Blog Tour: 9/6 - 9/12

[Crossposted to Street Prophets]

Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Christian Carnival posts:

• Teresa at the New Mercy blog writes about a family breakup and also being in debt that made her feel embarrassed and unworthy.

  How do you go about cultivating a lifestyle of honesty when you are terribly embarrassed and even ashamed of yourself? I wasn't raised to tell people the truth about my problems or struggles. I wasn't familiar with letting people look into my personal growth or know about my issues. Also, I wasn't at all used to family breakup or creditors calling or choosing which bill to pay.

• Is someone watching you? Actually, yes. To find out who and what to do about it, read the post entitled, "We're being watched" at the In Him We Live and Move and Have Our Being blog.

  So here we have two men from very different backgrounds – one practicing the Hindu faith throughout his life, the other a fallen-away Christian – both of whom object to Christianity on the basis of the behavior, actions, and appearance of Christians.

• Tom of Thinking Christian reviews N.T. Wright's book, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is in his post, "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part One)"

  Early Christianity was, he writes, a kingdom-of-God movement, a resurrection movement, and a Messianic movement. From our distance these seem commonplace assertions, and if we try we can easily imagine coming up with a set of religious fables to support such thinking. This is why Wright emphasizes the historical setting so strongly, though; for these ways of thinking, in the forms they appeared in early Christianity, were completely foreign to the culture in which Christianity arose.

At Sharper Iron, Dr. Kevin Bauder has started a series on Fundamentalism

The last sustained history of fundamentalism to be published by a fundamentalist was David Beale's In Pursuit of Purity1. Nearly a generation has passed since Beale finished writing his book. During that time the landscape of fundamentalism has altered significantly.

I read the first four posts, and it seems like a pretty insightful series on the philosophical, theological roots and current state of Fundamentalism [HT: Fundamentally Changed]

Last week, I mentioned that Iraq and Syria were at odds, with the President of Iraq calling for international investigation. This week Iraq's Presidency council criticizes Maliki over standoff with Syria

The Iraqi presidency council called for "containing the situation with neighboring Syria and for cooperation between the two countries to resolve disputes through dialogue and diplomatic channels".A statement released after the council's meeting in Sulaymaniyah stressed the need to do what is in the best interest of both countries and to prevent "enemies" from using one country against the other.

Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse thinks, along with Ezra Klein, that "The Baucus Reform Plan has Some Merit"

Senate Finance chairman Max Baucus has labored long, hard - and in secret - to produce an 18 page summary of what Ezra Klein refers to as a “Not that bad health care bill.” The fact that I agree with Klein shouldn’t worry you. The irony is that he sees fault where I see merit and vice versa.

That should make both liberals and conservative heads explode.

So, "Did Paul Invent Jesus' Deity?" Stand to Reason looks at a new book due to come out:

Philip Pullman, author of the childrens book series His Dark Materials that arguably portray an atheistic worldview, will release a new book next year recycling an old argument that is contradicted by the majority and most recent scholarship. In a book that appears will be a mix of fiction and non-fiction, Pullman will argue that "St. Paul came up with the 'story' that Jesus had a divine link." He claims that "by the time the gospels were being written, Paul had already begun to transform the story of Jesus into something altogether new and extraordinary, and some of his version influenced what the gospel writers put in theirs." Jesus' divinity is a product of Paul's "fervid imagination."

At Street Prophets there is a diary about "How to Build an Atheist in Two Hours". For followers of Christ who seek to evangelize, this (and some of the diaries it links) should be a "how NOT to evangelize" primer - starting with the ambush of a 14 year old boy at a science camp in North Carolina.

when a guy who’s name is "Scat" puts up a sign up sheet called "Rock and Roll, Funk and Soul: The history of the music we listen to" and specifically invites me to attend, it sounds like it’s going to be a good time. The warning I missed was how precise my invitation was and that I was given a unique responsibility that night:

"Hey Joe! I’m holding a session tonight about music, man. And I saw that great collection of Rock T-shirts you have. Boy, those are really great. I could use them in my presentation. Would you mind bringing them along?"

Well, that sounds friendly enough, and at age 14 I had not yet learned to be so suspicious of anyone who’s always that happy and energetic. So, like the clueless fool I was, I showed up looking forward to a great time about music history, and having some part in the story. Little did I know what my part was . . .

His best comment, to me, was:

What you should take away from this story, in my opinion, is that if the labels of "faithful", "Christians" – whatever stereotypical name we use to grossly oversimplify and identify one group is offensive to you then I’ve done my job. For the same reason "atheist", "secularists" is injurious to me when it’s used to hold me accountable for individual acts of others that I personally had no part it, I understand your distress. So if you’re tired and indignant of being shouldered with the burden of what "those" Christians do, which of course no Christian as you understand it should ever do, then you need to be talking to those Christians and tell them to cut it out.

I only partially agree with the last part - it is only my responsibility when I can do so in love in a situation where we are under the same discipline/leadership. However, in posting this I am making it clear that if the reader thinks what the camp counselor did is OK - I think you really need to rethink your concept of personal evangelism.

Jan at A View from Her looks at "cows, cars, shoes, relationships":

So it’s been awhile since we’ve had a frank discussion about sex, and today I find myself “in the mood” (pun intended). To be more specific, rather a discussion about the fine art of not having sex, if you’re a single disciple of Jesus, or just a woman of higher than average intelligence.

Heard about this?:

The furor over President Obama's trillion-dollar restructuring of American health care has left his other trillion-dollar plan starved for attention. That's how much the federal balance sheet will expand over the next decade if Mr. Obama can convince Congress to approve his pending takeover of the student-loan market.

The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.

Read more!

Romans 4:1-8 "God's Economy - Everyone on Well-fare"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Subsidiarity and Violence

I have talked alot about subsidiarity:

"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." (Pope Pius XI, "On Reconstruction of the Social Order", 1931)

On of the reasons for this is diminishing spontaneity:

as a hierarchy of associations and relationships rise from the individuals and families at the base of the social structure (up to and including government), the higher the rung the less spontaneous it is and the more contrived; or, the higher you go the less help the structure gets from nature and the more help it needs from culture.

So, as this article points out:

[Subsidiarity] holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy

That is because the closer, and more organic, organization is the more natural organization and easiest for the folks affected to control.

One thing I noticed (and haven't directly mentioned in connection with subsidiarity) when I wrote "The Era of Bloodshed" was (as mentioned by Conyers) that Hannah Arendt:

suggested that where power, in the sense of effective action within a community is missing, violence takes its place. Moreover, once the institutions of government have outgrown the individual and the neighborhood, so that the very scale of governance no longer permits effective action for most people, then those people are more likely to take to the streets and address their grievances in destructive ways.

If you are not just going to take things like the Tea Party movement and the outcry at the health care town halls as astroturfing, then you can see this feeling of ineffectiveness and lack of control beginning to explode into anger and violence.

Even folks who supported President Obama are feeling the same: it seems to many that regardless of the promises made during the election, and the vote, and the control of Congress by the Democratics - that nothing has changed. Nothing. Arendt's critique still explains: we, the electorate, are simply to far from the "halls of power" to have any impact on policy - or at least not the same impact as the lobbyists sitting in their offices. Certainly not the same impact that organized citizens can have on city, county, and state governments.

There was a reason the Federal Constitution left so many powers in the hands of the several states - and it has not been particularly good that the Federal government has moved more and more control, over more and more areas, into Washington D.C. One thing that political activists of all stripes need to realize - the Federal Government is too large, and too distant, for there to be effective citizen control.

Read more!

Blog Tour: 8/30 - 9/5

This re-initiates my old practice of looking around the web - hopefully once a week - and drawing some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Christian Carnival picks:

• Shannon at The Minority Thinker examines why they are "Quitting Small Group". After having read it, I have to agree with these two statements:

  Over fifteen years, I have been part of almost a dozen small groups sponsored by three different churches; my husband has joined me in most of them. Never once have I developed a close friendship through one of these groups.

  and

  We are told to confess our sins to each other [I tore a group up doing this], to restore each other, to love each other, to encourage each other, and to serve together as the body of Christ. I have rarely – if ever – seen these things happen in a small group. And if that kind of fellowship isn’t taking place regularly, why do we keep trying the same methods and hoping for different results? It seems to me it’s time for a new approach.

• Henry at Participatory Bible Study Blog responds to:

  … The problem is this: when one takes a close look at the Bible in its original context, there is no evidence that the Bible is such a historically-situated divine revelation, that it is somehow ontologically different than other texts from antiquity and should be privileged or treated in a special way. …

  with "Indentifying Define Revelation"

President Obama's address to school children: I created a category for this expecting to see a bit of stuff on it - but there really wasn't much:

• Jim at Volokh Conspiracy took a look back at the news articles, etc. connected with President George H.W. Bush's 1991 Speech to Schools.

  On WESTLAW, I looked up other news stories about the speech. It was eported as 10 minutes in some reports and 12 minutes in others. It was carried live on CNN, PBS, and [the NBC] and Mutual radio [networks]. The Secretary of Education sent a letter urging schools to have their students watch, but I didn’t find any evidence of how many schools followed that recommendation. And most striking: Bush laid out goals — to increase the graduation rate, improve student competency and better prepare students for entering school — and said, "Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter. I'm serious about this one. Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." [Written text is here - and wasn't checked against the tapes]

• John Piper weighed in with "I Hope My Daughter Hears the President’s Speech":

  I am stunned at the outcry against the President of the United States speaking to the youth of this nation about the importance of education.
  
  I am embarrassed by the governor of my home state saying, that the president’s plan to address them is “disruptive . . . uninvited . . . and number three . . . I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children.”
  
  This speech seems, for me, to be an answer to a prayer that I have prayed for the president repeatedly . . .

Jason S at Fundamentally Changed looks at how extreme fundamentalism can be involved in "Transgressing By Traditions":

Today I call upon all of my fundamentalist brethren to honestly take the time to examine their doctrines and practices and see how they measure up to God’s Word, the five sola’s, and the historic fundamentals. If they don’t fit that, they must be discarded, no matter how old, precious, and dear they are to us.

Iraq the Model this week is focusing on the crisis raised by Syria's apparent complicity in the August 19th bombing which killed 95 people and wounded 600. One of the stories began

Iraq continues to insist on internationalizing the crisis with Syria, which began after Iraq demanded that Syria hands over senior Ba’ath Party members. Iraq now plans to persuade the international community to form an international criminal court, similar to the one investigating the assassination of the late Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stressed at a meeting with the Turkish FM that Iraq “will move forward to demand that the UN forms an international tribunal to prosecute those who committed ugly crimes that target Iraq’s stability and people and killed many innocent lives”.

Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed points to a book by

David Bentley Hart, a historian of ideas, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies , has been our guide into some of the philosophical and historical issues at work among the new atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. One of the implicit and sometimes explicit claims is that we are enlightened and that
the secular state is safer than a religious-shaped state. To which Hart makes this statement, and he expresses the growing body of literature that both denies the myth of secularization (that all things are becoming more secular) and reveals the profound mischief of the secular state:

"We live now in the wake of the most monstrously violent century in human history, during which the secular state (on both the political right and the political left), freed from the authority of religion, showed itself willing to kill on an unprecedented scale and with an ease of conscience worse than merely depraved. If ever an age deserved to be thought an age of darkness, it is surely ours. One might almost be tempted to conclude that secular government is the one form of government that has shown itself too violent, capricious, and unprincipled to be trusted" (106)

Jeremy at Parableman points to "Obama's Widely-Unpublicized Backtrack on Stem Cells" - belatedly for sure because it occurred a while back:

2009 -- March 9th: President Obama rescinds Bush’s August 9, 2001 EO with his own EO entitled, “Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The revocation of Bush’s EO is heralded as “lifting the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).” (this is the event found in the video offered above)

This EO simultaneously revokes Bush EO # 13435 which has provided federal funding of successful IPSC research. This aspect of the order is not mentioned at the press conference.

2009 -- March 11th: President Obama signs and renews the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which continues the ban on federal funding for ESCR that Obama claims to have lifted 2 days earlier. No announcement is made and no press conference is called.

Notice that now not only is there no federal funding of ESCR - President Obama removed President Bush's mandate of federal funding for IPSC research as well. Incidentally, Jeremy did what anyone should really do when confronted by such a reported contradiction between stated positions of politicians and their actual actions:

When I first read this, I immediately wanted to find something to verify it. It was incredibly difficult to find an actual news story on it, since the mainstream media either suppressed it or never got the information on it. The one news story I could find was from a partisan organization, but it does give chapter and verse for where to find the language in the bill that does indeed do exactly what the story says it does. It's in Title V, section 509 of the Omnibus spending bill (page 128 of this PDF; it appears in full here). It repeats verbatim exactly the section that since 1996 has appeared in every such spending bill under President Clinton and President Bush.

Rick at Rightwing Nuthouse as been writing a whole series of articles about conservative reform - three in the last week. All of them are, to me, important for both folks on the right and the left to read.

Orin at Volokh Conspiracy looks at "al-Kidd v. Ashcroft: Is Pretextual Use of the Material Witness Statute Unconstitutional?":

The Ninth Circuit handed down a fascinating and important case on preventive detention on Friday, and one that I suspect added a new case to the Supreme Court's docket next year: al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. The basic holding of the opinion is that the post-9/11 practice of using the material witness statute to detain suspected terrorists is not only unconstitutional, but clearly unconstitutional, and that former AG Ashcroft can be personally sued for his role in it. The majority opinion was written by Judge Milan Smith and joined by Judge Thompson; Judge Bea wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent.

There's a lot of coverage of the case in newspapers and around the web, but nothing that really delves into the legal questions. That's understandable, as the opinions in the case fill about 100 pages. But in this post, I wanted to delve into the legal questions and see if the court's opinion holds up to scrutiny.
. . .
Fortunately, this case is perfect for Supreme Court review: If the en banc Ninth Circuit passes on it, this case will give the Supreme Court an ideal opportunity to evaluate the very important question of how the Fourth Amendment applies to preventive detention.

Read more!

Romans 3:27-31 "One God, One Faith, One People"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

(NET) Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting?⁴¹ It is excluded! By what principle?⁴² Of works? No, but by the principle of faith! 28 For we consider that a person⁴³ is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.⁴⁴ 29 Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! 30 Since God is one,⁴⁵ he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then nullify⁴⁶ the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead⁴⁷ we uphold the law.

Notes:

⁴¹ tn Although a number of interpreters understand the “boasting” here to refer to Jewish boasting, others (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 96) take the phrase to refer to all human boasting before God.

⁴² tn Grk “By what sort of law?”

⁴³ tn Here ἄνθρωπον (anthrōpon) is used in an indefinite and general sense (BDAG 81 s.v. ἄνθρωπος 4.a.γ).

⁴⁴ tn See the note on the phrase “works of the law” in Rom 3:20.

⁴5 tn Grk “but if indeed God is one.”

⁴⁶ tn Grk “render inoperative.”

⁴⁷ tn Grk “but” (Greek ἀλλά, alla).

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: A discussion I have had a few times recently is over the denotative and connotative meanings of "faith". One common thread of any number of pastors of mine has been that it is meaningless to discuss faith without discussing the object of that faith - and there are many possible objects. Folks will talk about faith in their boss, faith in the government (Ok, well, not so many there), faith in their own skills and abilities, or faith in the skills or abilities of others. Indeed:

. . . faith is being sure of what we hope ["confident expection"] for, being convinced of what we do not see.

This applies to many things. Imagine that Joe Blow has decided to drive across town to visit his mom. He has made this trip hundreds of times, and he knows he will easily be there in time to take his mom to dinner. He calls her and tells her he will be there in 45 minutes, asks where she would like to eat, and tells her he will take her to dinner. What Joe doesn't know is that a semi is going to jack-knife and roll on the freeway - stopping all traffic for 4 hours. This is going to happen right after he gets on the freeway and has no way off. His confident expectation is derailed by an unseen, and unseeable, event. In fact, the results of his trip were never seeable - but that didn't stop him from having faith in its outcome. His mom's faith in her son's timeliness is going to leave her hungry (and worried if he doesn't have a cell phone).

It is faith in Christ or in God that Paul is talking about in this passage - and most of the time when people throw the word "faith" around it has some religious meaning. Even that is insufficient, there are folks with all sorts of different objects of their religious faith than Christ or His Father.

When Paul talks here about "one God, one faith, one people" he is not saying that everyone in the world shares the same religious faith - he is saying that gentile and Jewish believers in Christ share "one God" and "one faith" and are "one people" because of that shared faith in Christ.

Of course, I believe there is one God (and one God only) and wherever his "invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen" it is that God, recognized by the viewer or not, that has been seen. Like that famous elephant, we may all see different pieces but it is still just one elephant. Equally, I think followers of Christ do not have a complete view of God; but they see His Son - and His Son has proved His "creds" by His resurrection.

Next: 4:1-8 -- "God's Economy - Everyone on Well-fare"

Read more!

Little Twists of the Soul

C.S. Lewis started his chapter on "Forgiveness" in Mere Christianity with:

I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right. I believe there is one even more unpopular. It is laid down in the Christian rule, 'Thou shaft love thy neighbour as thyself.' Because in Christian morals 'thy neighbour' includes 'thy enemy,' and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies.

Forgiveness is certainly not just a Christian virture, nor is the direction to love your enemy - many religions and spiritual disciplines share it. Indeed, I am confident that modern psychology would agree that folks who harbor unforgiveness and/or anger towards another harm themeselves far worse than object of that emotion.

Certainly Lewis's address came at an interesting time - it was given in England over the radio sometime in 1943. This was when Hitler and Fascism were a very real power and not just the subject of Godwin's Law. Lewis:

Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. 'That sort of talk makes them sick,' they say. And half of you already want to ask me, I wonder how you'd feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?'

Indeed, today in the US there are folks who would have the exact same reaction toward forgiving Republicans, or Democrats, or . . . well, you fill in your blank here. As we come out of the epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndromes, and see increasing instances - both on the right and the left - of Obama Derangement Syndrome; it might be time to look at forgiving our enemies, what that means, and why we should do it. Certainly, for a follower of Christ the need was made clear - there are so many Gospel messages (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) about forgiving not just your friends but your enemies that I will not even bother listing them here (unusual for me).

Lewis really looks at the process for loving our enemies - connecting it to loving others as ourselves.

Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently 'Love your neighbour' does not mean 'feel fond of him' or 'find him attractive'. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my, enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.

For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life - namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made human again.

Again, this may be the way to love our enemies - but the title of this post is based on the result that Lewis saw if we do not.

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad ass it was made out. Is one's first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred. . .

. . . what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature . . . In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one's own back, must be simply killed. I do not mean that anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it any more. That is not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head. It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible . . . we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Again, I do not think modern secular psychology would disagree - hatred and anger eat up the person feeling without real harm to the one it is felt about. To paraphrase Michael Hargrove, a success trainer,

if you feel anger toward someone for over a day - it is you that have the problem and not the person you are angry at. You are locked into "the problem" rather than seeking "the solution"

Read more!

Romans 3:25-26 "Good News for the Whole World (Part 2)"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

(NET) Romans 3:25 God publicly displayed³⁰ him³¹ at his death³² as the mercy seat³³ accessible through faith.³⁴ This was to demonstrate³⁵ his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.³⁶ 26 This was³⁷ also to demonstrate³⁸ his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just³⁹ and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.⁴⁰

Notes:

³⁰ tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³¹ tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³² tn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tō aujtou haimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proetheto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999).

³³ tn The word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, ” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁴ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).

³⁵ tn Grk “for a demonstration,” giving the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁶ tn Grk “because of the passing over of sins previously committed in the forbearance of God.”

³⁷ tn The words “This was” have been repeated from the previous verse to clarify that this is a continuation of that thought. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁸ tn Grk “toward a demonstration,” repeating and expanding the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a.

³⁹ tn Or “righteous.”

⁴⁰ tn Or “of the one who has faith in Jesus.” See note on “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in v. 22 for the rationale behind the translation “Jesus’ faithfulness.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: Carl Palmer quotes Socrates saying, about 500 years before Christ, that perhaps the diety can forgive sin; but that Socrates didn't see how. Carl says that the biggest problem in the universe is not sin, but how God could recieve people like us into His presence while maintaining His perfect justice: God's mercy/grace in conflict with His justice. Carl asks if anyone else has wondered how God could do that? Yes, I have thought of that.

Carl says that if we do not have a problem with the idea of God spending eternity with us; then we are missing one, or both, of these things:

1. The Holiness of a God who cannot, and will not, bring imperfection into His presence without changing it; and/or
2. the enormity of our own sin.

God's plan examined in Romans not only allows God to cover our sin so we are not abhorant to His sight and a stench to His nostrils; but also to create a method for us shedding our "old man" and transforming ourselves into a "new thing" that is truly righteous - not just cleaning us up by covering us in the righteousness of His Son. This is God's plan for our spiritually-powered transformation and not some spiritual perfume to cover up our smell. The brilliance of God is that He has figured out a way to both punish all unrighteousness; and redeem humanity for eternity. Very cool beans indeed.

This plan had been in place for awhile. Substitutionary atonement is not a Christian invention:

Yom Kippur, the most important day in the religious calendar of Israel, falling on the 10th day of Tishri (the Hebrew month corresponding to mid-September through mid-October). On that day the high priest entered the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle (or temple) to atone for the sins of all Israel . . .

Although many additional rites were added over the centuries, the basic description of the original Day of Atonement is Leviticus 16. Complex and detailed ceremonies all focused on the central objective of complete atonement by sacrifice. First, the high priest removed his official garments, made for beauty and glory, and clothed himself in white linen as a symbol of repentance as he went about the duties of the day. Next, he offered a bull calf as a sin offering for the priests and himself. That done, he entered the Holy of Holies with a censer of live coals from the altar of incense, filling the area with incense. He sprinkled the bullock’s blood on the mercy seat and on the floor before the ark of the covenant. Then he cast lots over two live goats brought by the people. He killed one of the goats as a sin offering for the nation, taking the blood inside the veil and sprinkling it as before, thus atoning even for the Holy Place. He confessed the sins of the nation over the live goat as he placed his hands on its head. Finally he sent the live goat, called the scapegoat (i.e., the escape goat), into the wilderness. Symbolically it carried away the sins of the people. Then the high priest clothed himself in his usual apparel and offered a burnt offering for himself and one for the people with the fat of the sin offering. Outside the camp the flesh of the bull calf and goat was burned .

The Day of Atonement became so central to Judaism that it survived the destruction of the temple in ad 70 and the end of the sacrificial system. It is the highest holy day of Judaism today . . . In biblical times, celebration of the Day of Atonement showed that Israel believed the cleansing of their sins was accomplished by the rites commanded by God. The forgiveness and grace of God were granted them and were the basis for their continued fellowship with God as his covenant people. Because it was designated as a sabbath of solemn rest (Lv 16:31; 23:32), all work was forbidden on that day as on the weekly observance of the Sabbath.

As with all the prescribed sacrifices throughout the year, the question arises as to the need for a special time for atonement. It is clear that the ritual was meant to avert God’s wrath for sins already committed as well as to guarantee the continued presence of God. The sacrifice of the first goat and the sending away of the scapegoat were intended to cleanse the nation, the priesthood, and the sanctuary from sin. The intent of the whole sacrificial system reached its highest expression on that day, called by some the “Good Friday of the OT.” The daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices left something undone, so that the high priest could not enter the holiest place throughout the year. On that one day, however, he was permitted to enter with sacrificial blood as he solemnly represented the nation before the bloodstained mercy seat.

Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (130). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

Jesus as Mercy Seat vs Sacrifice: The NET Bible translators went a very different direction from most (all?) of the previous translations. It is generally true that no real points of theology are bound up in the many differences of translation that one can find. This is an exception to that. This is how the NIV (and everyone else?) translates verse 25:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

This is certainly the standard orthodox/conservative view of Christ - He was the sacrifice whose blood was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat to atone, once and for all times, for the sins of God's people. The NET Bible translates the verse this way:

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

This makes Christ not the sacrifice to atone for sins, but the place of atonement itself. There may be (probably are) places where Jesus is referred to as the sacrifice itself - but it seems to be a common translation error here. However, this is all Greek to me, so those who feel capable of following the translators' logic can look at the translation notes (32 and 33) to the two verses above; and please comment at will. Incidentally, the extensive translation notes are the reason I am using the NET for this series.

From the note sheet: Going deeper into the word --

1. What is the significance of the words “But now…”? (3:21)
2. What does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God”?
3. Do you regard yourself as someone who has been “justified freely by His grace”? (3:24)
4. How would you explain that Jesus is “a sacrifice of atonement”?
5. Why is it essential for God to be reveal Himself as both “just and the one who justifies” those who have faith in Jesus?

Next: 3:25-26 -- "One God, One Faith, One People"

Read more!

Romans 3:21-25a "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

(NET) Romans 3:21 But now²⁶ apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets)²⁷ has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ²⁸ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified²⁹ freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed³⁰ him³¹ at his death³² as the mercy seat³³ accessible through faith.³⁴ . . .

Notes:

²⁶ tn Νυνὶ δέ (Nuni de, “But now”) could be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force, but most recent interpreters take it as temporal, referring to a new phase in salvation history.

²⁷ tn Grk “being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” a remark which is virtually parenthetical to Paul’s argument.

²⁸ tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

sn ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

²⁹ tn Or “declared righteous.” Grk “being justified,” as a continuation of the preceding clause. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁰ tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³¹ tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³² tn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tō aujtou haimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proetheto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999).

³³ tn The word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, ” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁴ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: A quick review of the book up to now might be helpful:

• 1:1-15 -- Introduction
• 1:16-17 -- the theme of the entire book.

  16 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. 17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

• 1:18 - 3:20 -- The first sharp turn in Romans. Paul goes in to a long explanation of why everyone, Jews and Gentiles, are "under sin" and subject to God's wrath. Indeed, Paul goes to great lengths to prove that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." One of the folks commenting on this section has gone as far as to suggest that Paul did not write a great deal of this section because it is such a sharp departure from the previous verses - and the ones we will now move into.

As Chris Thatcher (this weeks speaker) points out this passage, starting with "But now . . .", marks a another sharp turn, or hinge, in the book of Romans. Indeed, he states (and I agree) that if Romans had ended with 3;19 that this would be a supremely depressing letter that would not be in the Christian canon, and if it was would mark Christianity as one of the most negative, depressing religions on the planet.

Indeed, one of those commenting on the last section of Romans pointed out:

Other people like me let our conscience eat us alive from the inside out because when we read scripture like this that remind us how flawed we are already convinced. So to hear it from a source of authority simply consumes us.

And we don't get back up.

Some people will thrive on this and use the other chapters in the Bible to build themselves back up and make better people of themselves but with a newly polished mirror.

Other people, like me, like my father, listen to the reminders of how flawed we are, stare into that mirror long enough - and then out of guilt, frustration and desperation we smash our face right into the glass and the shards do the rest.

This is true of both followers of Christ and non-followers of Christ - and it comes partially, IMO, because we do not do a good enough job showing how God loves us despite our flaws. I will offer my bedrock set of verses from later in Romans that I use for this purpose

Romans 7:15-25 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

We all, Christian or not, have a body of "laws" - a morality - that we desire to follow. And, I am convinced, we are convicted by that body of laws - none of us live up to our own expectations. Paul sees this dichotomy in himself: as much as he loves God and wants to do right he still does wrong. Paul attributes this to our sin nature (the law of sin in our members) that actually wars with our own conscience and morality. It is not Paul who does wrong, but that law of sin residing with him in his body.

This is what Paul meant by us living "under sin" in the last section of Romans 3. Now the good news: just as, right after the Romans 7 passage quoted above, Romans 8 began

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh.

now Romans 3:21 continues

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Jesus is the rope thrown by God to drowning humans (or, to keep myself PC at Street Prophets - one of those ropes :-)). As Chris Thatcher said it, at the train wreck Paul outlines in the previous section - where every car and every passenger is involved - God shows up in the person of Jesus. Moreover, God shows up apart from any law or set of rules humans can follow - Jews and gentiles are equal.

Paul begins his primary view that the Mosaic law (or, IMO, any set of ethics and morality) does not make us righteous or even give us something to base moral superiority on; but actually should engender humility and make us realize that we are incapable of righteousness - these rules should teach us that we are incapable of following our own moral codes.

Not that Paul is talking about political entities here, but I think there is some application to political life as well. Folks, and countries, have underlying political ideologies along with moral ideas and rules in which they believe. These ideologies should also not engender pride or self-righteousness - but humiility - because people and countries do not follow their political ideals any better than folks follow their morals codes and laws.

From the notesheet: Question for individuals or groups --

1. Describe your heart’s response to God’s revelation, rescue, and provision in Jesus Christ.
2. Looking ahead in Romans, what are the implications for you if you now have God’s righteousness by faith in Christ and your sin is atoned for?
3. If someone asked, how would you explain the gospel based on what we have covered in Romans so far?

Next: 3:25-26 -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 2)"

Read more!

Romans 3:9-20:"The Biggest Problem in the World "

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin, 10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one, 11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”¹⁵ 13 “Their throats are open graves,¹⁶ they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”¹⁷ 14 “Their mouths are¹⁸ full of cursing and bitterness.”¹⁹ 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 ruin and misery are in their paths, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.”²⁰ 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”²¹ 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under²² the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no one is declared righteous before him²³ by the works of the law,²⁴ for through the law comes²⁵ the knowledge of sin.

Notes:

¹⁵ sn Verses 10–12 are a quotation from Ps 14:1–3.
¹⁶ tn Grk “their throat is an opened grave.”
¹⁷ sn A quotation from Pss 5:9; 140:3.

¹⁸ tn Grk “whose mouth is.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

¹⁹ sn A quotation from Ps 10:7.
²⁰ sn Rom 3:15–17 is a quotation from Isa 59:7–8.
²¹ sn A quotation from Ps 36:1.
²² tn Grk “in,” “in connection with.”
²³ sn An allusion to Ps 143:2.

²⁴ tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general.

²⁵ tn Grk “is.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My comments: Romans is the most complete presentation of the Gospel in the New Testament, and Paul has started out to show that God wishes everyone to be saved - but first has to show that everyone needs saving. So, the first three chapters have systematically shown that everyone is lost. This is really the last week of Paul presenting the problem, before launching into God's solution to the problem.

This solution is what most people think of as "the Gospel" - but it all really is the Good News. That Good News is not only that we need saving, but that there is a plan to save us.

In the first three chapters, Paul does not prove that everyone is a sinner - he makes that accusation or charge. It is the indictment of a prosecutor, and not the verdict of a jury or judge. However, Paul is not accusing us of doing bad things or failing to do good things - he is saying that we are "under sin". He views it as a dark force, or a disease, that everyone is enslaved and/or controlled by. It is this force that makes us commit acts - sins - that most people want to think about when you talk about sin. So, his central charge is that

all people are enslaved to sin.

To support this charge, Carl Palmer points out that Paul uses a rabbinical method called "stringing pearls" - he reaches back into scripture and finds 8 verses to support his view.

• All people are condemned by their character (vvs 10-12):
  • Ecclesiastes 7:20
  • Psalm 14:1
  • Psalm 14:2; 53:2
  • Psalm 14:3; 53:3
• All people are condemned by their conduct (vvs 13-17):
  • Psalm 5:8; 140:3
  • Psalm 10:7
  • Isaiah 59:7-8
• The root cause is "no fear of God": Psalm 36:1
• The conclusion (vss 19-20):
  • The law silences every mouth
  • The world makes the whole world accountable to God
  • The law makes no one righteous in His sight
  • The law brings consciousness of sin

Next: 3:21-25a -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

Read more!

Romans 3:1-8:"Faithlessness and Faithfulness"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Actually, there are many advantages.¹ First of all,² the Jews³ were entrusted with the oracles of God.⁴ 3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being⁵ shown up as a liar,⁶ just as it is written: “so that you will be justified⁷ in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”⁸ 5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates⁹ the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he?¹⁰ (I am speaking in human terms.)¹¹ 6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? 7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances¹² his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? – as some who slander us allege that we say.¹³ (Their¹⁴ condemnation is deserved!)

Notes:

¹ tn Grk “much in every way.”

² tc ‡ Most witnesses (א A D2 33 M) have γάρ (gar) after μέν (men), though some significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses lack the conjunction (B D* G Ψ 81 365 1506 2464* pc latt). A few mss have γάρ, but not μέν (6 1739 1881). γάρ was frequently added by scribes as a clarifying conjunction, making it suspect here. NA27 has the γάρ in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

tn Grk “first indeed that.”

³ tn Grk “they were.”

⁴ tn The referent of λόγια (logia, “oracles”) has been variously understood: (1) BDAG 598 s.v. λόγιον takes the term to refer here to “God’s promises to the Jews”; (2) some have taken this to refer more narrowly to the national promises of messianic salvation given to Israel (so S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Studies in Romans: Part VII: The Jews and the Oracles of God,” BSac 130 [1973]: 245); (3) perhaps the most widespread interpretation sees the term as referring to the entire OT generally.

⁵ tn Grk “every man”; but ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) is used in a generic sense here to stress humanity rather than masculinity.

⁶ tn Grk “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” The words “proven” and “shown up” are supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning.

⁷ tn Grk “might be justified,” a subjunctive verb, but in this type of clause it carries the same sense as the future indicative verb in the latter part. “Will” is more idiomatic in contemporary English.

⁸ tn Or “prevail when you judge.” A quotation from Ps 51:4.

⁹ tn Or “shows clearly.”

¹⁰ tn Grk “That God is not unjust to inflict wrath, is he?”

¹¹ sn The same expression occurs in Gal 3:15, and similar phrases in Rom 6:19 and 1 Cor 9:8.

¹² tn Grk “abounded unto.”

¹³ tn Grk “(as we are slandered and some affirm that we say…).”

¹⁴ tn Grk “whose.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, this relative clause was rendered as a new sentence in the translation.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

From the Note Sheet: Going deeper in the word . . .

1. Do we sometimes doubt how God could be perfectly fair and “just” in judging our sin and failure? What should we do?
2. How does the cross of Jesus include both the “holy righteousness” of God to “judge” sin—and also the “faithful righteousness” of God to “save” sinners?
3. Do you regard yourself as someone to whom God has “entrusted” with “the very words of God”? If so, what does that mean to you?
4. Is it possible that we who follow Jesus could fail to live “faithfully” as “God’s messenger people”—to this generation?
5. How can we grow in trusting God—when we do not understand Him and His ways?
   

My Comments: Carl organized this message around 4 questions that a Jew might ask in response to the Gospel message, and Paul's answers in the passage:

1. If belonging to God’s “chosen people” and having the sign of His covenant (circumcision) do not save from God’s wrath . . . Is there any advantage to being a Jew? Paul really doesn't answer this question until Romans 9:

4 . . . To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.

Carl points out that God has given the Jews tremendous blessings. They were given the Law and the prophets so that they could have three great priviledges:

• know reality…truth… relationship with God. (Encounter God)
• experience the best way to live. (Embody God)
• become “light” to the nations. (Extend God to others)

These three priviledges should be familiar to Christians now - these are what God desires for us today where we are. Indeed, this is what God has desired for His people throughout the ages.

2. But, if some of the Jews did not truly believe God, does that mean God has been unfaithful… or will forget His promises? This is where Carl introduces the title of the message - "Faithlessness and Faithfulness". Paul says that yes, people have been faithless to God - but God keeps His promises. The quantity of human compromise in the world does not affect God's faithfulness at all. Everyone could be unfaithful in the world - and God would still be faithful

3. If the “evil” of our sin has brought the “good” of the Gospel — why does God condemn us? If God’s righteousness is seen more clearly because of our unrighteousness — is God unjust to bring His wrath on us? After all, if - as you say Paul - everything up to know has proved that we all - Gentile and Jew, with or without the Law - are sinners, and this has brought the Good of Christ as part of the Sovereign plan of God - haven't we helped bring the Good of Christ? This is very close to fitting in with the whole "God created evil" logic of folks who say that we are not responsible, or God is not Good, because of the existence of evil. Therefore, God has no grounds to judge humans because he brought the evil on Himself. Paul's answer is, of course, that we are responsible, that God is not evil, and that therefore He has the position to judge us. [See this series]. Paul covers this topic more in Chapter 9 as well.

4. If my sin (“falsehood”) reveals God’s truthfulness and increases His glory — why would God condemn me as a sinner? Of course, very similiar to question #3 - except that is is about falsehood and truthfulness instead righteousness and unrighteousness.

Carl mentioned in an earlier message that Romans 1-3 are like the black cloth that jewelers use as a backdrop when they display diamonds. The dark background elevates the glory of the stone. Here the question is: if my dark background elevates the Glory of God and helps His purposes - why take it out on the "poor dark cloth"? Carl says, rightly, that his is ludicrous, stupid, [pick your adjective]. He says he has 3 sons, and it would be like him saying that he loves it when his sons do wrong, because it makes him (Carl) look good. No father thinks like that.

It also is connected to the idea that we are somehow puppets - doing right and wrong at God's Will; and therefore without blame when we do wrong because it is just part of God's overall plan. Indeed, Paul takes it to the extreme, and reports on folks who misread him as saying we should actually sin more so that God's Glory can increase. This nonsense will be covered in Chapter 6

All of the themes of the first three chapters are going to be explored in greater detail later in the letter. Carl compares it to the overture of a symphony - where the themes of the overall work are touched on and expanded on later.

Next: 3:9-20 -- "The Biggest Problem in the World"

Read more!

Romans 2:17-29:"True Covenant Membership"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using the pastor's - in this case Matt Bowen - titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!

Philosophy Humor Plantinga on Fundamentalism

Jeremy at Parableman in a comment at Fundamentally Changed pointed to a post by Cynthia Nielsen at Per Caritatem quoting Alvin Plantinga's look into the "real" use of the word "fundamentalist". [I hurt my arm with all those hat tips]

Alvin Plantinga:

In 1980, Plantinga was described by Time magazine as "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God." He was portrayed in that same article as a central figure in a "quiet revolution" regarding the respectability of belief in God among academic philosophers. Plantinga has delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures on three separate occasions . . . Plantinga is currently the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

Ok, now the quote:

Read more!

Romans 2:6-16:"God's Impartial Judgment"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!