the ethical sections of the letter as well. Some scholars believe his primary purpose for Romans is to deal with this. I do not agree, however, one cannot deny that it is an underlying theme in epistle.

By the way, it is worth noting the relationship between the two groups was also on the forefront of Paul's mind as he writes Romans. He is taking an offering from his primarily Gentile churches to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem who were struggling. He hopes the offering will be a bridge built to unite the two groups. One can see that the apostle would be particularly burdened to deal the fellowship problem in Rome.

The hermeneutical principle found in chapter 4 of Romans is the need to understand—as much and as far as possible—the background of a biblical book. The fact that Paul is dealing with a church made up of both Jews and Gentiles, and that it appears each group had problems with the other, can help to clarify some of Paul's argument for the interpreter. Background issues are found in any good testament introduction Bible dictionary or commentary.

Issues in Romans #3

Couched within arguably the most important book in the New Testament is the greatest paragraph ever written—Romans 3:21-26. In 1:18-3:20, Paul spends considerable time discussing bad news: everyone is a sinner. No one is exempt. Whether one is a Jew or Gentile, every person is a sinner and fallen short of the glory of God. By the end of that extended passage one is wondering if there is any hope. There is! Finally, the Apostle gets to the good news, and this passage is brimming with it. It teaches in one paragraph how God's righteousness is bestowed upon the guilty sinner.

The part of the passage that has brought on the most discussion is vv. 21-22: But now the righteousness of God part from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference…[NKJV]. Then there is v. 26: "to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" [NKJV].

Note the underlined prepositional phrases, "faith in Jesus Christ." This genitive phrase can be translated two ways. Traditionally it has been translated as an objective genitive, as in the NKJV. However, an increasing number of scholars argue that the phrase should be translated as a subjective genitive. V. 22 in the NET translation reads: "the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe." The NET handles v. 26 similarly: "This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness."

Is Paul focusing upon the sinner's faith in Jesus or Jesus' faithfulness demonstrating God's righteousness? Context determines meaning. At the end of v. 22 there are the words "on all who believe." That fact alone would cause one to lean toward the objective translation. Each time anyone places faith in Christ it demonstrates the righteousness of God.

However, the subjective idea is in the passage too. Paul writes in v. 25: "whom (speaking of Jesus) God set forth as propitiation by His blood." Surely Christ's going to the cross as propitiation is the greatest example in history of faithfulness to God. And there is no denying that without Christ's faithfulness the righteousness of God would not be available to sinful human beings.

That said, it seems the objective translation seems to fit the context best. The entirety of v. 25 reads: "Whom God set forth as propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over sins that were previously committed" [NKJV]. The NET translation is a little clearer: "God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith…" V. 25 makes clear that God's righteousness is accessed by faith. Without a clear object to that faith, perhaps there would be confusion (as there is in much of the world today), but Paul was not unclear. He has already written in v. 22 that the object of faith is Christ.

I would handle v. 26 the same as v. 22. Christ's faithfulness is taken for granted by Paul (and by me) but it seems again that Paul's focus is on the object of faith—God is demonstrated to be both just (He judged sin at the cross) and the justifier every time someone believes.

The larger context of Romans also causes me to lean toward the objective translation. Paul immediately launches into a defense of 'faith in' using the life of Abraham as the primary example. Chapter 5 is all about the blessings that come when one believes and then receives God's righteousness. The believer has peace with God "through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand" [v. 2 NET]. If one wishes to move out even further, there is the famous chapter 10, the capstone of the Romans Road—if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart [v. 9] and "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame" [v. 11].

There is no denying Christ's faithfulness. However, it seems Paul's primary emphasis is on how that righteousness comes to the sinner—it is by faith in Christ. Thus, the objective seems to be the best way to deal with the genitive phrase in Romans 3:22, 26 and similar passages [Gal 2:16, 20, 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9].

 

 

 

Psalm 109 and Good Hermeneutics

How does a New Testament believer handle an Old Testament passage? There are, of course, several things to consider. The primary principle, however, is that one must sift an OT passage through the NT. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles must always be considered before meaning is determined.

 

Take for example Psalm 109, one of the most interesting in the Psalter in my opinion. It is one of the many Psalms of David in which the king prays for God to bless him and to curse his enemies:

 

Set a wicked man over him, and let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is judged, let him be found guilty, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also from their desolate place. Let the creditor seize all that he has, and let strangers plunder his labor…let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out [vv.6-11,14].

 

The above verses are just an example of the judgments David hopes the Lord will rain down upon his enemies. At the same time, David asks Yahweh to deal with me for Your name's sake; because Your mercy is good, deliver me [v. 21].

 

Taken in isolation a Christian would be able to defend praying the same way for his enemies. But as mentioned above, an OT passage can never be interpreted without taking the NT into consideration. After all, Christians are not OT believers.

 

When placing Psalm 109 beside the NT what does the interpreter learn? What does the NT teach? Obviously it is very fine for a believer to pray for God to bless him and to protect him. But should a Christian pray for God to curse his enemies in the vein of Psalm 109? The answer to that question is no.

 

You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven…

[Matthew 5:43-45].

 

Jesus taught His follower not to pray against
his enemies but for them. The Lord lived what He taught as He prayed for his own enemies as He was nailed to the cross [Luke 23:34].

 

Thus what Jesus does is what we often see when one takes an OT passage and sifts it through the NT—the NT principle is more stringent. Which is tougher—praying against one's enemies or for them? The answer is obvious. Thankfully God did not leave us to ourselves to fulfill this command. The Holy Spirit within us enables us for one slice of His fruit is love [Gal 5:22]. The Spirit enables the Christian to do what is impossible otherwise.

In sum, do not interpret an OT passage in isolation. Only after taking the NT into consideration has one done Christian hermeneutics. Always place an OT passage beside the NT to discern the meaning of a text for the believer. Remember, Jesus is the fulfillment of the law [Matthew 5:17].

Issues in Romans 2

The thesis of Romans is stated by Paul in 1:16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, 'The righteous will live by faith.'" [NET]

 

There are two interpretive issues found in the above text. First what does Paul mean by "the righteousness of God." Cranfield swayed many by understanding it as a righteous status given to believers by God. Thus the genitive "of God" is a genitive of source (from God). Others see the genitive as subjective (God justifies). God acts or declares one righteous when he/she turns to Him in faith. Then there are those who take the genitive as simply possessive. Righteousness is an attribute for God.

 

While it is true that righteousness is an attribute of God, it usually wise to rule out the simple possessive genitive if other syntactical categories explain it better. I think we are perhaps splitting hairs between explanations one and two. But I do tend to lean toward Cranfield's stance. It seems Paul deals primarily [but not wholly] with status in Romans rather than source. It is a given that God is the source of righteousness, but the issue in the letter is what it means when a sinner moves from his 'sinful' status to a 'righteous' one. Chapters 1-3 deal with the fact that everyone is in need of this status. Chapters 4-8 focus on the spiritual realities brought about by that status. Chapters 12-15 particularly deal with the expectations of lifestyle brought about by that status.

 

The second issue is what does Paul mean by "from faith to faith" [ek pisteos eis pistin]. Most commentators grapple with the phrase. It has been translated variously: 'by faith for faith,' by faith to faith,' 'through faith for faith,' to share just a few. I prefer the NET translation. That hits it grammatically, but what does it mean? The key I think is found in the Hosea quote that follows, "The righteous will live by faith." True life begins by faith as Romans makes clear [and Paul makes that clear in v. 16]—'from faith.' True life continues by faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God [Heb 11:6]. Thus the righteous live by faith from beginning to end. I think that is what Paul means. The righteous status from God available to any person is revealed in the Gospel. It is a status that is acquired by faith and lived out by faith.

 

 

 

 

Issues In Romans 1

In interpreting biblical passages pay attention to the prepositional phrases. I've been reading Romans lately and there are often interpretive issues in the letter that hinge on these little words. The first verse of the letter is an example: From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God [NET]. The last two words of the verse are actually one word in Greek theou—the word is in the genitive case and the NET Bible's translation "set apart for the Gospel of God" is literally correct. However, grammatically the genitive could be handled in one of two ways. It could be a subjective genitive, "the gospel that God brings" or an objective genitive, "the gospel about God."

 

What does Paul mean? Is he writing about a story in which God is the first and last chapter, or, does he have in mind a message that God's authored. Obviously both are true. In fact, that is the thought behind Daniel Wallace's plenary genitive idea. It is both in that case. However, I have always believed that more often than not the plenary genitive is a 'cake and eat it to' category. It is doubtful that Paul had both ideas in his mind.

 

I tend to lean toward the objective genitive in interpreting this phrase. Paul was set apart by God to preach the good news about Him. Romans is Paul's most nuanced and greatest explanation of the Gospel—God's work in His Son to make sinners righteous (justify them). It is a book about God. Paul lets us know that in the first sentence.

 

A second interpretive issue is found in the first paragraph. In the NET Bible verse 5 reads: Through him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of His name. I have underlined the phrase in question and once again we deal with the genitive case—"obedience of faith." This phrase has been dealt with in four ways: (1) as an objective genitive "obedience to the faith;" (2) subjective genitive "the obedience that faith requires" or perhaps "produces;" (3) attributive genitive "believing obedience;" or (4) a genitive of apposition, "obedience, namely, faith."

 

Again while all four are grammatically possible, chances are Paul just had one of them in mind when he wrote that little genitive phrase. Which is it? Paul believed His ministry to the Gentiles was not just about getting them into heaven in the future. It was a ministry that involved obedience to God's will daily. Thus, I would lean toward (1). Paul believed Gentiles and Jews alike were not only to believe the truth but obey it as well. In fact the first eight chapters of the letter are about believing the truth while chapters twelve through fifteen particularly deal with obeying it.

 

The above are just two examples of paying attention to prepositional phrases. How do you interpret them? Often there is more than one way. Usually one is a better explanation than the others. Context determines meaning more often than not (the cardinal rule of all biblical interpretation).