A LESSON IN CONTEXT

There are rules to biblical interpretation. The rule above all rules is: Context determines meaning. It is appalling how often preachers and lay people take individual verses out of context. Primarily we're dealing here with literary context (although the historical is not out of the mix). How is the verse to be read within the context of the paragraph, what comes before and after, and overall argument/story line? When you answer those questions then you find what God intends for you to know and learn. Otherwise you're just making it up as you go along.

I've been reading 1 Corinthians lately and two verses come to mind. First is found in 2:9 when Paul quotes Isa 64:4: "What eye has not seen and ear has not heard nor entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love him." This verse is primarily quoted to express the wonderment of what God has in store for His children in heaven. But is that what this text is teaching?

When dealing with a quote from the OT, go to that text in its original context. In this case the verse is couched within a cry for help for God to do in the present for His people what He did in the past so that their adversaries might tremble and God might be glorified. The verse in its original context has nothing to do with heaven. Now what about its meaning in 1 Corinthians? Paul is chiding the church as he does often in the letter for being more enamored with human wisdom rather than embracing God's wisdom. Paul did not come to Corinth armed with human wisdom but with the power of God. The mature would understand this wisdom, hidden from ages past, but revealed in the preaching of the Gospel. Paul then quotes Isaiah 64:4, eye has not seen, ears have not heard, what God has prepared for those who love him. Then he writes, "But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit…that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God:" [2:10, 12]. Paul's argument is that what once God had hidden He now has revealed in His Son to all believers. The unbeliever cannot grasp the wisdom of God but believers can. The OT text is used by Paul to show the believer what he/she has that OT saints did not—an understanding of the deep wisdom of God in Christ. The verse has nothing to do with heaven; it has everything to do with the blessings of God for the Christian now. The verse is not about tomorrow; it is about today!

The second verse I want to briefly mention is found in the great love chapter 13. Paul writes, "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things" [v. 11]. This verse is used by many to call young people to grow up. It has nothing to do with that. The verse is part of a larger discussion about spiritual gifts. The Corinthians were focusing on the more attractive (at least to them) gift of tongues and many looked down on those without that gift. Paul writes in ch 12 that all gifts were important and ch 13 is all about reminding the church that if gifts aren't used with love they are no good at all. Toward the end of ch 13 Paul reminds his readers that one day all gifts will pass away but love will remain. Then he writes, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part will be done away." There's been a lot of discussion about this verse, but I do know why. Paul is obviously saying that in this life our understanding is limited in spite of spiritual gifts, but one day the perfect, the eschaton (the end) will come. One day believers will be ushered into eternity, will receive a new body (discussed in ch 15 of this letter), and then there will be no need for spiritual gifts. As Paul put it in v. 12, "I will know just I also am known." I will know all that God has for me perfectly just as God knows me perfectly (I will never know as much as God—don't forget that!). Our verse is not an admonition to grow up physically, it is a statement of fact that one day every believer will grow up spiritually and will have no need for spiritual gifts (the childish things). It was foolish then for the Corinthians (or us) to argue about spiritual gifts or believer that having a certain gift made one more 'spiritual' than another.

I have been guilty of using the first example to allude to heaven; most preachers I know have too. But it was and is wrong to do so. Why? When I take a verse and place it where God did not, I'm guilty of eisegesis (reading into a text) instead of exegesis (bring out the intended meaning of the text). The text is only authoritative when I interpret it within the context that God placed it. Context determines meaning. Find it. It's a lot harder, but it blesses, strengthens, and teaches a whole lot more.

ISSUES IN ROMANS #7

One of the many debated parts of Romans is the large chunk found in chapters 9-11, Paul's discussion of Israel. This passage likely stems from the tension between Jews and Gentiles in the church. It is likely Gentile Christians were wondering why they should respect Israel given the fact that the majority of them had rejected their Messiah. The Apostle to the Gentiles, himself a Jew, hit this directly in these chapters.
In essence the section breaks down in three parts. In chapter 9 the Apostle is clear that the rejection of Messiah by Israel was the plan of God. Paul writes, "God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden" [v. 18]. Yet God cannot be accused of injustice as the clay has no right to criticize the potter [v. 21]. Paul is just as clear in chapter 10 that Israel's rejection was her own decision. He writes, "For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God's righteousness" [v. 3]. The age old tension between God's sovereignty and human free will is found in these two chapters. Israel's rejection of Jesus was God's plan and it was Israel's choice.
What about the future of Israel? Paul deals with that in chapter 11. The apostle is clear: God has not given up. He has not rejected Israel [v. 1], there is as there has always been a remnant—those like Paul who had accepted Christ as Messiah and Savior [v. 5], Israel's sin of rejection had opened the door for Gentile acceptance of Jesus [v. 11], and that there would at some point be an overwhelming turning to Christ by Jews [v. 26]. Obviously in v. 26 Paul is using hyperbole. Not every Jew will come to Christ, but many will do so. In the meantime Gentiles should not despise Jews but be grateful for them as they are the root of their faith [v. 18].
God still has a plan for the Jews. He is clear in Romans and elsewhere that true Israel is made up of those who accept Christ as Savior [the Church], but because of the Fathers, God is not finished with the Jews. His plan includes a mighty turning of many to Christ. They are the root of faith so Gentiles are to respect them, pray for them, and evangelize them. There are not, never has been, nor will there be two ways to God. There is not a Jewish way and a Gentile way. There is only one way as chapter 10 makes clear—"For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes" [v. 4].
Christians should respect Jews as the root of faith. Christians should pray for the conversion of Jews. Christians should grieve, as Paul did, that Jews by and large had rejected their Messiah. Christians should also, as Paul did, seek the salvation of Jews through evangelism and missions. However, there is nothing in Paul's argument in Romans that gives the geographical land of Israel or its current political state any special significance. Zionism is nowhere found in these chapters.

ISSUES IN ROMANS #6

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law…[Romans 7:7].

This verse begins a much debated passage in Romans. How do you understand the "I"? You know this passage—in a paraphrase—what I wish to do I don't do but the things I don't want to do, that is what I do. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience and by implication all Jews; or, (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam and by implication all people?

Every commentary worth its salt discusses these options and more. I wish to eliminate the first option as undoubtedly un-Pauline. Juxtapose the struggle described in this passage with what Paul writes in the chapter afterward: For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death [8:2]. Indeed the end of chapter 7 is a declaration of the victory believers have in Christ—Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! Later in Romans the Apostle declares that the kingdom of God is all about righteousness, peace, and joy [14:17]. The struggle of chapter 7 hardly conjures up these images. It is hard for me to reconcile Paul's belief of victory in Christ with what he says here so I eliminate option one.

Pastorally, what kind of good news is chapter 7 if Paul is discussing the Christian life? Why would one want to turn to God in Christ if all he has to look forward to is a life of extreme struggle leading to self-condemnation?

While the third option has much to commend it, and obviously includes option one, I think Paul has his pre-conversion life as a Jew attempting to keep the law primarily in his mind. This option is best when one takes the occasion of the letter into consideration. Jew/Gentile tensions are real in the Roman church from later sections of the letter one gets the sense Jews were critical of Gentiles for refusing to embrace some of their customs [he will correct some Gentile attitudes as well]. Paul tells them that all keeping law does is bring a struggle. It is impossible. You may want to do what is good but cannot do it. The law is not sin but neither does it provide power. Deliverance from the struggle comes only in a relationship with Christ. The result of keeping law is self-condemnation. On the other hand, there is no condemnation in Christ (8:1).

In sum, of the three options above, the first one makes most sense in context. Paul has discussed the universality of sin already in chapters 1-3; I believe he is being more specific here. He is hitting at the Jew/Gentile strain in the church by reminding Jewish believers that ultimately keeping law is impossible and they should not despise Gentile believers for embracing that truth.