Blessed Sarcasm

Over the years, and I know it's hard to believe, I was accused of using a bit too much sarcasm in the pulpit. Oh blessed sarcasm—it's one of the preacher's favorite tools. Most I know use it fairly regularly. When I did, I was just following the example of the Apostle Paul, who used sarcasm often. He was a master at it. I was reminded of how good he was at biting sarcasm when I was reading through 1 Corinthians recently. For example note 4:8-13 as Paul hits the church hard as it is more enamored with the wisdom of the world than the wisdom of God. The passage reads in part:

For you are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without me—and indeed I could wish you did reign, that we also might reign with you!...For I think God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored…

Of course Paul means just the opposite than his words indicate on the surface. He is using sarcasm. They aren't full. They aren't rich spiritually. They aren't wise, and they aren't strong. Instead they are empty, poor, fools, and weak. And that's the point of sarcasm. You mean the opposite of what you say. I doubt very much the Corinthians missed his point. Not many miss sarcasm today.

Sarcasm can be used in a destructive way, but when used rightly, it can challenge listeners to think and hopefully change harmful attitudes and actions. A preacher should not use it to be a smart aleck, but it is a legitimate rhetorical tool. When the wise preacher understands when to pull the trigger, sarcasm can be a helpful sermonic weapon.

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.

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).

TRUE FASTING

I have often been asked about the value of fasting in the Christian's life. I read this today from Isaiah 58 and found a very clear answer—from the OT!

⁶ "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
⁷ Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
⁸ Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
⁹ Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
¹¹ The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.
¹² Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

It is obvious from the chapter that God is critical of Israel's legalistic fasting. The nation had exchanged the 'weightier matters of the Law' for religious 'function.' One would think that the religious leaders of Jesus' day, well versed in the Law and Prophets would remember this passage, but they did not. They too had substituted the most important for the outward show.

It is always easier to go through religious motions than practice true religion. What was true in the 8^th century before Christ and during His ministry is no less true today. I have a feeling if the prophet were preaching Sunday he would preach the same message.

There's nothing wrong with fasting, but believers need to be reminded of this passage in Isaiah concerning 'true fasting.'

Mark Fragment

More details are emerging from Daniel Wallace concerning a fragment of Mark's Gospel, which he claims can be dated first century. If so, it would be a great find! It would be the earliest Greek mss extant. There's also news about fragments from Paul's letters and an exciting find about a sermon from Hebrews. The work being done by Wallace and his crew in Dallas is outstanding!

REV 13

I know I haven't written in months but I've been busy. I am going to write much more often I hope. With that out of the way, I have been doing an in-depth study of Revelation for several weeks. The symbolism in the book is difficult no doubt. But I've always been amazed at how interpreters like to pick and choose what is symbolic and what is not. For example, 666 must be literally a number tattooed on the hand or forehead and the 144,000 must be 12,000 exactly from each tribe of Israel—no more and no less. Those same interpreters have no problem believing the "Woman" of chapter 12 is symbolic, though there is disagreement on who she is. The fact of the matter is good hermeneutics demand that the interpreter be consistent. If Revelation is apocalyptic (it is a mixed genre of course but no doubt mostly apocalyptic), then passages must be treated that way.

A great example is Rev 11:1-2. John is told to "measure the Temple. There are those who believe this means that John is to measure what will be the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. However, the genre of Revelation must determine interpretation. The Temple John is to measure must be symbolic, but of what? This morning I was reading chapter 13, John's vision of the "Sea Beast," and the "Earth Beast." In v. 6 the Sea Beast blasphemes God name and "His dwelling place, the ones who dwell in heaven." The two phrases in quotation marks are in apposition. The Sea Beast blasphemes God's dwelling place "which is" the ones who dwell in heaven. It is obvious that John is writing about not a place but people. There is no doubt that God is in Heaven, but as the Scriptures teach, He is omnipresent—He is everywhere all the time. But the NT particularly teaches that God indwells His people. Christians are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the special place where God resides in these days. Thus while Rev 11 leaves the question of the Temple open, chapter 13 sheds light on the imagery. Rev 11:1-2 then is a vision of God's protection of His people during the relatively short time in which the Gentiles will 'trample the city' [11:2]—or will persecute but not annihilate God's people.

To borrow from Robert Stein, genre determines the rules of the game. One cannot pick and choose how to treat the images of Revelation. They are ALL apocalyptic and must be treated that way.

It’s Over

I usually listen to the George Klein show on Elvis radio on Friday afternoons on Sirius/XM Radio. Each week GK has some great interviews, and I always love them. Today he interviewed Jimmie Rodgers who recorded songs like "Honeycomb" and "Kisses Sweeter than Wine." If you click on the link I've provided above you'll learn a lot about one of the truly unique singers/songwriters of the 50s and 60s. My favorite song by Rodgers is "It's Over." I remember my dad had the '45 and I played it over and over again. Elvis recorded the song in the 60s too. He also featured the song in his "Aloha" special in 1973. Jimmie said that he wrote the song in New York after he spoke with a girl there who had just broken up with her boyfriend (I think they were engaged actually). He got up in the middle of the night and wrote the song.

He didn't say when, but Elvis one day called Jimmie up and asked if he could record the song. Obviously he gave Elvis his permission (who wouldn't!) There is no telling how many albums, CDs, DVDs, etc that "Aloha" has sold since 1973!! Good decision for sure!!

Anyway, I've heard several versions of this song. Rodgers' is of course excellent. The Elvis version is very powerful.

I really enjoyed heard the back story of one of my favorite all time songs! By the way, Jimmie Rodgers has had a lot of challenges in life. Some of those he discussed in the interview too. I particularly appreciated his Christian testimony. He mentioned that with all the challenges he has faced God has blessed him.

New Chapel

I'm so pleased to hear that the new chapel at Southwestern Seminary is named after Dr. J.W. "Jack" MacGorman. I have written several times in the past of Dr. MacGorman's influence on me. I had the privilege of being his last graduate assistant before his retirement in 2001. At 90, Dr. MacGorman still attends chapel and works in his office at SWBTS. The wonderful conference center is named after him too. His influence has been far-reaching and only God knows its full extent.

There is a neat live webcam that shows the progress of the chapel construction. It is going to be some kind of building. The dedication is scheduled for Dec 1 and the fall graduation is going to be there.

Warning from Church of England

Is this the church in America's future?

The Church of England's quickly aging congregations means the denomination will be almost extinct in 2020 unless something is done to attract young people back to the church. "The perfect storm we can see arriving fast on the horizon is the ageing congregations," said the Rev. Dr. Patrick Richmond, a Synod member from Norwich. "2020 apparently is when our congregations start falling through the floor because of natural wastage, that is people dying... Another 10 years on, some extrapolations put the Church of England as no longer functionally extant at all." According to the UK Telegraph, other Synod members compared the church's direction to a company's "perfectly and impeccably manage[d] into failure."

[This from Religion Today Summary…Crosswalk.com]

Best Thing You Can Do

JFK called on Americans in the 60s of the 20th century to ask what you could do for your country. What is the best thing you could do? The Apostle Paul, in the 60s of the 1st century wrote: “Therefore I exhort first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” [1 Timothy 2:1-2 NKJV]. The best thing you can do for your country is pray, especially for your leaders.

I find that we probably criticize more and pray less for our leaders. Paul taught that the opposite should be true. How should we pray for our leaders? I ran across an article written by Richard Land just prior to President Obama’s inauguration that gives some good guidelines on how to effectively pray for him as well as all other government leaders on every level. I adapted it for my Sunday message yesterday. I used the president as the primary example, but these guidelines could be used for the governor, mayor, etc.

 Pray for the safety of President Obama and his family
 Pray that he and other national leaders will look to God for His wisdom
 Pray that Christ would be glorified in the decisions made in the White House and in every level of government [national, state, local]
 Pray for policies and laws to be passed that will encourage moral behavior and justice for all Americans, especially the most vulnerable of us [unborn, children, the elderly, even the 'stranger']
 Pray that our leaders display exemplary character, good decision making, and will work together for the common good

But it’s not enough for the church to pray the above. Paul goes on to call on Christians to pray for the salvation of all people. He reminds us in verses 3-6 of 1Timothy 2 that God wants all people to be saved and sent His Son Jesus to die for all people. Our nation is not going to change with just good political decisions. Real change won’t happen until the hearts of Americans change. True change doesn’t happen without Christ.

I believe the real change America needs won’t happen from the White House, the Capitol, or the chambers of the Supreme Court. The real change America needs will happen at the altar and in the prayer closet as we cry out to God on behalf of our leaders and as we pray for the salvation of all people.

Praying this way is ‘good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior’ [1 Timothy 2:3].

Critiquing Bell

Reading a recent edition of Christianity Today, I came across a quote from Eugene Peterson (The Message), who endorses Rob Bell's, Love Wins. According to Peterson, "There's very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell." What? I have read more than a dozen reviews of Bell's book, and quite frankly I've not seen an un-Christian attitude. All I've read are great concerns about Bell's belief about hell. None of the reviews I've read were unkind but they were 'critical.' [Since I've not read everyone's views on Bell's book I would never deny that there are criticisms that are less than Christ-like.]

Has critique now become un-Christ like? Then we would have to condemn Jesus Himself. Remember his scathing denunciation of Jewish religious leaders in Matthew 23? Let's see, He called them hypocrites, sons of hell, fools, blind guides, and like white washed tombs, "full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness" [v. 27].

What about standing up for biblical teaching? Is that un-Christ like? In Matthew 15 Jesus and His disciples were criticized by the religious leaders for not washing their hands when they eat bread [v. 2]. He turns the criticism around: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded saying, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"—Then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition [vv. 3-6]. Jesus obviously stood strong for the Ten Commandments, once again calling the religious leaders hypocrites for placing their traditions over the Word of God.

I have not read a review of Bell from reputable scholars/writers that has had the word hypocrite in it. The reviews were softer than the words Jesus used in Matthew 15 or 23. If Peterson wants to endorse a less than orthodox view of hell he has the right to do so. However, he should not cast those who don't as less than Christian.