MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Appendix 3: Walking The Romans Road

Related Media

How can a person be saved? From what is he saved? How can someone have eternal life? Scripture teaches that after death each person will spend eternity either in heaven or hell. How can a person go to heaven?

Paul said this to Timothy:

You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:14-15

One of the reasons God gave us Scripture is to make us wise for salvation. This means that without it, nobody can know how to be saved.

Well then, how can a people be saved and what are they being saved from? A common method of sharing the good news of salvation is through the Romans Road. One of the great themes, not only of the Bible, but specifically of the book of Romans is salvation. In Romans, the author, Paul, clearly details the steps we must take in order to be saved.

How can we be saved? What steps must we take?

Step One: We Must Accept That We Are Sinners

Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” What does it mean to sin? The word sin means “to miss the mark.” The mark we missed is reflecting God’s image. When God created mankind in the Genesis narrative, he created man in the “image of God” (1:27). The “image of God” means many things, but probably, most importantly it means we were made to be holy just as he is holy. Man was made moral. We were meant to reflect God’s holiness in every way: the way we think, the way we talk, and the way we act. And any time we miss the mark in these areas, we commit sin.

Furthermore, we do not only sin when we commit a sinful act such as lying, stealing, or cheating. Again, we sin anytime we have a wrong heart motive. The greatest commandments in Scripture are to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:36-40, paraphrase). Whenever we don’t love God supremely and love others as ourselves, we sin and fall short of the glory of God. For this reason, man is always in a state of sinning. Sadly, even if our actions are good, our heart is bad. I have never loved God with my whole heart, mind, and soul, and neither has anybody else. Therefore, we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). We have all missed the mark of God’s holiness and we must accept this.

What’s the next step?

Step Two: We Must Understand We Are Under The Judgment Of God

Why are we under the judgment of God? It is because of our sins. Scripture teaches that God is not only a loving God, but he is also a just God. And his justice requires judgment for each of our sins. Romans 6:23 says, “For the payoff of sin is death.”

A payoff or wage is something we earn. Every time we sin, we earn the wage of death. What is death? Death really means separation. In physical death, the body is separated from the spirit, but in spiritual death, man is separated from God. Man currently lives in a state of spiritual death (cf. Eph 2:1-3). We do not love God, obey him, or know him as we should. Therefore, man is in a state of death.

Moreover, one day at our physical death, if we have not been saved, we will spend eternity separated from God in a very real hell. In hell, we will pay the wage for each of our sins. Therefore, in hell people will experience various degrees of punishment (cf. Lk 12:47-48). This places man in a very dangerous predicament—unholy and therefore under the judgment of God.

How should we respond to this? This leads us to our third step.

Step Three: We Must Recognize God Has Invited All To Accept His Free Gift Of Salvation

Romans 6:23 does not stop at the wages of sin being death. It says, “For the payoff of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Because God loved everybody on the earth, he offered the free gift of eternal life, which anyone can receive through Jesus Christ.

Because it is a gift, it cannot be earned. We cannot work for it. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.”

Going to church, being baptized, giving to the poor, or doing any other righteous work does not save. Salvation is a gift that must be received from God. It is a gift that has been prepared by his effort alone.

How do we receive this free gift?

Step Four: We Must Believe Jesus Christ Died For Our Sins And Rose From The Dead

If we are going to receive this free gift, we must believe in God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Because God loved us, cared for us, and didn’t want us to be separated from him eternally, he sent his Son to die for our sins. Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Similarly, John 3:16 says, “For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” God so loved us that he gave his only Son for our sins.

Jesus Christ was a real, historical person who lived 2,000 years ago. He was born of a virgin. He lived a perfect life. He was put to death by the Romans and the Jews. And after he was buried, he rose again on the third day. In his death, he took our sins and God’s wrath for them and gave us his perfect righteousness so we could be accepted by God. Second Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.” God did all this so we could be saved from his wrath.

Christ’s death satisfied the just anger of God over our sins. When God looked at Jesus on the cross, he saw us and our sins and therefore judged Jesus. And now, when God sees those who are saved, he sees his righteous Son and accepts us. In salvation, we have become the righteousness of God.

If we are going to be saved, if we are going to receive this free gift of salvation, we must believe in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5, Rom 10:9-10). Do you believe?

Step Five: We Must Confess Christ As Lord Of Our Lives

Romans 10:9-10 says,

Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.

Not only must we believe, but we must confess Christ as Lord of our lives. It is one thing to believe in Christ but another to follow Christ. Simple belief does not save. Christ must be our Lord. James said this: “…Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear” (James 2:19), but the demons are not saved—Christ is not their Lord.

Another aspect of making Christ Lord is repentance. Repentance really means a change of mind that leads to a change of direction. Before we met Christ, we were living our own life and following our own sinful desires. But when we get saved, our mind and direction change. We start to follow Christ as Lord.

How do we make this commitment to the lordship of Christ so we can be saved? Paul said we must confess with our mouth “Jesus is Lord” as we believe in him. Romans 10:13 says, “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

If you admit that you are a sinner and understand you are under God’s wrath because of it; if you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he died on the cross for your sins, and rose from the dead for your salvation; if you are ready to turn from your sin and cling to Christ as Lord, you can be saved.

If this is your heart, then you can pray this prayer and commit to following Christ as your Lord.

Dear heavenly Father, I confess I am a sinner and have fallen short of your glory, what you made me for. I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins and rose from the dead so I can have eternal life. I am turning away from my sin and accepting you as my Lord and Savior. Come into my life and change me. Thank you for your gift of salvation.

Scripture teaches that if you truly accepted Christ as your Lord, then you are a new creation. Second Corinthians 5:17 says, “So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away – look, what is new has come!” God has forgiven your sins (1 John 1:9), he has given you his Holy Spirit (Rom 8:15), and he is going to disciple you and make you into the image of his Son (cf. Rom 8:29). He will never leave you nor forsake you (Heb 13:5), and he will complete the work he has begun in your life (Phil 1:6). In heaven, angels and saints are rejoicing because of your commitment to Christ (Lk 15:7).

Praise God for his great salvation! May God keep you in his hand, empower you through the Holy Spirit, train you through mature believers, and use you to build his kingdom! “He who calls you is trustworthy, and he will in fact do this” (1 Thess 5:24). God bless you!

Copyright © 2021 Gregory Brown

Unless otherwise noted, the primary Scriptures used are taken from the NET Bible ® copyright © 1996-2016 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Holy Bible, New International Version ®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®) Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, Copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked (KJV) are from the King James Version of the Bible.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added.

BTG Publishing all rights reserved.

What’s the Evidence for the Resurrection?

It’s Important: Christianity without the resurrection is useless

“And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished” I Cor 15:17-18. [NET]1.

Those are the Apostle Paul’s words in which he is making an extraordinary claim to the people in Corinth that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is what Christianity stands or falls on, and it’s the single most important fact that one should believe to be a Christian, and without this truth he follows on to say;

If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (I Cor 15:32)…..”

Those are strong matter-of-fact words, and it makes one wonder what the evidences really are for such an exorbitant claim. Indeed this is a big test, raising from the dead is certainly a miraculous claim that if false one would think quite easy to refute. As a comparison, the claims of Christianity are quite a bit different than the test of authenticity in Islam, where the proof test of the Quran is to see if one can produce a set of verses as eloquent as those in the Quran;

“Sura 2:23. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true,”

Similarly, in Mormonism, the test of authenticity is whether or not the Holy Ghost tells one it is the truth after reading it.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye ask of God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” Moroni 10:4-5

Nevertheless, just because a claim is miraculous, doesn’t mean that it is true, so what exactly are the evidences for the resurrection? Did Paul have good reason to believe in the resurrection? Did he have good reason to tell others that they needed to confess that Jesus is Lord, and to believe that God raised him from the dead?

because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:9.

Likewise, what is the basis that Peter has in stating that we have hope in the resurrection;

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, I. Pet 1:3-4

and it is this hope that Peter says one should be able to explain why they have it;

But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. I Pet 3:15

However, is this hope a baseless wish, or are there good reasons and evidences for the resurrection? The rest of this paper examines 9 key evidences towards the resurrection which can easily be remembered from the acrostic “GODS POWER” standing for the evidences of the; Gospels, Old Testament, Disciples, Skeptics, Paul, Oral Tradition, Written Tradition, Empty Tomb, Rabinnacal and Jewish Writings, as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 GOD’S POWER Acrostic as Evidences for the Resurrection

Gospels

The gospels are a written account of the good news of Jesus Christ by his disciples (Matthew, John) and their close companions (Mark of Peter, Luke of Paul). Whether or not one believes that they were inspired by God, or a perfect account of all of the life of Jesus, it is clear that each gospel records the death of Jesus by crucifixion. As we will see, Jesus’ crucifixion is accepted as a “minimal fact” by all, skeptic, enemy and followers alike, as in this all agree. Understanding what are the minimally accepted facts is an important point to understand in any debate as it forms the framework around what a skeptic would have to believe should they still want to dispute the claim.

Now is it possible that the resurrection accounts were made up as they developed over a long period of time? While there will be other supporting evidences in subsequent sections, consider the following;

· The Gospels were all written in the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, with a likely latest being AD 60. This can be inferred from the fact that Acts ends abruptly with Paul in jail, coupled with the fact that Paul dies in AD 62 [habe04]. Additional supporting evidence that they are written before 70 AD is that there is no mention of the destruction of the temple which happened in AD 70. Consequently, the gospels are likely in circulation within 30 years of Jesus’ death AD 33 (per Wikipedia “several analyses…agree on the date Friday April 3, 33 AD”).

· There are over 200 complete copies of the new testament from 200 AD [habe04], and a section of John from AD 100-150 [joh01].

· If the gospels were a forgery, it is unlikely that they would have attributed them to names such as Mark (who was a companion of Peter, and not a direct disciple of Jesus), and Luke, who was a gentile and companion of Paul. Additionally, it is unlikely that we would have a gospel written by a tax collector which was considered near treason from most Jews at the time.

While there still may be some doubt in parts of the gospels, it is clear that early copies of the gospels existed, and that they all proclaim the death, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Old Testament

There are hundreds Old Testament prophecies (e.g. [mes01]) that predict that a “Messiah” (in Hebrew Mashiach, in Greek Christos meaning Anointed One) would come. Some of the most known and prominent ones are that the Messiah would be from the tribe of David (2 Sam 7:12-12, Jesus fulfilled Matt 1:1), would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Jesus fulfilled Matt 2:1-2), however, those that pertain directly towards predicting how the Messiah would die and the resurrection are of particular interest here, such as those below [mes01]

 

Prophecy

O.T. Ref.

Fulfillment

The Messiah's back would be whipped.

Isaiah 53:5

Matthew 27:26

The Messiah would be silent before his accusers.

Isaiah 53:7

Matthew 27:12-14

The Messiah would be confined and persecuted.

Isaiah 53:8

Matthew 26:55

The Messiah would be judged.

Isaiah 53:8

John 18:13-22

The Messiah would be killed.

Isaiah 53:8

Matthew 27:35

The Messiah would be buried in a rich man's grave.

Isaiah 53:9

Matthew 27:57

The Messiah would be resurrected and live forever.

Isaiah 53:10

Mark 16:16

The Messiah would prosper.

Isaiah 53:10

John 17:1-5

Because of his sacrifice, the Messiah would be greatly exalted by God.

Isaiah 53:12

Matthew 28:18

The Messiah would give up his life to save mankind.

above

Luke 23:46

The Messiah would be grouped with criminals.

Above

Luke 23:32

The Messiah’s body would be pierced

Zech 12:10

John 19:34-7

The Messiah would be resurrected

Ps. 16:8-10

Matt 28:6, Acts 13:35

 

An additional prophecy of noteworthiness is the prophecy of the timing of the when the killing of the Messiah would happen as recorded in Daniel’s 70 weeks (Dan 9:20-27), for which John Macarthur [mac01] comments;

“Some scholars consider Daniel 9:20-27 the single greatest defense of the divine inspiration of the Bible, for it precisely states when the Messiah would come to earth. Sir Isaac Newton, who wrote a discourse on the topic, said we could stake the truth of Christianity on that prophecy alone, made five centuries before Christ.”

The account in Daniel is as follows,

9:20 While I was still speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and presenting my request before the LORD my God concerning his holy mountain 9:21 yes, while I was still praying, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen previously in a vision, was approaching me in my state of extreme weariness, around the time of the evening offering. 9:22 He spoke with me, instructing me as follows: “Daniel, I have now come to impart understanding to you. 9:23 At the beginning of your requests a message went out, and I have come to convey it to you, for you are of great value in God’s sight. Therefore consider the message and understand the vision:

9:24 “Seventy weeks have been determined concerning your people and your holy city to put an end to rebellion, to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness, to seal up the prophetic vision, and to anoint a most holy place. 9:25 So know and understand:

From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives, there will be a period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times. 9:26 Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.

As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the coming prince will destroy them. But his end will come speedily like a flood. Until the end of the war that has been decreed there will be destruction. 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”

For ease of understanding, Daniel’s 70 weeks (weeks of years) can be illustrated as shown in Figure 2, where we see

· The issuing of the command to rebuild Jerusalem (ref. Dan 9:25) is recorded in Nehemiah in 444 BC

2:1 Then in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, …., 2:5 and said to the king, “If the king is so inclined and if your servant has found favor in your sight, dispatch me to Judah, to the city with the graves of my ancestors, so that I can rebuild it…..So the king granted me these requests, for the good hand of my God was on me”

· Where the anointed one, would be cutoff after the 7 weeks of years, and the 62 weeks of years passed (ref. Dan 9:26). This then implies a total of 69x7 = 483 years would pass on the Jewish calendar. However, the Jewish calendar was based on the lunar calendar, having 360 days, this is equivalent to 483x360/365.25 = 476 solar calendar years, which results in AD 33 as the time when the anointed one would be “cut-off” (killed).

Figure 2 Daniels 70 weeks

While some may claim that some of the Messianic prophecies could be fulfilled by arranging ahead of time for some events to happen (e.g. Zechariah’s prophecy (Zech 9:9) that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey (fulfilled Matt 21:6-9)), it is hard to explain how one could arrange where one would be born (Bethlehem) and an exact date of their own crucifixion as it was fulfilled in Daniel’s prophecy. Thus, Daniel’s prophecies of the timing of the crucifixion, and the other prophecies of the Old Testament that suggest that the Messiah would be raised present important evidence to the resurrection.

Disciples

As mentioned before, the disciples of Jesus recorded the resurrection as fact in the gospels and their further writings, however, there is an important aspect of their story surrounding the time of Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion and thereafter that lends evidence to the resurrection.

The transformation of the disciples from defeated cowards to bold witnesses who died for their testimony lends evidence to the resurrection

In Luke 22:54-62 we see Peter when he is scared to be associated with Jesus and he denies being considered a companion of Jesus

22:54 Then they arrested Jesus, led him away, and brought him into the high priest’s house. But Peter was following at a distance. 22:55 When they had made a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. 22:56 Then a slave girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight, stared at him and said, “This man was with him too!” 22:57 But Peter denied it: “Woman, I don’t know him!” 22:58 Then a little later someone else saw him and said, “You are one of them too.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” 22:59 And after about an hour still another insisted, “Certainly this man was with him, because he too is a Galilean.” 22:60 But Peter said, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. 22:61 Then the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” 22:62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Additionally, we see after the crucifixion that they were in hiding, still scared to be associated with Jesus (John 20:19);

John 20:19a On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the disciples had gathered together and locked the doors of the place because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders.

While we then see totally transformed lives, after they had seen Jesus risen,

John 20:19b Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20:20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

into people without fear of the Jews or retaliation, and they began boldly proclaiming the resurrection as recorded in Acts 4:1-20

Acts 4:1 While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, 4:2 angry because they were teaching the people and announcing in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 4:3 So they seized them and put them in jail until the next day (for it was already evening)…

4:18 And they called them in and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 4:19 But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, 4:20 for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.”

The fact that the disciples paid for their testimony with their lives is an evidence for the resurrection

Indeed, the transformation was so strong that we see the Apostles, and disciples continually proclaiming the resurrection despite being imprisoned, tortured, beaten and ultimately killed for their testimony

· Peter and John arrested and imprisoned , Acts 4

· Peter and John imprisoned and flogged, Acts 5

· Stephen (an early follower of Jesus) pays for his belief with this life in Acts 7,

· James, the brother of John, pays for his testimony with his life in Acts 12

· Paul, imprisoned, stoned 3 times, etc. , I Cor 11:23-25

This is also supported in some of the early writings of the first believers, such as;

· Clement of Rome (c. 30-100), a contemporary of the Apostles writes in I Clement 5:2-7 “Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contend unto death. Let us set the good apostles before our eyes….” [habe04]

· Ignatius, who was bishop of the church in Antioch in Syria writes on the way to his martyrdom in AD 110 “And when [Jesus] came to those with Peter, he said to them: ‘Take, handle me and see that I am not a bodiless demon’. And immediately they handled him and believed, having known his flesh and blood. Because of this they also despised death; but beyond death they were found” To the Smyrnaens 3:2.” [habe04]

Additionally, it is recorded that 11 of the 12 Apostles paid for their testimony with their lives, as did many other early believers as recorded in later works such as Fox’s book of Martyrs [Fox].

While one can find people today that will die a martyr’s death, as we see some in Islam do, what is an important distinction here, is that those that die today as believed martyrs are basing their faith on second hand knowledge, whereas the disciples all personally knew Jesus, and personally saw the resurrected Jesus. Thus, it is unlikely that they would all “die for a lie” knowing it was a lie if that had been the case.

It’s clear that the Apostles believed that Jesus had risen, and this is a minimally accepted fact by skeptics and believers alike.

Skeptics

If there was a testimony of a close person to Jesus, that wasn’t a believer before the resurrection, but became a believer after witnessing the resurrection, that would be additional evidence towards the resurrection.

In fact, this is exactly what we have in Jesus’ brother, James, who along with his other brothers and family members didn’t believe in Jesus before the resurrection as is recorded in Mark 3:20-21,31, 6:3-7

Mk 3:20 Now Jesus went home, and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat. 3:21 When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”….

Mk 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And so they took offense at him. 6:4 Then Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, and among his relatives, and in his own house.”

However, after the resurrection, it is recorded that Jesus appeared to James (I Cor 15:3-7)

I Cor 15:3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

and afterwards we see James as the leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15, Gal 1)

Acts 15:2 When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement

……

Acts 15:12 The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 15:13 After they stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

It is also commonly accepted that James is the author of the epistle of James [wikijames]. Certainly, conversions of skeptics to believers was a growing trend as early Christianity took root, however, in the case of James it is important to point out that James had “inside knowledge” being the brother of Jesus, and the changing event in his life was the resurrection. According to Josephus (1st century Jewish historian), and Fox’s book of Martyrs (called their “James the Less”, [Fox]), James was martyred in AD 62 [wikijames] for his faith in Jesus and the resurrection.

James’ conversion from skeptic to believer is a minimally accepted fact.

Paul

Paul, like James, was not only a skeptic, but was an avid persecutor of early Christians to the point of murder. What was it that changed Paul to go from Jewish zealot attempting to squelch early Christianity and put Christians to death, to becoming not only an avid supporter but the author of thirteen of 19 of the books [wikipaul] of the New Testament today? Acts 26 (see also Acts 9) provides Paul’s testimonial account of his life, from his original zealousy for Judiasm;

Acts 26:1 So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul held out his hand and began his defense:

26:2 “Regarding all the things I have been accused of by the Jews, King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that I am about to make my defense before you today, 26:3 because you are especially familiar with all the customs and controversial issues of the Jews. Therefore I ask you to listen to me patiently.

26:4 Now all the Jews know the way I lived from my youth, spending my life from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. 26:5 They know, because they have known me from time past, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 26:6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, 26:7 a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain as they earnestly serve God night and day. Concerning this hope the Jews are accusing me, Your Majesty! 26:8 Why do you people think it is unbelievable that God raises the dead?

which he acted out by persecuting and putting Christians to death;

26:9 Of course, I myself was convinced that it was necessary to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus the Nazarene. 26:10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem: Not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons by the authority I received from the chief priests, but I also cast my vote against them when they were sentenced to death. 26:11 I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to force them to blaspheme. Because I was so furiously enraged at them, I went to persecute them even in foreign cities.

to his encounter with the risen Jesus (not by the word of others) on the road to Damascus;

26:12 “While doing this very thing, as I was going to Damascus with authority and complete power from the chief priests, 26:13 about noon along the road, Your Majesty, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining everywhere around me and those traveling with me. 26:14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? You are hurting yourself by kicking against the goads.’ 26:15 So I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 26:16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this reason, to designate you in advance as a servant and witness to the things you have seen and to the things in which I will appear to you. 26:17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you 26:18 to open their eyes so that they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

and his immediate acceptance of vision, and changed life to proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection.

26:19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 26:20 but I declared to those in Damascus first, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds consistent with repentance. 26:21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple courts and were trying to kill me. 26:22 I have experienced help from God to this day, and so I stand testifying to both small and great, saying nothing except what the prophets and Moses said was going to happen: 26:23 that the Christ was to suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, to proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

While Paul’s sudden conversion was met with initial caution from the Apostles, Paul was later accepted as one of the Apostles himself (Acts 9:26-30)

Acts 9:26 When he arrived in Jerusalem, he attempted to associate with the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe that he was a disciple. 9:27 But Barnabas took Saul, brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 9:28 So he was staying with them, associating openly with them in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 9:29 He was speaking and debating with the Greek-speaking Jews, but they were trying to kill him. 9:30 When the brothers found out about this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.

and his writings were also accepted by the Apostles, as Peter writes in 2 Pet 3:15-16

2 Pet 3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, 3:16 speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.

Ironically, Paul then suffered from the same persecution that he once gave, as he describes in 2 Cor 11:23-25.

2 Cor 11:23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am talking like I am out of my mind!) I am even more so: with much greater labors, with far more imprisonments, with more severe beatings, facing death many times. 11:24 Five times I received from the Jews forty lashes less one. 11:25 Three times I was beaten with a rod. Once I received a stoning. Three times I suffered shipwreck. A night and a day I spent adrift in the open sea.

Ultimately, like James, Paul suffered death for his beliefs after conversion, as recorded by 1st century believers and early church fathers; Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen [habe04, chapter 4].

Both the conversion from skeptic (James) and enemy of Jesus/Christianity (Paul), by means of primary contact with the risen Jesus, which they ultimately proclaimed to their death, are significant evidences for the resurrection.

Oral Tradition

As with many cultures before the printing press, oral tradition was used to pass on truth to others. The questions one would want to know then are;

· what was the oral tradition after the crucifixion?

· was it consistent with the written scriptures later on, or is there a different early oral tradition which appears to get added to later on when recorded in the written gospels?

How can one find early oral tradition and where would one look? One such evidence of the earliest oral tradition, is actually recorded in the earliest known “church creed” as written in I Cor 15:3-8

I Cor 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.

15:3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 15:8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.

There are several evidences that this is an early oral tradition [habe04]

· Paul mentions, “I passed on to you, as of first importance what I also received”, therefore, this was passed on as an oral creed.

· This was originally in Aramaic, dating it earlier

· Fourfold use of the Greek term for “that” (hoti) is used.

· Cephas is used instead of Peter, which is the Aramaic name for Peter

· It’s style is of a creed, and not typical of Paul’s writing.

To understand how significant this early oral tradition is, it needs to be dated. Now it is commonly assumed that Paul’s conversion was sometime between AD 33-36 [wikipaul], and that Paul visited Jerusalem after three years where he traveled to Arabia (Gal 1:18-19). In taking Paul’s words that “he is passing on what he received” it is logical that he received this while visiting in Jerusalem which would have put the oral tradition between AD 36-39, or meaning that this creed was being widely circulated within 3-6 years of the crucifixion in AD 33. At worst case, the dating of this needs to be before he visited Corinth in AD 51 [habe04].

That the Apostles and early Christians believed in the resurrection as portrayed by the oral tradition is an evidence for the resurrection and a minimally accepted fact.

Written Tradition

In addition to the Gospels, Paul’s writings and the other Epistles of the New Testament, several writings of contemporaries of the Apostles and early Christians also provide evidence of early belief in the resurrection (the following from [hab04]).

For example, Clement of Rome (c. 30-100), wrote to the church in Corinth in AD 95;

“Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come”. First Clement 42:3.

And in AD 185- Irenaeus, an early church father provides a character witness of Clement.

“Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he has seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brothers in Corinth, the church in Rome dispatch a most powerful letter to the Corinthians”.

Polycarp, a disciple of Apostle John also mentions the resurrection in his writings in AD 110 in a letter to Phillipi;

“For they [Paul and the other apostles] did not love the present age, but him who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God”. Letter to Phillipians 9:2.

And Tertullian, an early African church father, provides the following character witnesses of Polycarp in AD 200,

“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church in Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church in Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter”.

Irenaeus also mentions Polycarp (c. 69-155)

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and when a very old man gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he learned from the apostles” Iraneaus , Against Heresies 3.3.4

Therefore, it is clear that the contemporaries of the Apostles, and early Christians all believed and were proclaiming the resurrection. That the early Christians believed in the resurrection is a minimal fact.

Empty Tomb

Certainly, the proclamation of the resurrection without an empty tomb would be impossible and preposterous. When one examines the evidence for the empty tomb claim itself, there are several important clues which lend credence to this claim. Habermas [habe04] and Craig [Craig] cite the following clues towards believing the empty tomb;

Jerusalem factor confirms an empty tomb: The first clue towards reality is that the claim of the resurrection was made within days of the crucifixion, and if tomb wasn’t really empty all one would need to do would be to visit the tomb and show the body. Indeed, one would think that the reigning Jews of the time (Sanhedrin) who were actively opposing the early Christians (as recorded in Acts) could have easily shut them down if the tomb wasn’t indeed empty.

Enemy attestation confirms the empty tomb: The second clue is that we never see an argument put forth by anyone, even those opposing the early Christians, that the tomb was not empty. Indeed, we see stories circulated by the Jews that someone stole the body (Matt 28:11-15), but never that the tomb was not empty.

Matt 28:11 While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. 28:12 After they had assembled with the elders and formed a plan, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 28:13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came at night and stole his body while we were asleep.’ 28:14 If this matter is heard before the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 28:15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story is told among the Jews to this day.

The women discovering the body is an inconvenient truth that lends evidence to reality: Two of the four gospels mention the women finding the empty tomb first. This is somewhat an inconvenient truth, that lends evidence in itself towards the authenticity of the empty tomb and resurrection for the following reason. In the first century, the testimony of a women was not worth as much as a man in both Jewish and Roman culture, and if someone was inventing a story, it is unlikely that they would have used women in their stories to find the empty tomb, and they would have more likely attributed it to one of the more prominent disciples, such as Peter, James or John.

While some may dispute the empty tomb, even early opposing views support an empty tomb, and this should indeed also be a minimally supported fact, although some still dispute it.

Rabbinacal and Jewish Writings

Perhaps the most prominent Jewish writings that record Jesus, are those of Josephus, a Jewish historian from the late first century. In the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64 it is written; [wikiJosephus]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Eusebius in AD 324, quotes the above passage attributed to Josephus. However, several critics (e.g. John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar) have cited that it is “too good to be true”, and they claim it has likely been altered, as Josephus a Jew would not proclaim that “He was the Christ”, but possibly that “He claimed to be the Christ”. Some of this claim is based on the conspicuous absence of this passage being quoted by other writers of early times, (e.g. Origen in AD 240) didn’t quote this passage. Nevertheless, there is evidence from an Arabic version of Josephus from the tenth century which reads [wikiJosephus]

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan

in which using the intersection of the two the following truths remain;

· Jesus was crucified, under the hand of Pilate

· Jesus was claimed to have risen from the dead and appeared to the disciples, and they remained loyal

· The disciples believed he was the Messiah

While it is not entirely clear whether the Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) mentioned in the Talmud is the same as the Jesus of the Gospels, we do see that a person named Yeshu was hung on the Passover.

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him." Yeshu was different because he was close to the government. Sanhedrin 43a.

Conclusion

While it is always the case that faith (Eph 2:8-9) is ultimately what brings one to belief,

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 2:9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast.

and to be saved (a Christian), it is clear that there are some powerful minimally accepted facts that form the basis for the likelihood of the resurrection. May the Lord guide us all in the further discovery of the truth.

References

[Craig], William Lane Craig, The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus,

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

[Fox] Fox’s Book of Martyrs, http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library/foxes_book_of_martyrs.pdf

[hab04] Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus”, Kregel Press, 2004.

[joh01] Chapter 18 St. John Fragment, John Rylands University Library, University of Manchester, England, http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/ , see also http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html

[Mac01] John Macarthur, “The Future of Israel, Israel’s Future – Part 1, http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg27-24.htm

[Mcd01] J. Mcdowell, “The new evidence that demands a verdict”, pg. 197-201, http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

[mes01] Fulfilled Messiancc Prophecies, [So Far],http://www.preservedwords.com/prophecies.htm

[NET], Netbible, www.net.bible.org.

[wikijames] James the Just, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

[wikiJosephus] Josephus on Jesus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[wikipaul] Apostle Paul, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul

1 All scripture in this paper is from the netbible [NET].

Related Topics: Resurrection

24. The Only Road to Righteousness (Romans 10:1-13)

Introduction

The camp where our church recently held a men’s retreat had a shooting range, so I took along my .22 caliber rifle which I had never fired. I also enthusiastically encouraged several friends to bring along their guns.

On Saturday afternoon the camp director gave us instructions on how to use the shooting range. Only one person was allowed to shoot at a time. Each person was to select his target and then inform the director at which tin can he would aim. After each shot, the director would tell the shooter whether he had hit his target or by how much he had missed. It was a safe, methodical operation of a shooting range, set up by the camp director for teaching young children how to shoot.

There was only one problem. A few of us had already enjoyed an “informal” shooting session much earlier in the day—away from the watchful eye of the camp director. Mind you, we had not knowingly broken the rules. We were simply ignorant of them. That morning those of us who had brought our guns had eagerly headed toward the shooting range. We asked a camp worker where the range was located and assumed we were receiving permission to use it. Arriving at the range, each of us loaded the limit each weapon would hold. Then, standing side by side, we began to fire.

Our shooting started out something like the beginning of a musical arrangement. At first there was a solo: one .22 rifle firing a number of shots in succession. The pace steadily quickened and became a duet. Another weapon joined in until several .22 rifles were firing as tin cans began to fly. The bigger guns then came out with the deer rifle firing a considerably louder report. When the .45 semi-automatic joined our symphony of shooting, we sounded a bit like World War III with cans spinning in the air.

Just as the .357 magnum was about to fire, our obviously distressed camp director arrived on the scene. His beginning words were easy to recall: “We’ve never done this before!” He continued, “This is only a .22 rifle range. We do not allow larger caliber guns.” Very patiently he asked us to end our “informal” shooting and wait for “official” target practice that afternoon. As the afternoon activities began, he announced that target practice would be held at 3:00 p.m., along with horseback riding and other sports. I decided to test his sense of humor about the morning’s events: “Do you think we could combine horseback riding and target practice and ride by the shooting range to fire at the targets?” Thankfully, he smiled kindly. Only later did I hear that we had become known as the “vigilante group” from Dallas! I am sure he breathed a great sigh of relief as we—and our large assortment of firearms—departed.

Certainly the camp director’s view of how the target range should be used was vastly different from ours. Undoubtedly, his view was correct. It is possible to misuse a good thing. I fear this is what we unknowingly did. Our text demonstrates that it is also certainly possible to misuse the Old Testament Law, for purposes for which it was never intended. Unfortunately, this is what happened with many of the Jews. God gave the Law for one purpose, but the Jews used it for another. The Law, which was never given as a means of attaining righteousness, was used by the Jews for this very purpose. The result was that the Jews, though working hard to keep the Law, failed to attain righteousness, while the Gentiles who did not even seek righteousness or possess the Law, did attain it. How could this be? How could things have gone so wrong for Israel? Paul deals with this problem in the tenth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans.

The Structure of the Text

In verse 1 of our text, Paul begins by exposing his own heart toward his people in verse 1, much as he did in verses 1-5 of chapter 9. Verses 2-4 explain Israel’s failure in terms of her ignorance and rejection of God’s righteousness. Verses 5-10 contrast “faith righteousness” and “works righteousness,” using as illustrations two Old Testament texts. In verses 11-13, Paul summarizes the true gospel of salvation by faith, using two Old Testament texts.

The outline of our passage is then:249

(1) Paul’s kind intentions toward Israel (verse 1)

(2) Israel’s ignorance and self-righteousness (verses 2-4)

(3) Works righteousness versus faith righteousness (verses 5-10)

(4) The gospel summarized (verses 11-13)

Background

Israel’s condition has been summarized by Paul at the end of chapter 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed” (Romans 9:30-33).

Israel was seeking righteousness and striving hard to attain it, but she had failed. The Gentiles, neither seeking nor striving for it, did attain righteousness. In terms of the gospel, Israel was failing where many more Gentiles were succeeding.

What explanation could there possibly be for Israel’s unbelief and the Gentile’s turning to Messiah? In Romans 9 Paul answers from the divine perspective: the many who failed to become true Israelites were not chosen. God had purposed to save a small remnant of the nation, as the basis for Israel’s future restoration. Those whom God chose not to save, He would nevertheless use to demonstrate His power and His glory.

Paul’s next line of explanation for Israel’s unbelief begins late in chapter 9 and extends into chapter 10: Israelites were lost in unbelief not only because God had not chosen them (chapter 9) but also because they had not chosen God. In trying to earn their own righteousness, Israel rejected God’s righteousness as revealed in the Scriptures and in the Son of God, the Messiah.

Paul’s Kind Intentions Toward Israel
(10:1)

Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.

Paul’s heart is in the right place. The desire of his heart and his prayers offered in Israel’s behalf dwell on her salvation. While Israel failed in regard to salvation, Paul has not failed in his hopes and prayers for their salvation. His persistence in desiring and praying for Israel’s salvation is well-founded, for God will someday bring this to pass. Israel’s disobedience and failure is temporary. Paul’s love and his desire for restoration is like God’s for this people. Paul reaffirms his hope for Israel based upon God’s character and purposes, at the beginning of each major section (9:1-5; 10:1; 11:1-5).

Israel’s Failure Described
(10:2-4)

For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Being religious is not the same as being righteous. Israel’s failure concerned righteousness. Although Israel might be commended for her religious zeal, she would be condemned for her lack of righteousness. The Jew’s zeal, in their minds, was a zeal for God. Paul knew this from his own experience.

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:1-6).

Israel’s zeal was a misinformed, ignorant zeal. Paul tells us they were ignorant concerning God’s righteousness. How could this be? Israel had first-hand experience with God and with His righteousness. Israel had the Law, which was the revelation of His righteousness. And most recently Israel had witnessed the righteousness of God in the person of Jesus Christ. No people had more revelation concerning the righteousness of God. How could they possibly be ignorant of His righteousness?

Paul provides the explanation: Israel’s problem was self-righteousness. Self-righteousness blinds men to God’s righteousness. Israel wanted to establish her own righteousness. She did not want to receive righteousness as a gift of grace, but she wanted to earn it as the wages of her own good works. In seeking to establish her own righteousness, Israel refused to submit to the righteousness of God as revealed and offered in Jesus Christ. Like Israel, those who wish to stand on their own merits will not submit themselves to the righteousness God provides. Israel did not want charity. The offer of righteousness was not overlooked as much as it was resisted and rejected. Israel’s “ignorance” was willful.

Israel failed to grasp that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:5). All Christians do not agree on what Paul means by these words. Some understand them to say that the Law has been put aside for all time, cast away as an ancient relic with no value at all to Christians. But Paul’s teaching in Romans makes clear that he does not agree with this interpretation.

According to Paul, the Law was a blessing from God—“they were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Romans 3:1-2). The Law was given by God as a revelation of His righteousness and as His standard for righteousness. By means of His Law, men are shown to be sinners (3:19-20). The Law bears witness to the righteousness of God in the person of Jesus Christ (3:21). The Law was given to define sin so that men might recognize it as such, something they would not have been able to do without the Law (7:7). According to Paul, the Law is “spiritual” (7:14); it “is holy, righteous, and good” (7:12). The Christian loves that which the Law requires and desires to do what the Law says (7:14-17). Our failure to live up to the standards of the Law demonstrates the weakness of our own flesh and the evil of sin (7:17-22). The Law’s requirements are met by those who walk in the Spirit (8:4). Those who love one another fulfill the Law (13:8-10).

The Law is hardly annulled by the coming of Christ. Our Lord Himself stated that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). As I understand the teaching of the New Testament, Christ is the “end of the law” in at least two ways. First, Christ is the “end” of the law in the sense that He is the fulfillment of the Law. He is the goal to which the Law pointed. His is the righteousness to which the Law bears testimony. The same righteousness which the Law defined, Jesus demonstrated. The same righteousness which the Law demanded, Jesus offers to sinful men; He produces His righteousness in those who believe in Him. He is the end result, the fulfillment of the Law’s demands for everyone who believes in Christ and who receives His righteousness. He is the One who produces righteousness in the lives of believers, in fulfillment of the Law’s requirements.

There is also a second sense in which the Lord puts an “end” to the law. Not only did the Law provide a standard and make demands, it pronounced a curse on all those who are unrighteous. The “wages of sin is death” (6:23). The death penalty pronounced on sinners by the Law is done away with in Christ for every believer. Christ died in the sinner’s place. Christ bore the curse of the Law. All those who have believed in Him have died, in Him, to the curse of the Law. The Law no longer pronounces a curse against us. While the standard of the Law remains, the curse of the Law has been done away with once for all, in Christ, for all who believe.

Works Righteousness
and Faith Righteousness Contrasted
(10:5-10)

For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Paul’s message in these verses is very clear. His method is another matter. Paul’s conclusion cannot be missed, but his use of two Old Testament texts may cause us to scratch our heads. Because of the difficulty of this text, let us come to it in the reverse of our normal approach. Let us begin with Paul’s conclusion which is clear, and then backtrack to see how Paul used these two texts from the Law to establish his point.

Paul’s Conclusion

The Jews failed to attain righteousness Paul has already informed us, not because they did not try but because they did try. The Gentiles attained righteousness without trying. What is the difference? The difference is between faith and works. The Jews tried to earn righteousness by law-keeping; the Gentiles attained righteousness as a gift, by faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Men are saved by believing in Jesus, not by behaving good enough to earn God’s approval.

The Texts Paul Uses

In verses 5-10, Paul seeks to contrast “works righteousness” with “faith righteousness.” In attempting to prove his point, Paul draws our attention to two Old Testament illustrations. The first illustration comes from a statement found initially in Leviticus 18:5 and repeated frequently thereafter. The essence of this statement is, “Do this and live.”250 The converse of this statement might be stated, “Do this or die.”251

Neither of Paul’s allusions to the Old Testament are direct quotes. In verse 5, Paul refers to what Moses has written, but there is no direct quote given as indicated by the editors of the NASB.252 In verses 6-8 Paul cites some of the words of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 but not in their exact form. In fact, Paul significantly modifies or restates the words of this passage. Before looking at these Old Testament passages as Paul has used them in Romans 10, let us look at these passages in their context in the Old Testament.

I view this preliminary step as especially important because of the modification Paul makes in citing these texts. It is also important because I wish to underscore that the Old Testament writers never conceived of the keeping of the Law as a means of attaining righteousness. In studying this passage in Romans, I was distressed to see several commentators speak of two different ways of salvation: (1) the Old Testament way of salvation by law-keeping and (2) the New Testament way of faith. This is simply not true. No Old Testament writer conceived of anyone being saved by their works. Salvation in the Old Testament, as in the New, was always by faith. This is what Paul underscored in Romans 4 when he showed that Abraham was saved by faith, apart from works.

While the Bible emphatically does not teach two ways of salvation, fallen man has always sought to be saved by his works. Thus, in Romans 10 Paul contrasts two kinds of righteousness—“faith righteousness” and “works righteousness.” The first (“faith righteousness”) is God’s only means for man’s salvation. The second (“works righteousness”) is man’s self-made system of salvation, a system which is neither biblical nor effective. When men strive to be saved by their own works, they do so in disobedience to the Word of God—not in obedience to it. Reviewing the context of these two Old Testament statements Paul refers to in our text will help us see how they were originally meant to be understood.

The Texts in Context

From early on in her history, Israel had been involved in idol worship. Rachel stole the household gods from her father, Laban (Genesis 31:19, 30-35). In Egypt, Israel was involved with the gods of that place, and they brought some of those gods with them, worshipping them in the wilderness (Ezekiel 20:5-8; Amos 5:25-26). While Moses was on Mt. Sinai, receiving the Law from God, the people persuaded Aaron to help them make an idol which they then worshipped (Exodus 32:1-6).

God had promised to lead this nation into the land of promise. There was a very practical problem, however: “How can a righteous and holy God dwell in the midst of a sinful, rebellious people?” As God said to them, if He would go up with them, He would destroy them on the way (Exodus 33:3).

God made several provisions for His people to enable Him to dwell in their midst—in a way that would not result in their death due to His holiness and their sin.

First, God provided the Law. The Law of Moses prescribed the conduct necessary for Israel to live in God’s presence without offending His righteousness. If they lived in accordance with His Law, they would not offend Him, and they would live. If they failed to keep His Law, they would die. The statement, “Do this and live,” might just as easily be stated, “Disobey this and die.”

Second, God provided the people with a sacrificial system. When there was sin, there was also death. The sacrificial system was instituted so that the sins of the people could be atoned for temporarily, by the shedding of the blood of a victim in the sinner’s place. The sacrificial system assumed the people would sin and that some provision for their sins must be made. The annual Day of Atonement assumed that this system of daily sacrifices would not be sufficient and that some sins would either be unrecognized or there would be no atonement for them. Thus, annually a general atonement was made for the people, putting off the payment of sins for a later time—that time when the Messiah would come and die once for all for the sins of His people.

Third, God provided the people with the tabernacle, a provision whereby a holy God could dwell in the midst of a sinful people without putting them to death for their sins. The tabernacle was a kind of corporate veil, shielding the holy God from a sinful nation. Were they to approach Him too closely, they would die. God dwelt within that tabernacle, and the high priest alone was allowed to enter into the holy of holies.

If law-keeping were God’s means of attaining righteousness, why was it necessary for these elaborate provisions to be made? If Law-keeping were God’s means of making men righteous, then why was it necessary for Christ to come to the earth and die in the sinner’s place? The Old Testament gave every indication that law-keeping was not going to justify anyone. Law-keeping was never a second way of salvation. It was something self-righteous men sought to do, in defiance of God, and in rejection of His provision of righteousness through faith.

Deuteronomy 30 is the second text to which Paul refers in Romans 10. These words are addressed to the second generation of Israelites, the children of those who were led out of Egypt by Moses. Their parents all died in the wilderness because of their unbelief and rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea (Numbers 13 and 14). Now, after the 40 years of wilderness wandering in which the first generation died, this generation was about to enter the land of promise.

Moses restated the Law in Deuteronomy 5. The people promised to obey, but God knew otherwise as He said to Moses:

“And the LORD heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, ‘I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They have done well in all that they have spoken. Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!’” (Deuteronomy 5:28-29).

In Deuteronomy 28-30, we find the key to Israel’s history and to the teaching of the Old Testament prophets. We shall briefly review Moses’ words spoken to the Israelites in these crucial chapters. In Deuteronomy 28:1-14, God spoke of the blessings He would pour out on His people if they would but love Him and keep His commandments. In a much larger and more extensive passage (28:15–29:29), Moses spelled out the consequences for disregarding God and His law. They would be cursed, and they would ultimately be sent into captivity (see 28:25, 32-33, 36, 41,49-50, 64, 68).

There are two key texts in chapter 29 to which I draw special attention:

“Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:4, 29).

In the first text, Moses indicates the source of Israel’s failure to trust and to obey God: the problem is one of the heart (see also Deuteronomy 5:28-29 cited above). Not until God changes the hearts of His people will they be able to keep His law. In the second text (verse 29), Moses calls Israel to give heed to what God has revealed in His law, rather than to seek to learn that which God has concealed. In the words of Jesus, centuries later, they were challenged not to “strain out a gnat and to swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24), but to take heed to the “camels” which God had revealed in His law.

In chapter 30, Moses begins to speak of the restoration of Israel. The turning point in Israel’s history will come about when God changes the hearts of His people, enabling them to hear and to understand His law:

“Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live …” (Deuteronomy 30:6).

We know these words to be an early promise of the New Covenant, and the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of God’s people, enabling them to love God and to keep His commandments. The prophets will pick up on this promise and speak of it in greater detail (see, for example, Jeremiah 24:7; 31:31-34; 32:38-40; Ezekiel 36:26).

It is after all this, in the sequence of Deuteronomy 28-30, that the words to which Paul refers are recorded in Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.”

In context, I believe Moses is picking up on his statement in Deuteronomy 29:29. He is warning the Israelites not to concentrate on that which is unknown, unrevealed and speculative, and exhorting them to focus on that which has been clearly communicated through the law. No one has to search out this truth. No one needs to work to obtain the message from God. He has not hidden His truth; He has revealed Himself clearly in the law He is giving. The people are challenged to receive the Law which Moses is stating for them as God’s revealed will. They do not need to strive to obtain it, either by going into heaven (for God has spoken from heaven) or by going across the sea. They need but to receive it and believe it, as He has revealed it in His law.

With regard to the statement found in Leviticus 18:5 and elsewhere, Moses never intended for the Israelites to receive it as an offer of righteousness by works, by keeping the law.253 In the second reference, this was not a clear-cut statement of the gospel. It was speaking not of Christ but of the commandment Moses was giving to this people.

These two Old Testament references are not, in their context or in the sense of their original meaning, a declaration of two ways of attaining righteousness. They are not two ways of salvation. Both are the words recorded by Moses. They must be understood in the light of their context. Paul’s use of them in Romans is not an explanation of them, as they were originally meant to be understood in the light of their context. How he meant to use them is our next consideration.

Paul’s Use of the Law in Romans 10:5-8

Having considered the Romans 10 texts Paul refers to in light of their original meaning, we now must seek to understand how Paul used them and meant for us to understand his use. The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is of great interest and importance. Having studied Paul’s use of the Old Testament for a semester in seminary, suffice it to say that our Lord and the New Testament writers used the Old Testament Scriptures in a variety of ways. Our trouble in understanding the use of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers is often rooted in our narrow grasp of how the Old Testament was interpreted and applied by those in New Testament times.254

In this portion of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul’s purpose is to contrast “works righteousness” with “faith righteousness.” His main point is Israel’s failure to achieve righteousness because she tried to earn it, by law-keeping, while the Gentiles attained righteousness by faith. The first principle, referred to in verse 5, may be summarized: “Do this and live.” This is not what Moses taught. It was what Israel concluded. This was their slogan. Since Moses was their hero, they would be inclined to abuse his words. Thus, Paul takes this slogan, “Do this and live” and makes it the motto of the legalist. Moses’ words were not meant to teach works righteousness, but they could be used to epitomize this error. Paul is not citing these words to prove that Moses taught works righteousness, but rather that Judaism supposed him to teach it. A legalistic interpretation and application of the Law of Moses could well be summarized: “Keep the law and live.”

The second reference to the words of Moses found in Romans 10:6-8 is perplexing. Let us begin by placing the two texts side by side so that we may compare them:

 

Deuteronomy 30:11-14

Romans 10:6-8

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down),

12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’

7 or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”

14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.”

8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching.

 

Several observations are necessary before we begin to understand how Paul is using the words of Moses.

(1) Paul does not introduce these words as though they were a quotation from Moses or from the Old Testament Scriptures. He introduces this reference to Deuteronomy 30 with the words, “But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus” (Romans 10:6). In Deuteronomy 30, Moses is speaking. In Romans 10, righteousness is speaking.

(2) Paul quotes some of the Deuteronomy passage, but not all of it. At best, Paul’s reference to Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is fragmentary. It is but a partial reference. Some might even call it an allusion, rather than a quotation.

(3) Paul changes the wording and the imagery of Deuteronomy 30. In Deuteronomy 30, the questions asked pertain to going up to heaven and going across the sea. In Romans 10, the questions pertain to going up to heaven and descending to the abyss. There is a substantial difference between the words of Moses and the words of Paul in regard to the second question.

(4) Paul changes the subject from the “commandment” to “Christ.” Deuteronomy 30 refers to the “commandment”255 which Moses is giving the people. Paul applies these words to Christ, first in His incarnation and Second in His resurrection.

(5) Paul adds interpretive statements which greatly modify the meaning and application of the text. The two statements contained in verses 6 and 7 are represented as parenthetical in the NASB. I think this is rightly so. But in making these two parenthetical statements, Paul changes the meaning and application of Deuteronomy considerably.

(6) The words of Moses in Leviticus 18:5 are used to illustrate “works righteousness,” while his words in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 are used to illustrate “faith righteousness.” The Jews were constantly trying to pit Moses against Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles. Paul pits Moses, as understood by the Jews, against Moses, as rightly understood by the apostles.

What then is Paul trying to achieve by referring so loosely to Deuteronomy? I think Paul is using this passage not as a prooftext but as an illustration of his point. He is not trying to make this Deuteronomy passage conform to his point in every detail, but rather to show how it illustrates his point in several important particulars.

If the words of Moses in Leviticus 18:5 (repeated by others elsewhere) can be twisted by legalistic Jews to justify their belief in “works righteousness,” his words in Deuteronomy 30 can be understood as illustrating the belief of Moses that men can only be saved by faith, apart from works.

Exchanging “the commandment” of Deuteronomy for “Christ,” Paul proceeds to make his point alluding to the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 30. Whether applied to “the commandment” or to “Christ,” the words of Moses taken up in part by Paul make the same point: “You do not have to do anything; just believe what God has revealed to you.” In the original words of Deuteronomy 30, Moses was warning Israel concerning self-effort. Those who heard these words did not need to “work” to obtain God’s revelation or His righteousness. They needed only to believe what God had said. In the context of Deuteronomy 30, they must trust in God to change their hearts, which would enable them to love God and to keep His commandments. Paul modifies the words of Moses to refer specifically to Christ. The Israelites did not need to initiate God’s salvation nor did they need to strive to attain it. They needed only to believe that God has sent Jesus from heaven and that He has raised Him from the dead. It was not doing which was necessary, but believing. Thus, Paul could freely use the words of Deuteronomy 30, because the point of the original passage and of Paul’s modification were the same: “Do not strive; just trust.” While the Old Testament text focuses more generally on the law, Paul’s modified reference focuses specifically on Christ, who was the “end of the law.” Thus, the modification made by Paul was completely legitimate. Paul simply brought this text up to date. He filled in the detail, “Christ,” which the law only anticipated.

Paul now draws upon the imagery of his illustration from Deuteronomy 30 to spell out the gospel which Israel must believe in order to be saved.

For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation (Romans 10:5-10).

Paul’s expression of the gospel is derived from the imagery and terminology of his words in verses 5-8. Salvation is based in Christ. It was He who descended at His incarnation. It was He who was raised in the resurrection. It is He who is the righteousness of God, who is offered to all who will believe in Him.

Saving faith involves both the heart and the mouth. We must believe in our hearts that God raised Jesus from the dead. We must confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord. That which must be believed and confessed can be summed up in two simple statements:

  • Jesus as Lord.
  • Jesus is alive, raised from the dead.

These two simple statements have such profound depth of meaning and implications they will take more than a lifetime to comprehend. Nevertheless, Paul finds it possible to sum up the content of our faith in these two major lines of truth: (1) Jesus as Lord; and, (2) Jesus has been raised from the dead. What do these two statements mean? Both are difficult for the unbeliever to accept and profess, whether Jew or Gentile. Both will require the believer to stand apart from his own culture and his own contemporaries.

The statement, “Jesus as Lord,” was deeply significant to a Jew or a Gentile. The Greek term, rendered “Lord” here, was a term used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) to refer to Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.0 For the Jew, this confession was the acknowledgment that Jesus was God and that He was the promised Savior. As such, He was to be trusted in and to be obeyed.

The implications of this confession for the Gentile were also profound. The Gentile was accustomed to thinking of Caesar as “Lord.” When a Gentile came to faith in Jesus, He recognized Him to be in the place of highest authority. It meant that obedience to Caesar must be subordinate to obedience to Christ. Because the Roman emperors viewed this as atheism, many Christians were put to death for their confession. Neither Jew nor Gentile could take these words lightly. Their culture would not allow it. To confess Jesus as Lord was to take a stand with Him and against their own culture. It was a confession that put the believer at risk. It was a confession which could only be made by faith. Such a confession set the believer apart from all others (see 1 Corinthians 12:3).

Belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the second requirement of the gospel, as defined and declared by Paul and the apostles. The Jews had rejected Jesus as a fraud and had insisted on His death. To admit that God had raised Jesus from the dead was to admit that they were wrong in their rejection of Jesus. To the Gentiles, resurrection from the dead was foolishness (see Acts 17:32). But as Paul insists in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection of our Lord from the dead is a fundamental doctrine at the very heart of the gospel. Our Lord Himself staked all of His claims on His resurrection from the grave and even His opponents knew it (Matthew 12:38-40; 27:62-66). It is the basis for our hope of eternal life. It is proof that the work of our Lord was acceptable to the Father (see Romans 4:25). The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was central to the preaching of the apostles, who were witnesses of His resurrection (see Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; 17:31).

The Gospel Summarized
(10:11-13)

For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; for “Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Paul explained Israel’s failure as a failure in the area of faith. The Jews who had a zeal for God “tried harder” to be righteous but failed because they sought to earn righteousness by their law-keeping. The Gentiles attained righteousness because they accepted it by faith. The way of works and the way of faith have been contrasted by Paul in verses 5-10. The words of Moses have been used to contrast these two approaches to righteousness. Now, in verses 11-13, Paul states the gospel in very simple terms, showing that the gospel proclaimed by the apostles is the same way of salvation proclaimed in the Old Testament. He does this by citing two Old Testament texts which proclaim the same gospel as that preached by the apostles. Using these two texts as the framework for his argument, Paul stresses two essential characteristics of the gospel.

Paul buttresses the statements he has made in verses 9 and 10 by citing these two Old Testament texts in verses 11-13. The two requirements of salvation—belief and confession—are shown to be Old Testament requirements. The necessity of belief is shown by Paul’s citation of Isaiah 28:16. The necessity of confession is demonstrated from Joel’s words in Joel 2:32, where “calling upon the name of the Lord” is tantamount to “confession.”

In addition to documenting the Old Testament requirements of belief and confession, these two Old Testament texts spell out two fundamental characteristics of the gospel. These characteristics of the gospel are not only fundamental, they are the very elements of the gospel which made it repulsive to the Jews. These are the two primary reasons why the Jews would have none of Jesus and none of the gospel He or His apostles proclaimed.

The first characteristic of the gospel, as proclaimed in the Old Testament and the New, is that righteousness is offered and attained on the basis of faith alone, and not by works. In the context of Joel’s prophecy and that of Isaiah, it is faith alone, and not good works, which is required for salvation. The prophets did not call upon Israel to work harder at law-keeping, but to simply believe in God and in His provision for righteousness and salvation in the Messiah who was to come. The new covenant promised salvation through a work which the Spirit of God would bring about in the “stone hearts” of lost men. Salvation, both then and now, comes only when men cease to trust in themselves and turn in faith to that salvation God has provided in Jesus Christ.

The second characteristic Paul stresses from the Old Testament is that the gospel is universal. The gospel is not for Jews only, but for all who will believe. Salvation has nothing to do with one’s race, but only with faith. As the prophet Isaiah put it, “whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed” (Isaiah 28:16). Joel is Paul’s second witness. He likewise offers salvation to “whoever calls on the name of the LORD.” The key word in both quotations is “whoever.”

The Jews thought God’s salvation was exclusively for Jews. They at least wanted to insist that Gentiles come to faith through Judaism. God will have no part of this. The gospel is for all men, all who will believe that Jesus is God’s Messiah, whom God raised from the dead. All who will confess Him as Lord and who believe He was raised from the dead shall be saved. In its most concise terms, this is the essence of the gospel.

Conclusion

The reasons for Israel’s unbelief and the salvation of many Gentiles are now before us. We see first that many physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) are not saved, because God has not chosen them for salvation as told in chapter 9. But there is more to the story. In chapter 10 we are given the “rest of the news.” Israel is in a state of unbelief, because those who are lost have rejected the gospel. Because they do not wish to receive righteousness as a gift, undeserved, and on the basis of faith alone, they have rejected God’s righteousness in Christ Jesus.

When men perish eternally, there are two causes. First, God did not choose to save them from their sins. Second, they chose to sin and to compound their sin by rejecting God’s provision for sin, Jesus Christ. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility together explain Israel’s plight.

Men reject the gospel because it does not suit them; it does not conform to the way they wish to be saved. The gospel will give no credit to man for attaining righteousness; it will only give glory to God. The gospel is God’s offer of righteousness and salvation through the gift of His Son, Jesus Christ. He came down to the earth and added sinless humanity to His perfect deity. He took upon Himself the sins of the world, and by His death on Calvary, He bore the penalty for sin which each one of us deserve. He offers to sinners not only the forgiveness of sins, but the righteousness of God. Anyone who believes that Jesus is God’s Messiah, who has died and been raised from the dead, and who confesses Him as Messiah God, will be saved. You may be Jew or Gentile; it matters not. What does matter is that you believe in the Lord Jesus and confess Him before men.

There are some who wish to make salvation a private matter. For them, spiritual matters are very personal, and they politely suggest that we mind our own business when we speak to them about their personal relationship with God. The gospel is a personal matter, for each individual must decide in his or her heart what he or she will do with Jesus Christ. The gospel cannot be and must not be a private matter. The gospel requires not only that men make a decision, but that they take a stand. It was never conceived in the New Testament that one would make a private decision to believe in Jesus and yet not take a public stand in baptism.1 The gospel as Paul proclaims it does not give men the option to believe without taking a public stand for Christ.

Confession is not a work we do which merits God’s favor. It is simply an act of obedience and an evidence that one really does believe in Jesus Christ. Confession is necessary because there are, by popular opinion at least, two ways of attaining righteousness—the first by faith in Jesus Christ and the second by good works. The second of these is neither biblical nor legitimate, but it is the “way” which unbelievers choose. Confession that Jesus is Lord acknowledges that we have changed sides, that we have forsaken self-righteousness and turned to God for His righteousness, by faith. In a world in which there are only two sides—those for God and those against Him—salvation requires that we declare that we are now on God’s side. It is the evidence of our faith.

It may be that you have not yet trusted in Jesus Christ as God’s provision for your salvation. You may well believe the right things about Jesus and yet never have believed in Jesus. Do you believe that Jesus is both God and God’s Messiah, that He has come to the earth, died for your sins, and been raised from the dead for your justification? Have you confessed Him as Lord before men? All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Do it today. No one will be turned away who calls upon Him in faith and who professes Him to be Lord in simple obedience.

I dare not leave our text without calling your attention to a very distressing fact. Those whom Paul refers to as not only unbelievers but as “ignorant” are the Jews, the most well-informed people on the face of the earth. They had the Old Testament revelation of the Law and the Prophets. They had seen and heard the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. They could not deny the empty tomb, and they heard the gospel as proclaimed to them by the apostles. Those who refused to believe in Jesus were not uninformed, but they were ignorant. How could this be?

Paul talks more about this later in Romans 10. The ignorance of the Jews was willful. But for now, let me suggest a few principles pertaining to “biblical ignorance.” I hope these will be helpful and challenging.

(1) You may be ignorant of the Scriptures, even though you are zealously religious. Paul grants that the Jews were zealous. He even grants that they were “zealous for God” (verse 2), but they were lost. And they were ignorant. They were ignorant of God’s righteousness and of that which they must have to be saved. Religious people will be found in hell. Zealously religious people will be there. Religion that does not conform and submit to the Scriptures is false religion; it is idolatry; it is damnable religion.

(2) You may be ignorant of the Scriptures even though you are a biblical scholar. The Jews were hardly ignorant of the Scriptures. They knew them well. They considered themselves to be experts concerning the Law (see Romans 2, especially verses 17-24). But in the final analysis, they were ignorant concerning the Law. The gospel which they rejected is that which Paul has taught from the Old Testament.

Those who took it upon themselves to oppose and correct Jesus were the religious leaders and the biblical scholars of that day. And yet Jesus repeatedly rebuked them for their ignorance concerning the Scriptures (see, for example, Matthew 5; 12:23-33). Why was it that the scholars were so ignorant and that people whom they considered “ignorant” (see Luke 10:21; Acts 4:13) were able to understand the Scriptures?

(3) You may be ignorant of the Scriptures when you reject that which is clear and compelling, but choose to focus on that which is unrevealed, obscure, or trivial. The Deuteronomy 30 text to which Paul referred gives three vitally important principles which should guide us in our study of the Scriptures, particularly in our study of the Old Testament of which the Jews were ignorant.

First, we must study the Scriptures not as an academic exercise of the mind, but in order to know and to practice what God wants us to do.

Many wish to study the Scriptures as an intellectual exercise. They wish to deal with truth academically and philosophically. They do not wish to obey as much as to know (see Hebrews 5:13 and 14). It is ironic that in the very words which the unbelieving Jews used as their slogan, “Do this and live,” their problem was revealed. They were to do something, but it was not, first and foremost, to keep the Law; it was to believe in God. This is precisely what Jesus told the Jews of His day:

They said therefore to Him. “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:28-29).

Their “work,” that is, their responsibility, their obligation, was to believe what God had revealed. Their righteousness was to be the result of faith. Biblical scholarship can become deadly if and when it ceases to approach the Scriptures as the revelation of God, His righteousness, and His grace. When we view the Bible as something to only know, rather than as something to believe and to do, we have lost sight of its purpose.

Secondly, we should study the Scriptures in terms of that which God has said clearly, emphatically, and dogmatically, and not in terms of what is not revealed.

In Deuteronomy 30, Moses directed the Israelites to focus on what God had clearly revealed. They did not have to ascend into heaven or to cross the sea to know His will; He had revealed it to them clearly in His Word. They did not need scholars to tell them what it meant—its meaning was clear. And those things which God had not revealed clearly were not to be given great thought or effort.

How we have failed to follow this divine directive! We are not to “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). We are to devote ourselves to the “camels.” The Jewish myths and fables, that false teaching and emphasis of the Judaisers of which Paul consistently warned the church, was almost always speculative and theoretical. Its attention was focused on what God had not said, rather than on what He had clearly revealed (see 1 Timothy 1:5-8; 2 Timothy 2:23).

I see the same tendency among Christians. We often want to delve deep into that which is mysterious, unclear, and even unrevealed. Often we have a fetish about prophecy for this very reason—we love mysteries. We are constantly into conspiracy theories and other types of intrigue. God simply wants us to focus on what He has said in His Word—clearly—repeatedly—and emphatically. Let us not wander off into the realm of the obscure.

Thirdly, our study of the Scriptures should focus on God and the righteousness and salvation which He provides in Christ.

Those who correctly searched the Scriptures found Christ there. Those who searched for Christ in the Old Testament Scriptures looked for His coming and recognized Him when He appeared. Our study of the Old Testament should be Christ-centered. Those who are ignorant will approach the Scriptures from a self-centered perspective. From this perspective, they will always miss the truth and remain ignorant of that which was meant to produce life and growth.

I do not wish to leave the impression that striving to be a biblical scholar is wrong. Israel’s failure was not in studying the Scriptures but in how they studied them. May God grant that we would study the Old Testament more to find there the same gospel revealed in the New Testament. And may we find there, more and more, the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. May we dwell on what God has revealed, rather than on that which He has not. To God be the glory.


249 I like the outline of the entire chapter suggested by Stifler: “The chapter contains four topics: (1) Israel failed to see that Christ was the end of the law (vv. 1-4); (2) the free character of salvation (vv. 5-11); (3) its universal character (vv. 12-18); and (4) they failed to see that all this, as well as their own rejection, was the prediction of their own Scriptures (vv. 19-21).” James A. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960), p. 173.

250 See Leviticus 18:5; Nehemiah 9:29; Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21.

251 See, for example, Deuteronomy 28:22, 25, 26, 45, 63, 66.

252 If it were a direct quote, the NASB would have put the words quoted in capital letters. This can be seen in verses 6-8. Only the words found in the Old Testament passage are in capital letters. The other words, supplied by the author citing the Old Testament, are printed normally.

253 Note how Joshua’s final words to Israel in Joshua 23 and 24 parallel those of Moses, his predecessor, and how they indicate that Israel will never obtain righteousness by law-keeping.

254 There is also a very profitable area of study to be found in the use of the Books of the Law by the prophets. The use of the exodus motif in Isaiah 40-55 was the subject of my master’s thesis.

255 Note that “commandment” is singular and not plural (“commandments”). The commandment, however, seems to encompass all the commandments, all the law. The “commandment” is to love God and keep all His commandments.

0 “‘Lord’ (Kurios) was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) to translate the word for ‘Jehovah’ (Yahweh), the peculiar name for the true God of Israel. It is His saving name (see Exod. 3:7-22), especially v. 14; literally, ‘He will be that [which] he will be’; Jehovah was revealing himself as the one redeeming Israel from bondage. When used of Jesus in the strictly Christian sense, it means that he is Jehovah in flesh for man’s salvation. No Jew would confess ‘Lord Jesus’ who did not really believe it.” Herschel H. Hobbs, Romans (Waco: Word Books, 1977), p. 135.

1 In the Book of Acts, taking a public stand and identifying with Jesus Christ literally did “save” those Jews who believed and were baptized. Baptism marked the new believers out as Christians. The result was a separation from their old way of life, and from those who rejected Jesus. The result also was a joining in with the church, with other believers. When a person became identified with Christ and with His church, they suffered persecution for their faith and profession. The persecution which arose against the saints in Jerusalem drove them out of the city (see Acts 8:1ff.) and spared them from the destruction of the city by Rome, which was a divine judgment against Jerusalem for its unbelief and rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.

Related Topics: Regeneration, Justification

Q. How Closely Are We Obligated To Follow All New Testament Commands?

What do you make of the scriptures that Paul wrote of a head covering for women in a worship service…and also the kiss of charity that he referred to; were these just cultural things that were practiced, or commands? I grew up in a very conservative church that taught these things must be obeyed…as well as modesty in dress, especially for women…seems like most churches ignore this...what are your thoughts? Thanks

Answer

Dear Friend,

Thanks for your question. It is a good one, and very much an issue of our day.

First of all, I am committed to address biblical issues by using biblical terms. When there is no biblical term (or synonym) I seek to find biblical texts which address the issue, directly or indirectly. But in this case, I believe that when the Bible speaks of “the world,” this term very closely approximates our contemporary term “culture.” Thus, when thinking in terms of the church’s response to the culture in which it exists, I believe texts like these apply:

1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1-2, NAU).

18 “And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, 19 but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful” (Mark 4:18-19).

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you” (John 15:18; see also John 17:14).

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Corinthians 1:20-21).

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God (1 Corinthians 2:12).

But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8).

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world (James 1:27).

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first (2 Peter 2:20).

15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever (1 John 2:15-17).

4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith. 5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:4-5)

One can also deal with larger texts of Scripture, such as Ephesians 4:17ff. Paul there urges the saints to stop thinking and acting as they once did, but to have their minds renewed, so that the thinking and behavior that characterized them as unbelievers is replaced with that which we are taught in Christ (see also Colossians 3).

So the question is, “When does the Scripture encourage us to be shaped by and conformed to the culture of the unbelieving world in which we live?” Strangely, the very same things which Christians are seeking to set aside as irrelevant to Christians today are those which are greatly disdained and opposed by our culture. If our culture embraced and valued the things which the Scriptures instruct, how much effort would we expect to find in the church to set them aside, as it is now doing?

Several issues come to mind which shape the way we interpret and apply Scripture.

First, Do We Approach Scripture With A Predisposition And Commitment To Obey God’s Word, Or With A Mindset Which Seeks To Avoid Obedience To Him?

33 Teach me, O LORD, the way of Your statutes,
And I shall observe it to the end.

34 Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law
And keep it with all my heart.

35 Make me walk in the path of Your commandments,
For I delight in it (Psalm 119:33-35).

I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes
Forever, even to the end. (Psalm 119:112).

“If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself” (John 7:17).

Second, Do We See Ourselves As Over God’s Word, Or Under It?

Are we the one’s who pass judgment on what God says, or does what God say judge us?

12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:12-13).

The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times (Psalm 12:6).

Your word is very pure, Therefore Your servant loves it (Psalm 119:140).

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

“For My hand made all these things,
Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD.
“But to this one I will look,
To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isaiah 66:2).

When we arrogantly think we can pass judgment on God’s Word, picking what parts to obey and which parts to set aside, we are placing ourselves over the Word.

Third, We Must Not Approach God’s Word “Legalistically.”

In the New Testament we can easily see that legalistic Judaism sought to narrow the scope of God’s Word, so that its obligations and applications were minimal.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ 19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it (Matthew 23:16-22).

When we approach God’s Word, we must seek its meaning and application as that which is broadly applicable, rather than narrow and limited in its scope. If this were not the way God intended it, how could the psalmist possibly look at the Old Testament law as something extensive in its implications and applications?

97 O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. 98 Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, For they are ever mine. 99 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts. 101 I have restrained my feet from every evil way, That I may keep Your word. 102 I have not turned aside from Your ordinances, For You Yourself have taught me. 103 How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way. 105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path (Psalm 119:97-105).

Judaism and Jesus interpreted the Law of Moses in radically different ways. Judaism (at least legalistic Judaism) approached the Law as a collection of very specific and precise rules and regulations, a collection to which they felt compelled to add. They sought to create a system of laws that would address every conceivable situation. Thus, when the Law taught that one should not muzzle his ox when it was treading the grain (Deuteronomy 25:4), it was thought to apply only to those who owned oxen which they used to tread grain. But for those who saw these specific laws as teaching much more general principles, the law about oxen and grain was meant to teach that “laborer was worthy of his hire.” That is the way Paul handled the Old Testament Scriptures:

9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. 11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? 14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:9-14).

If we interpreted Scripture legalistically, we might suppose that these commands have no relationship to us and to how we live our lives:

“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [a safety rail] for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it” (Deuteronomy 22:8).

“You shall bring the choice first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God. “You are not to boil a young goat in the milk of its mother” (Exodus 23:19; also 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21).

When interpreted in terms of the principle underlying the law about parapets, one can see that we are commanded to seek to prevent harm to others by eliminating potential sources of injury or harm to our neighbor. [This is why we put a glass barrier on top of the low upper balcony railing of our church, even though the city building code did not require this. We also installed an elevator for the elderly and infirmed, to prevent falls, and to facilitate access.]

You may wonder why God repeated the command not to boil a kid (a young goat) in its mother’s milk. I believe that these are the kinds of laws that prompted the psalmist to spend much time meditating on God’s law (Psalm 119:97).

Think about it for a moment. The milk of a mother goat is specifically designed to sustain the life of her offspring (this applies to many other animals and their milk as well). Do you see the inconsistency of using that very milk to prepare her offspring for you to eat? So what does that have to do with us, today? A mother’s womb is designed for the purpose of sustaining the life of her unborn child. An abortion uses this as the point of access from which the fetus is torn, in order to kill it. It is like using a life preserver to beat a drowning swimmer to death. These interpretations and applications require meditation, and this is precisely what we find described in Psalm 119.

Coming to New Testament commands, let us think for a moment about the five-fold command to “greet one another with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14). We should begin by noting that this kiss is said to be a holy kiss, rather than a Hollywood kiss. Many churches observe this practice of kissing one another in a wonderful way, as a few do in our church. But our society has so corrupted the act of kissing that it could be abused or misunderstood. In this case, as with all commands, we would do well to consider the principle underlying the command. I believe it is clear that Christians should openly demonstrate their love for one another by means of a godly symbolic act. Could that be a handshake? Perhaps. But it should be an act that communicates godly love, as well as one that is consistent with other Scripture (see 1 Thessalonians 5:22)

We should be aware of the fact that not all “commands” or instructions in the Bible have the same priority (“weight”):

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Matthew 23:22-23).

Some commands such as these may outrank others:

“Thus has the LORD of hosts said, ‘Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother” (Zechariah 7:9).

He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

The commands to submit to those in authority (for example, Romans 13:1-7) do not require us to disobey God, so submission to God outranks submission to men:

27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:27-29; see also Daniel 3 and 6).

It is rare, but possible, that obedience to one command in the Bible may require apparent “disobedience” to another. This is particularly evident in those instances where Jesus or His disciples were accused of violating the Sabbath. Note the occasions where “violating” the Sabbath was justified:

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? 6 “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:1-8).

1 Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, 4 how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?” 5 And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” 6 On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him. 8 But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And he got up and came forward. 9 And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at them all, He said to him, “Stretch out your hand!” And he did so; and his hand was restored. 11 But they themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus. (Lk. 6:1-11 NAU)

11 And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, He called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your sickness.” 13 And He laid His hands on her; and immediately she was made erect again and began glorifying God. 14 But the synagogue official, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, began saying to the crowd in response, “There are six days in which work should be done; so come during them and get healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” 15 But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead him away to water him? 16 “And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13:11-16)

All of this is prompting me to reconsider my own understanding of our Lord’s instruction in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5-7). I used to think that Jesus was saying something like this: “The Old Testament Law taught this, but I’m raising the bar. I am setting an even higher standard than the Law.” I am now inclined to think that Jesus is saying something like this:

“You have always restricted the application of the Law so that you can escape its demands, or satisfy yourself that you are keeping it, and are therefore righteous. When you interpret the Law as God meant it to be, you will see that its application is much broader, and also much more extensive and demanding, so that you can’t escape its requirements or meet its standard of righteousness. For example, you take the Law in its most limited application when you believe that the command “not to kill” only applies to actual murder. But this is not the case. If God forbids murder, then His command goes further, to get to one of the root causes of murder – hate. Since the command not to kill extends to hating, it is sin to hate, for it leads to murder. So, too, with adultery and lust. The Law forbids and condemns lust because it leads to adultery. The Ten Commandments, then, are very broad in their application, so broad that no one should dare to think he meets God’s standard of righteousness.”

The “righteousness” of the scribes and Pharisees was measured in terms of a very narrow obedience to God’s commands. When limited to the absolute letter of the law, the scribes and Pharisees could claim to have obeyed the whole law, and thus they concluded that they were righteous:

18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich (Luke 18:18-23).

Legalistic Judaism had (and still has) literally hundreds of specific rules and regulations, because they required a specific, literal, command for every situation in life (which we should know is impossible). God summed up the entire Law in Ten Commandments, and then Jesus went on to sum up these Ten Commandments in two commands:

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38 “This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40).

Jesus distilled the essence of the Law down to two commands, something Judaism could never do; they could only expand the law with more and more rules. So, did the rich young ruler really obey the Law, the entire Law, as he claimed? No, not by our Lord’s interpretation of the Law and its application. If the Law boils down to loving God with one’s whole heart, and one’s neighbor as himself, then out of love for God this man would give up his wealth to meet the needs of his poor neighbors. This man’s narrow and restrictive (legalistic) interpretation of the Law gave him the false impression that he was living in full obedience to the law. But when viewed through the broader meaning and application of the Law, this man failed badly. He was not righteous, and he was not willing to embrace what the Law required.

There is yet another way that some seek to narrow the application of Scripture, in order to avoid its requirements, and that is by seeking to view the instruction through a cultural lens. When it comes to those texts which set limits on women—so that they are not permitted to lead men in the church gathering (1 Timothy 2:9-15; 1 Corinthians 14:33-40)—great effort is made by some to restrict or set aside that instruction. They reason that while Paul’s instructions applied to the people to whom he was writing, the circumstances we find ourselves in today are different, and thus the commands do not apply to us. Somehow Paul’s instructions are dealing with a unique (cultural) situation, they claim, so that his instructions do not apply generally.[1]

This simply does not square with the Scriptures. For example, we frequently hear it said that Paul’s instructions regarding the dress and conduct of women set forth in 1 Corinthians applies to women there and then, but not to women now. But listen to Paul’s words, which surely broaden the application of his words, rather than narrow it:

1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours (1 Corinthians 1:1-2).

16 Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Corinthians 4:16-17).

Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17).

But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God (1 Corinthians 11:16).

33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1 Corinthians 14:33-38).

When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16).

One further note regarding the attempt to set aside Scripture by linking Paul’s instructions (or any other author of Scripture) to the culture of a certain time and place is worth pointing out. Paul does not seek to validate his instructions regarding women in 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Timothy 2 by appealing to culture. His instructions are based upon the creation (1 Corinthians 11:9) and fall of man (1 Timothy 2:12-15), or the fact that angels are looking on (1 Corinthians 11:4-10).

Indeed, as I read the account of the fall of man in Genesis chapter 3, and then observe the efforts of those who seek to set aside Paul’s instructions which prohibit women from leading men in the church it seems to me that the current uprising of women today against God’s Word is strikingly similar to the rebellion of Eve in the garden. (And, of course, this is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Timothy chapter two.)

God situated Adam and Eve in a beautiful garden, with a vast assortment of desirable edibles. The trees and their fruit were all desirable. Eve was at least partially right to conclude that even the forbidden tree “was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6; see also 3:22). Satan convinced (deceived) Eve that God could not be good to forbid the two of them to partake of this one tree, since its fruit appeared to be so good. She, like Satan (Isaiah 14:13-14) aspired to be “like God” and she trusted in her judgment, rather than in God Himself, and thus chose to disobey God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. The results were disastrous, and the consequences, in part, are reflected by Paul’s instructions regarding the participation of men and women in the church.

Think about it for a moment. Is it not true that some women resist and reject Paul’s teaching in the same way that Eve rejected God’s “restrictive” command not to partake of the forbidden tree? From our point of view, there was no reason for Adam and Eve to refrain from eating of the forbidden fruit other than the fact that God forbade it (and He did indicate why—if they ate of it they would die). Women are not forbidden from leading the church because they are easily deceived (more so than men), or because they do not have equivalent leadership abilities. They are forbidden for the same reason that God forbade eating certain “unclean” foods – God forbade it. And so the test of our obedience is whether or not we will obey God when it does not make sense to us, when we cannot understand why we are prohibited from that which appears good to us.

What we fail to recognize is the symbolic lesson in all of this, a lesson that God intends angels and people to observe and ponder (see 1 Corinthians 11:10). The submission and silence of women is symbolic of the fall and its consequences, just as baptism and communion symbolize salvation.

Think of what opportunities for witness obedience to Paul’s instructions could provide. A person asks a woman whose head is covered, or who is silent when others speak, “Why do you wear that covering, and why don’t you speak in the gathering of the church? Why are you not an elder, and why don’t you preach? What an opening! She could say something like this: “Well, it is all a reminder of the original sin in the Garden of Eden and its consequences. Because Eve led her husband, God requires that men now lead in the church, and in the marriage. And while my submission is symbolic of the fall and its consequences, God provided for forgiveness, and for fellowship with Him. Because I do not speak or lead, I have more freedom to focus on listening to God, through His Word and through others who proclaim it. The penalty for sin, which began as a result of the fall, has now been taken on by Jesus, who came to the earth, who lived a sinless life, and who died and was raised from the dead, so that trusting in Him my sins could be forgiven and I can have eternal life in fellowship with Him. . .”

My challenge is that we embrace things as God’s Word presents them, and use the position in which God has placed us to proclaim the gospel, to His glory and to the eternal good of mankind.

Blessings,

Bob Deffinbaugh


1 I will not seek to deal with it here, but there are those who would seek to convince us that Paul’s instructions are also his personal opinion, and not God’s command. This flies in the face of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:33-38. We should also observe from 1 Corinthians chapter 7 that Paul is careful to distinguish God’s instruction through him (1 Corinthians 7:10) and his opinions or personal convictions (1 Corinthians 7:6).

Related Topics: Christian Life, Ecclesiology (The Church), Scripture Twisting, Teaching the Bible, Women

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 43, Spring 2022

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Expository Preaching:
Preaching N.T. Gospels, Pt. 2

This series on “Strengthening Expository Preaching” started with the Fall 2018 edition (Issue 29) of this NET Pastors Journal. The purpose of this current series is to build on what we learned in the previous series (“The Essentials of Expository Preaching,” Issues 1-28, Fall 2011 to Summer 2018). So far in this current series we have covered the following topics:

1. Strengthening sermon introductions (Fall 2018)

2. Strengthening sermon conclusions (Winter 2019)

3. Strengthening sermon illustrations (Spring 2019)

4. Strengthening sermon applications (Summer and Fall 2019)

5. Strengthening biblical interpretation (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall 2020)

6. Strengthening preaching Hebrew narrative (Winter and Spring 2021)

7. Strengthening preaching Hebrew poetry (Summer and Fall 2021).

8. Strengthening preaching N.T. Gospel (Winter 2022).

In the Winter 2022 edition, I covered Section A, “The Gospel Genre: Its literary style, structure, and characteristic.” In this edition I will continue with the same topic, moving on to section B…

B. Interpretive Hints And Principles For Understanding Gospel Narratives

I have been particularly helped in this section by the work of Graeme Goldsworthy (“Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,” 222-232), Sidney Greidanus (“Handbook of Contemporary Preaching,” 329-343), and J. Scott Duval and J. Daniel Hays (“Grasping God’s Word,” 249-253).

1. Be aware of differences in perspective. Interpretation is affected by perspective. Our perspective differs from that of the Gospel writers due in large part to the cultural, chronological, theological, and linguistic gaps between them and us. When we preach the Gospels, therefore, we need to be aware of these differences and interpret them appropriately.

The first question to ask ourselves is: “What is the theological thrust or intent of the Gospel writer?” I think we are safe to say that the overall message of all of the Gospel writers is the kingdom of God. Indeed, as Sidney Greidanus writes, “all four Gospels tie this central message of the kingdom of God to the person and work of Jesus Christ…This all-encompassing good news – that in Jesus Christ the kingdom of God is coming near, has come, and will come - calls for a theocentric-Christocentric interpretation of each individual preaching-text from the Gospels” (“Preaching in the Gospels,” 332).

2. Start with textual analysis. Textual analysis helps you gain a better understanding of the structure and content of the story.

As to structure, typically, the Gospel stories are structured around four progressive sections:

(1) The life situation, context, or background.

(2) The problem or issue at hand.

(3) The conflict or climax.

(4) The resolution.

(5) The conclusion - an application, lesson, or challenge.

In the structure, you want to learn what drives the story forward – is it questions, fear, opposition to Jesus etc.?

As to content, you can fairly easily analyze its context, characters, places, and events by asking six standard questions of the text:

(1) Who are the characters involved? – either named or unnamed.

(2) What takes place?

a) The background of the story.

b) The issue involved (e.g. a healing or a storm etc.).

c) The progression of events.

d) What the characters said or did or how they reacted etc.

(3) When did this take place? – the time of day or season of year, during a Jewish festival or at a wedding etc.

(4) Where did this take place? – on the lake, at a private home, in a city, in the synagogue etc.

(5) Why did the events of this story take place? – to perform a miracle, to expose someone’s faith or lack of faith, or because of doubt about who Jesus was etc.? In this analytical step, look for any clues the author may give as to the purpose of the story. These clues may be given at the beginning or end of the story. Take the example (from Duval and Hays) of Mark 4:35-41 where the final question by the disciples indicates that Mark included this event to teach and reinforce who Jesus was. He was not merely a rabbi but God himself, who alone controls and directs his creation.

(6) How does the story unfold? – to answer someone’s need or question, to show Jesus’ power over nature or his intervention in a crisis etc.

Another helpful analytical tool is to take note of the use of repetition in the story. This is an interpretive pointer in all biblical literature not just Gospels - the repetition of a word, phrase, or theme. Repetition is used by the author to drive the point home unmistakably.

3. Determine the universal, theological principle of the story. Once you have carefully analyzed the story’s structure and content, then you need to draw it together into the overall principle it is teaching. Here you are answering the question: “What is the point of the story?” In particular, what is the theological point the author is making by including this story and telling it as he did? Is it about relationships or faith or unbelief etc.? Is there a lesson in the story that we need to learn? Is our reaction to Jesus mirrored in the reactions described in the story?

Sometimes the Gospel writers emphasize a point through a series of stories. For example, Luke 15 contains three parabolic stories: (1) The lost sheep; (2) The lost coin; and (3) The lost son. Our job is to determine the common theological point that connects them. That one story is connected thematically to the one before or the one after can often be determined by the setting, the characters, the themes (e.g. the common theme in Lk. 15 is “lost” and “found”).

Once you have determined the theological principles, try to state them in ways that are relevant, applicable, and personalized to your audience today. This is what we need to preach – the theological point that is applicable to all audiences for all time. It’s easy to retell the story itself for your audience, but our job is to tell them more than that. Our job is to flesh out the principles of the story, not only as they relate to the characters in the story but more particularly as they relate to us. We need to answer the question: “What does this have to do with me?” In so doing, be sure to be faithful to the text itself within the context of the larger story of Scripture.

Final Remarks. These steps are critical when you are preparing to preach a Gospel narrative. It is not acceptable to merely retell the story and draw some moral applications from it. You must understand the Gospel writer’s theological perspective and Christocentric focus, analyze the story’s structure and content, and determine the theological principle of the story as a whole as well as of each scene of the story. Then you are ready to prepare your sermon and appropriately apply the story’s principles to life today.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership
“The Ministry Of Reconciliation, Pt. 4: An Appeal For The Reconciliation Of God’s People To God’s Minister” (2 Cor. 6:11-7:16)

The subject of the ministry of reconciliation unifies the entire section from 2 Corinthians 5:18 to 2 Corinthians 7:16, as follows:

A. The reconciliation of all people (2 Cor. 5:18-21).

B. The reconciliation of God’s people (2 Cor. 6:1-7:16)

(1) Their reconciliation to God (2 Cor. 6:1-2).

(2) Their reconciliation to God’s ministers (6:3-7:16) - for reconciliation to God can only be fully and properly accomplished by reconciliation to the pastor as well, for he is God’s ambassador (5:20).

In this study we will examine 2 Corinthians 6:11-18 and continue our study of this section in following editions.

First, let me make some introductory comments here about the structure of the passage we are about to study (2 Cor. 6:11-7:16) because there has been extensive debate among textual critics as to whether this was written by the apostle Paul and, if it was, whether it contains a fragment from another letter. The reason for this debate is that the language of 6:11-13 changes so abruptly in 6:14-7:1. Indeed, 7:2 seems to carry on from 6:13, with 6:14-7:1 as an unconnected insert. But in fact, the flow of thought can be traced throughout the passage without any need to conjecture that 6:14-7:1 is a fragment from some other document or an editorial insert. Indeed, the phrasing of 7:3 (“for I have already said that you are in our hearts”) is a clear reference back to 6:11-13 and infers that he has said something else in between.

This section, then, is the climax of an integrated treatise about Paul’s apostolic ministry that began in 2:14 and finishes in 7:16. As David Garland astutely points out, rather than being a digression, this final section that we are studying sums up his whole argument with a climactic appeal. Hence, the list of imperatives: (a) “Be reconciled to God “(5:20); (b) “We appeal to you ‘Don’t receive the grace of God in vain’” (6:1); (c) “Open your heart to us” (6:13); (d) “Do not be yoked together with those who do not believe” (6:14); (e) “Come out...be separate...do not touch” (6:17); and (f) “Make room for us in your hearts” (7:2) [see David Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, 322-323].

First, Paul’s appeal to them is based on…

1. A Pastoral Appeal of Love (6:11-13). “11 We have spoken openly to you, Corinthians; our heart has been opened wide. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 I speak as to my children; as a proper response, open your heart to us.”

This address to the Corinthians is unique in Paul’s letters to them. Perhaps he uses this mode of address to express the love he feels for them in his heart and to make his appeal particularly personal by calling them by name. Paul has been frank and transparent with them not only in his speech but also in his affections. He has spoken openly to them because of his love for them. No doubt his straightforward speech is motivated by the danger that they faced if they pursued the course they were on. The greater the danger, the more overt and frank are our warnings, as we know when we supervise children. The openness of his heart toward them has never changed despite their sinful practices which needed stern rebuke. His love for them and his rebuke of them are not mutually exclusive – he does not express and feel love for them only when they are going on perfectly and properly for the Lord (although that would undoubtedly be his preference).

In appealing to them as their pastor, he stresses his love for them - “our heart has been opened wide” (6:11). But love must be reciprocal. While “we are not withholding our affection from you,” he says, “you are withholding yours from us” (6:12). Thus, Paul further appeals to them to reciprocate his love – “open your hearts to us” (6:13). The fervency and genuineness of his affection for them had not wavered; whereas their love for him had dissipated, or at least was not evident. This is not unusual for someone who has been severely rebuked and who is living a lifestyle that is the polar opposite of the one who has rebuked them.

It is instructive how Paul communicates this rebuke to them. He does so in the context of expressing and assuring them of his love for them (6:11-13; 7:2-4). This is a timely reminder to us, that in order for rebuke to be accepted and effective, it must be done in the spirit of love. When dealing with believers who are sinning, while we must discipline them if there is no repentance (cf. 1 Cor. 5), nonetheless we must balance discipline with Christian affection lest we engage in some sort of legalistic chastisement, effectively making them stand in the corner until they repent, or cutting them off until they change. In all cases, we must “speak the truth in love.”

Paul appeals to them as a father to his “children” (6:13) that they reciprocate his love. It is natural and normal for children to love their parents. They were his spiritual children. To them, he had preached the message of reconciliation and they had received it. They were the beneficiaries of Paul’s ministry, both in terms of their salvation and their on-going church ministry. Now they were in danger of throwing back in his face this great blessing as having been in vain. Hence, this pastoral appeal of love is followed by…

2. A Pastoral Appeal of Admonition (6:14-18). “14 Do not be yoked together with those who do not believe. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? 15 What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, as God said: ‘I will dwell and walk among them, and I will be their God,
and they will be my people. 17 Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord; do not touch any unclean thing, and I will welcome you. 18 And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me,’ says the Lord Almighty.”

This appeal of admonition seems to spring out of nowhere in the flow of thought of this passage. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, it seems from the context to be directly related to (a) the preceding verses (6:11-13) concerning the withdrawing of the Corinthians from Paul (and their coincident drawing near to the false apostles or, at least, coming under their influence - cf. chapters 10 and 11); and (b) the issues that had been raised in the first epistle that were marked by worldliness. For, if anyone needed to heed this admonition for holiness it was the Corinthians, who were dividing into parties (1 Cor. 1), boasting about sexual immorality in the church (1 Cor. 5), suing one another in court (1 Cor. 6), practising sexual immorality with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:15-20), engaging with idolatry (1 Cor. 8 and 10), and abusing the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34). These issues and what they needed to do about them were the substance of his first letter and this exhortation in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is another iteration of those instructions concerning their sinful, worldly lifestyle and practices.

In order for the relationship of the Corinthians with Paul to be fully restored, they would need to demonstrate that they had separated themselves completely from evil. Their love for Paul could only be fully expressed by them if they demonstrated it by their obedience to him, specifically, by their separation from the world (6:14-7:1), for love and holiness go together; love can never overlook sin. The most genuine expression of their love for him would be to do what he instructs them, for as Jesus said, “the one who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me” (Jn. 14:21).

It is quite reasonable, then, to assert (and indeed it fits with the whole tenor and subject of both epistles) that 6:11-7:16 is Paul’s final pastoral appeal to these people to now be reconciled to him, especially since they had evidently taken at least some of the steps necessary to separate themselves from evil (e.g. disciplining the man guilty of incest in 1 Cor. 5). And it makes sense that this kind of appeal would come at the end of his entire argument, which is concerned with the reconciliatory nature of pastoral ministry.

The problem is that the Corinthians were “yoked together with those who do not believe” (6:14), an association from which they must separate (6:15-18). Perhaps, and quite probably, this whole issue of unequal yoke was at the root of the problems in Corinth, causing such division and ungodliness. To be “yoked together” with a non-Christian is to be mismatched (lit. mis-mated) – to be joined with an unsuitable partner, as when oxen or horses in harness are mismatched and, therefore, do not (indeed, cannot) pull together in the same direction. They cannot work together, for how can two walk together unless they are agreed (Amos 3:3)? The yoke of the believer is Christ’s yoke, which is easy and light for those who are united with him (Matt. 11:30).

This admonition is not specifically alluding to marriage, although that would certainly be included. This is talking about any inappropriate association between believers and unbelievers. A “yoke” is a relationship or agreement that binds people together in close association with one another, a relationship that can only be harmonious and lasting if the parties are in agreement. Obviously, this is speaking specifically of agreement on spiritual things, but the principle surely applies in any relationship – it will not be happy and productive if the parties are not agreed (philosophically, spiritually, economically etc.). And typically, if one of the parties is a believer and the other an unbeliever, the influence of the unbeliever in the “yoke” overpowers that of the believer. As David Garland poetically puts it, “Those who harness themselves together with unbelievers will soon find themselves plowing Satan’s fields” (Garland, 331).

In this context, to be yoked to an unbeliever means an alliance - hence, the choice of words:

(a) “partnership” (14a) - sharing, participation (μετοξη)

(b) “fellowship” (14b) – communion (κοινωνια)

(c) “accord” (15a) - harmony, lit. “symphony” (συμφωνησις)

(d) “have in common” (15b) - share, part, portion (μερις)

(e) “agreement” (16a) – union (συγκαταθεσις)

For a Christian to be “yoked” together with a non-Christian is to form an intimate alliance between someone on the one hand who professes to be righteous in Christ, and someone on the other hand who lives in opposition to and in violation of the righteous law of God - i.e. “lawlessness” (6:14b). It is like trying to merge “light and darkness” (6:14c) into a common entity – impossible. It is like trying to force an accord between polar opposites, between “Christ and Belial / Satan”(6:15a), between a “believer” and an “unbeliever” (6:15b), between “the temple of God and the temple of “idols” (6:16).

The rhetorical question in the text is: “How can a believer enter into a relationship that pretends to be a united, equal, common agreement with someone whose basic worldview and practice militate against it?” And the implicit answer is: “You can’t do it!” – at least you can’t do it and maintain a consistent Christian testimony or live a happy, productive Christian life. No, surely…

(a) We “share” in the Holy Spirit (Heb. 6:4) and, as God’s children, we “participate” in God’s chastening (Heb. 12:8).

(b) Our “fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:3b; cf. 1:6), not with law breakers. Our “fellowship” is with “Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9) and with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13), not with darkness or demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

(c) Our “agreement” is with the word of God (Acts 15:15) and with the church of God (1 Cor. 1:10-11; Matt. 18:19-20).

(d) Our “part” (share) is in “the saints’ inheritance” (Col. 1:12), not with unbelievers whose part is in the lake of fire.

(e) Our “agreement” (lit. union, common cause) is with the church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:14), not the temple of dead demons (2 Cor. 6:16b).

While Paul does not explicitly say what he is referring to here, an analysis of the contrasts that he draws (the fellowship of righteousness with lawlessness; the communion of light with darkness; the agreement of Christ with Satan; the commonality between a believer with an unbeliever; the agreement of the temple of God with the temple of idols) would seem to indicate that he has in mind primarily any association of Christians with pagan idolatry and sacrifices (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:14-33).

The whole imagery of a “yoke” eliminates applying this teaching to casual relationships, or else Christians would have to go out of the world altogether, which, as Paul says elsewhere, we do not have to do (1 Cor. 5:9-10). We are not to live in isolated communities separate from any contact with the world. Indeed, to do so would run counter to all Christ’s teaching regarding being salt and light in the world. What Paul is insisting on here is that Christians keep their Christianity (their spiritual values, ethical standards, relationships, practices, beliefs) separate and apart from worldly values, standards, relationships, practices, and beliefs. Indeed, to be yoked to an unbeliever is to form the closest and most permanent of relationships with someone who is, in fact, an enemy of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18).

The back-up support to Paul’s argument (6:16-18) comes in the form of miscellaneous, pieced-together quotations from the O.T. (Lev. 26:11-12; Ezek. 37:26, 27; Isa. 52:11; 2 Sam. 7:14; cf. also Deut. 32:18-19), which reinforce…

(a) The unity and exclusive relationship of God with his people: “I will dwell and walk among them and I will be their God and they will be my people” (6:16), which unity and relationship excludes anyone else.

(b) The call for separation from those among whom God does not dwell or walk: “Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, do not touch any unclean thing, and I will welcome you. And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty” (6:17-18).

These O.T. quotations have to do with the worship of God, which must be done in complete separation from any “unclean thing” (Rev. 17:4; Lev. 5:2; 10:10). In other words, the worship of God and the worship of idols cannot under any circumstances be joined together. Since believers are “the temple of God”(1 Cor. 3:16) we cannot be joined to the temple of idols (2 Cor. 6:16). Only when we separate ourselves from such things and persons can and will “I welcome / receive you. And (then) I will be a Father to you and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the LORD Almighty.”

Final Remarks. There is a delicate balance between separating from the world for the purpose of maintaining holiness to the Lord, and connecting with the world for the purpose of evangelization. Evidently, the Corinthians were well integrated into the world and not separate from it. Perhaps that is why we read nothing of persecution against the Corinthians. Instead, they were accepted as participants in pagan temple worship (1 Cor. 8:10) and engaged in sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5). Believers have no place in idol worship nor in any immoral or impure behavior, which, as Paul says, should not even be heard of among you, as is proper for saints” (Eph. 5:3).

The balance seems to be that, on the one hand, we must separate ourselves so that we are neither “yoked” to unbelievers (i.e. do not come under their influence; not obligated to them; not indistinct from them; not corrupted by them; do not adopt their immoral practices), and yet, on the other hand, we must endeavour to develop relationships with them based on Christian kindness, honesty, love, purity, and grace such that they are receptive to our witness of Christ and the Gospel.

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: Learning from Jesus, Being Influential Christians, Pt. 2 (Matt. 5:14-16)

Subject: Living effectively for God in the world

Theme: Influential Christians are those who make a difference for God in the world

I. Only Jesus’ disciples transmit the light of God throughout a spiritually dark world (5:14-15)

A. Only Christians transmit the light of God throughout the world... by virtue of who we are (14a)

1. We alone are His disciples (cf. Jn. 1:9; Jn. 8:12)

2. We alone are his representatives in the world (cf. 1 Jn. 4:17)

B. Only Christians transmit the light of God throughout the world... by virtue of what we know (14a)

1. We alone know what is hidden in the darkness (cf. 1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 5:13)

2. We alone know the cause of the darkness

a) We know that we are living in the last days (cf. 2 Tim. 6:1-5)

b) We know that this is the time of deceiving spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1)

c) We know that any false prophets are in the world (1 Jn. 4:1-3)

d) We know that “all have sinned...” (Rom. 3:23; Jn. 3:19)

3. We alone know the solution to the darkness

a) The solution to the darkness is the truth of God (cf. 1 Jn. 1:5-10; 1 Jn. 4:6; Jn. 1:17; Jn. 8:32)

b) Only Christians can answer the ultimate questions of life – who we are, where we came from, why we are here, where we are going

C. Only Christians transmit the light of God throughout the world… by virtue of why we exist (14b-15)

1. We exist to fill a specific position (5:14b)

2. We exist to fulfill a specific purpose (5:15)

Point 2: Only Jesus’ disciples transmit the glory of God throughout a spiritually dark world (5:16)

2a. By obeying Jesus’ command to let our light shone (5:16a)

2b. Bu doing good deeds that point to God as the source (5:16b)

Related Topics: Pastors

La Revue Internet Des Pasteurs, Fre Ed 43, Edition du Printemps 2022

Un ministère de…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Renforcement de la prédication par exposition :
Prêcher les Evangiles du N.T., Pt. 2

Cette série sur le « Renforcement de la prédication par exposition “a commencé avec l’édition d’automne 2018 (numéro 29) de ce NET Pastors Journal. Le but de la présente série est de s’appuyer sur ce que nous avons appris dans la série précédente (“L’Essentiel de la prédication par exposition “, numéros 1-28, d’automne 2011 à 2018). Jusqu’à présent, dans la présente série, nous avons abordé les sujets suivants :

1. Renforcement des introductions de sermons (automne 2018)

2. Renforcement des conclusions de sermons (hiver 2019)

3. Renforcement des illustrations de sermons (printemps 2019)

4. Renforcement des applications de sermons (été et automne 2019)

5. Renforcement de l’interprétation biblique (hiver, printemps, été, automne 2020)

6. Renforcement de la prédication du récit hébraïque (hiver et printemps 2021)

7. Renforcement de la prédication de la poésie hébraïque (été et automne 2021).

8. Renforcement de la prédication l’Evangile du N.T. (hiver 2022).

Dans l’édition d’hiver 2022, j’ai couvert la section A, “Le genre de l’Évangile : son style littéraire, sa structure et ses caractéristiques”. Dans cette édition, je continuerai avec le même sujet, en passant à la section B…

B. Conseils et principes d’interprétation pour comprendre les récits de l’Évangile

J’ai été particulièrement aidé dans cette section par les travaux de Graeme Goldsworthy (« Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture » [Prêcher toute la Bible comme Ecriture chrétienne], 222-232), de Sidney Greidanus (« Handbook of Contemporary Preaching » [Manuel de prédication contemporaine], 329-343) et de J. Scott Duval et J. Daniel Hays (« Saisir la Parole de Dieu », 249-253).

1. Soyez conscient des différences en perspective. L’interprétation est influencée par la perspective. Notre perspective diffère de celle des évangélistes en grande partie à cause des écarts culturels, chronologiques, théologiques et linguistiques entre eux et nous. Lorsque nous prêchons les Évangiles, nous devons être conscients de ces différences et les interpréter de manière appropriée.

La première question à se poser est : “Quelle est l’orientation théologique ou l’intention de l’auteur de l’Évangile ? Je pense que nous sommes qu’il est juste de dire que le message général de tous les évangélistes c’est le royaume de Dieu. En effet, comme l’écrit Sidney Greidanus, “tous les quatre évangiles lient ce message central du royaume de Dieu à la personne et à l’œuvre de Jésus-Christ... Cette bonne nouvelle qui englobe tout - qu’en Jésus-Christ le royaume de Dieu s’est approché, est venu, et viendra - appelle à une interprétation théocentrique-christocentrique de chaque texte de prédication individuel des Évangiles » (« Prêcher dans les Évangiles », 332).

2. Commencez par l’analyse textuelle. L’analyse textuelle vous aide à mieux comprendre la structure et le contenu de l’histoire.

Concernant la structure, généralement, les histoires de l’Évangile sont structurées autour de quatre sections progressives :

(1) La situation, le contexte ou l’arrière-plan de la vie.

(2) Le problème ou la question en présence.

(3) Le conflit ou l’apogée.

(4) La résolution.

(5) La conclusion - une application, une leçon ou un défi.

Dans la structure, vous voulez apprendre ce qui fait avancer l’histoire - est-ce des questions, la peur, l’opposition à Jésus, etc. ?

Quant au contenu, vous pouvez assez facilement analyser son contexte, ses personnages, ses lieux et ses événements en posant six questions standard sur le texte :

(1) Qui sont les personnages impliqués ? – nommés ou non.

(2) Que se passe-t-il ?

a) Le contexte de l’histoire.

b) Le problème en présence (par exemple, une guérison ou une tempête, etc.).

c) La progression des événements.

d) Ce que les personnages ont dit ou fait ou comment ils ont réagi, etc.

(3) Quand cela a-t-il eu lieu ? – le moment de la journée ou la saison de l’année, lors d’une fête juive ou lors d’un mariage, etc.

(4) (4) Où est-ce que cela s’est-il passé ? – sur le lac, chez un particulier, dans une ville, à la synagogue etc.

(5) Pourquoi les événements de cette histoire ont-ils eu lieu ? – pour accomplir un miracle, pour exposer la foi ou le manque de foi de quelqu’un, ou à cause d’un doute sur qui était Jésus, etc.? Dans cette étape analytique, recherchez tous les indices que l’auteur peut donner quant au but de l’histoire. Ces indices peuvent être donnés au début ou à la fin de l’histoire. Prenons l’exemple (de Duval et Hays) de Marc 4 :35-41 où la dernière question des disciples indique que Marc a inclus cet événement pour enseigner et renforcer qui était Jésus. Il n’était pas simplement un rabbin mais Dieu lui-même, qui seul contrôle et dirige sa création.

(6) Comment l’histoire se déroule-t-elle ? – pour répondre au besoin ou à la question de quelqu’un, pour montrer le pouvoir de Jésus sur la nature ou son intervention dans une crise, etc.

Un autre outil analytique utile consiste à prendre note de l’utilisation de la répétition dans l’histoire. Il s’agit d’un pointeur interprétatif dans toute la littérature biblique, pas seulement dans les évangiles - la répétition d’un mot, d’une phrase ou d’un thème. La répétition est utilisée par l’auteur pour enfoncer le clou sans équivoque.

3. Déterminer le principe théologique universel de l’histoire. Une fois que vous avez soigneusement analysé la structure et le contenu de l’histoire, vous devez la mettre ensemble avec le principe général qu’elle enseigne. Ici, vous répondez à la question : “Quel est le but de l’histoire ?” En particulier, quel est l’intérêt théologique de l’auteur en incluant cette histoire et en la racontant comme il l’a fait ? S’agit-il de relations ou de foi ou d’incrédulité, etc. ? Y a-t-il une leçon dans l’histoire que nous devons apprendre ? Notre réaction vis-à-vis Jésus se reflète-t-elle dans les réactions décrites dans l’histoire ?

Parfois, les évangélistes soulignent un point à travers une série d’histoires. Par exemple, Luc 15 contient trois histoires paraboliques : (1) La brebis perdue ; (2) La pièce perdue ; et (3) Le fils perdu. Notre travail est de déterminer le point théologique commun qui les relie. Qu’une histoire soit liée thématiquement à celle d’avant ou à celle d’après peut souvent être déterminée par le décor, les personnages, les thèmes (par exemple, le thème commun dans Luc 15 est “perdu” et “trouvé”).

Une fois que vous avez déterminé les principes théologiques, essayez de les énoncer de manière pertinente, applicable et personnalisée pour votre public aujourd’hui. C’est ce que nous devons prêcher – le point théologique qui s’applique à tous les publics pour toujours. Il est facile de raconter l’histoire elle-même à votre public, mais notre travail consiste à leur dire plus que cela. Notre travail consiste à étoffer les principes de l’histoire, non seulement en ce qui concerne les personnages de l’histoire, mais plus particulièrement en ce qu’ils nous concernent. Nous devons répondre à la question : « Qu’est-ce que cela a à voir avec moi ? Ce faisant, assurez-vous d’être fidèle au texte lui-même dans le contexte de l’histoire plus large de l’Écriture.

Remarques finales. Ces étapes sont essentielles lorsque vous vous préparez à prêcher un récit de l’Évangile. Il n’est pas acceptable de se contenter de raconter l’histoire et d’en tirer des applications morales. Vous devez comprendre la perspective théologique et l’orientation christocentrique de l’auteur de l’Évangile, analyser la structure et le contenu de l’histoire et déterminer le principe théologique de l’histoire dans son ensemble, ainsi que de chaque scène de l’histoire. Ensuite, vous êtes prêt à préparer votre sermon et à appliquer de manière appropriée les principes de l’histoire à la vie d’aujourd’hui.

II. Renforcement du leadership biblique
“Le Ministère de la Réconciliation, Pt. 4 : Un appel à la réconciliation du peuple de Dieu avec le serviteur de Dieu “(2 Cor. 6 :11-7 :16)

Le sujet du ministère de la réconciliation unifie toute la section de 2 Corinthiens 5 :18 à 2 Corinthiens 7 :16, comme suit :

A. La réconciliation de tous les peuples (2 Cor. 5 :18-21).

B. La réconciliation du peuple de Dieu (2 Cor. 6 :1-7 :16).

(1) Leur réconciliation avec Dieu (2 Cor. 6 :1-2).

(2) Leur réconciliation avec les serviteurs de Dieu (6 :3-7 :16) - car la réconciliation avec Dieu ne peut être pleinement et correctement accomplie que par la réconciliation avec le pasteur également, car il est l’ambassadeur de Dieu (5 :20).

Dans cette étude, nous examinerons 2 Corinthiens 6 :11-18 et poursuivrons notre étude de cette section dans les éditions suivantes.

Tout d’abord, permettez-moi de faire ici quelques commentaires d’introduction sur la structure du passage que nous sommes sur le point d’étudier (2 Cor. 6 : 11-7 : 16), parce qu’il y a eu un débat approfondi parmi les critiques textuels quant à savoir si cela a été écrit par l’apôtre Paul et, si c’était le cas, si elle contient un fragment d’une autre lettre. La raison de ce débat est que le langage de 6 :11-13 change si brusquement en 6 :14-7 :1. En effet, 7 :2 semble continuer à partir de 6 :13, avec 6 :14-7 :1 comme fragment non connecté. Mais en fait, le flux de pensée peut être retracé tout au long du passage sans qu’il soit nécessaire de supposer que 6 :14-7 :1 est un fragment éditorial ou d’un autre document. En effet, la formulation de 7 :3 (« car j’ai déjà dit que vous êtes dans nos cœurs ») est une référence claire à 6 :11-13 et en déduit qu’il a dit quelque chose d’autre entre les deux.

Cette section est donc le point culminant d’un traité intégré sur le ministère apostolique de Paul qui a commencé en 2 :14 et se termine en 7 :16. Comme le souligne astucieusement David Garland, plutôt que d’être une digression, cette dernière section que nous étudions résume tout son argument avec un attrait décisif. D’où la liste des impératifs : (a) « Soyez réconciliés avec Dieu “(5 :20) ; (b) « Nous vous exhortons à ne pas recevoir la grâce de Dieu en vain » (6 : 1) ; (c) « élargissez-vous aussi » (6 :13) ; (d) « Ne vous mettez pas avec les infidèles sous un joug étranger » (6 :14) ; (e) « Sortez... séparez-vous... ne touchez pas » (6 :17) ; et (f) « Donnez-nous une place dans vos cœurs ! “(7 :2) [voir David Garland, 2 Corinthiens, New American Commentary, 322-323].

Premièrement, l’appel de Paul à eux est basé sur…

1. Un appel pastoral d’amour (6 :11-13). “Notre bouche s’est ouverte pour vous, Corinthiens, notre cœur s’est élargi. Vous n’êtes pas à l’étroit dans au dedans de nous ; mais vos entrailles se sont rétrécies. Rendez-nous la pareille, -je vous parle comme à mes enfants, -élargissez-vous ! »

Cette correspondance aux Corinthiens est unique parmi les lettres que Paul leur adresse. Peut-être utilise-t-il ce mode correspondance pour exprimer l’amour qu’il leur porte dans son cœur et pour rendre son appel particulièrement personnel en les appelant par leur nom. Paul a été franc et transparent avec eux, non seulement dans son discours mais aussi dans ses affections. Il leur a parlé ouvertement à cause de son amour pour eux. Il ne fait aucun doute que son discours direct est motivé par le danger auquel ils seraient confrontés, s’ils poursuivaient la voie sur laquelle ils se trouvaient. Plus le danger est grand, plus nos avertissements sont clairs et francs, comme nous le savons lorsque nous surveillons des enfants. La disposition de son cœur ouvert envers eux n’a jamais changée malgré leurs pratiques pécheresses qui avaient besoin d’être sévèrement réprimandées. Son amour pour eux et sa réprimande ne s’excluent pas mutuellement – son expression et son sentiment d’amour pour eux ne sont pas uniquement lorsqu’ils se conduisent parfaitement et manière appropriée pour le Seigneur (bien que ce soit sans aucun doute sa préférence).

En les interpellant en tant que leur pasteur, il souligne son amour pour eux – “notre bouche s’est ouverte pour vous “(6 :11). Mais l’amour doit être réciproque. Tandis que « vous n’êtes pas à l’étroit au dedans de nous “dit-il vos entrailles se sont rétrécies (6:12). Ainsi, Paul les appelle davantage à lui rendre son amour – “élargissez-vous aussi “(6 :13). La ferveur et l’authenticité de son affection pour eux n’avaient pas faibli ; tandis que leur amour pour lui s’était dissipé, ou du moins n’était pas évident. Cela n’est pas inhabituel pour quelqu’un qui a été sévèrement réprimandé et qui vit un style de vie qui est aux antipodes de celui qui l’a réprimandé.

Il est instructif de voir comment Paul leur communique ce reproche. Il le fait avec l’intention de leur exprimer et de leur assurer de son amour pour eux (6 : 11-13 ; 7 : 2-4). C’est un rappel opportun pour nous, que pour que la réprimande soit acceptée et efficace, elle doit être faite dans un esprit d’amour. Lorsque nous avons affaire à des croyants qui pèchent, bien que nous devions les discipliner s’il n’y a pas de repentance (cf. 1 Cor. 5), nous devons néanmoins équilibrer la discipline avec l’affection chrétienne de peur de nous engager dans une sorte de châtiment légaliste, en les obligeant effectivement à se tenir au coin jusqu’à ce qu’ils se repentent, ou en les mettant à l’écart jusqu’à ce qu’ils changent. Dans tous les cas, nous devons « dire la vérité avec amour ».

Paul les interpelle comme un père à ses “enfants” (6 :13) pour qu’ils lui rendent son amour. Il est naturel et normal que les enfants aiment leurs parents. Ils étaient ses enfants spirituels. Il leur avait prêché le message de la réconciliation et ils l’avaient reçu. Ils étaient les bénéficiaires du ministère de Paul, à la fois en termes de leur salut et de leur ministère continu comme église. Maintenant, ils risquaient de lui jeter cette grande bénédiction à la face comme ayant été vaine. Ainsi, cet appel pastoral d’amour est suivi de…

2. Un appel pastoral d’avertissement (6 :14-18). « Ne vous mettez pas avec les infidèles sous un joug étranger. Car, quel rapport y a-t-il entre la justice et l’iniquité ? ou qu’y a-t-il de commun entre la lumière et les ténèbres ? Quel accord y a-t-il entre Christ et Bélial ? ou quelle part a le fidèle avec l’infidèle ? Quel rapport y a-t-il entre le temple de Dieu et les idoles ? Car nous sommes le temple du Dieu vivant, comme Dieu l’a dit : J’habiterai et marcherai au milieu d’eux ; je serai leur Dieu, et ils seront mon peuple. C’est pourquoi, sortez du milieu d’eux, et séparez-vous, di le Seigneur, et Je vous accueillerai. Je serai pour vous un père, et vous serez pour moi des fils et des filles, dit le Seigneur tout puissant. »

Cet appel d’avertissement semble surgir de nulle part dans le flux de pensée de ce passage. Et pourtant, comme je l’ai mentionné plus tôt, il semble d’après le contexte être directement lié aux (a) versets précédents (6 :11-13) concernant le retrait des Corinthiens de Paul (et leur rapprochement simultané avec les faux apôtres ou, du moins, sous leur emprise - cf. chapitres 10 et 11) ; et (b) aux questions qui avaient été soulevées dans la première épître qui étaient marquées par la mondanité. Car, si quelqu’un avait besoin de tenir compte de cet avertissement pour la sainteté, c’était les Corinthiens, qui se divisaient en partis (1 Cor. 1), se vantant de l’immoralité sexuelle dans l’église (1 Cor. 5), se poursuivant en justice (1 Cor. 5). 6), pratiquant l’immoralité sexuelle avec des prostituées (1 Cor. 6 :15-20), s’engageant dans l’idolâtrie (1 Cor. 8 et 10) et abusant du repas du Seigneur (1 Cor. 11 :17-34). Ces problèmes et ce qu’ils devaient faire à leur sujet étaient la substance de sa première lettre et cette exhortation dans 2 Corinthiens 6 : 14-7 : 1 est une autre itération de ces instructions au sujet leur mode de vie et de leurs pratiques pécheurs et mondains.

Pour que la relation des Corinthiens avec Paul soit entièrement restaurée, ils avaient besoin de démontrer qu’ils s’étaient complètement séparés du mal. Leur amour pour Paul ne pouvait être pleinement exprimé par eux que s’ils le démontraient par leur obéissance à lui, en particulier par leur séparation du monde (6, 14-7, 1), car l’amour et la sainteté vont de pair ; l’amour ne peut jamais ignorer le péché. L’expression la plus authentique de leur amour pour lui serait de faire ce qu’il leur demande, car comme Jésus l’a dit, “Celui qui a mes commandements et qui les garde, c’est celui qui même. » (Jn. 14 :21).

Il est donc tout à fait raisonnable d’affirmer (et cela correspond en fait à l’ensemble de la teneur et du sujet des deux épîtres) que 6 :11-7 :16 est le dernier appel pastoral de Paul à ces gens, pour qu’ils se réconcilient maintenant avec lui, d’autant plus qu’ils avaient manifestement pris au moins certaines des mesures nécessaires pour se séparer du mal (par exemple discipliner l’homme coupable d’inceste dans 1 Cor. 5). Et il est logique que ce genre d’appel vienne à la fin de tout son argumentaire qui concerne la nature réconciliatrice du ministère pastoral.

Le problème est que les Corinthiens étaient “Ne vous mettez pas avec les infidèles sous un joug étranger » (6 : 14), une association dont ils doivent se séparer (6 : 15-18). Peut-être, et très probablement, toute cette question de joug inégal était à l’origine des problèmes à Corinthe, causant tant de division et d’impiété. Être « attelé » avec un non-chrétien, c’est être mal assorti (littéralement mal accouplé) - être joint à un partenaire qui ne convient pas, comme lorsque des bœufs ou des chevaux attelés sont mal assortis et, par conséquent, ne tirent pas dans la même direction (en fait, ne peuvent pas). Ils ne peuvent pas travailler ensemble, car comment deux peuvent-il marcher ensemble sans s’être accordés (Amos 3 :3) ? Le joug du croyant est le joug du Christ, qui est facile et léger pour ceux qui sont unis à lui (Matthieu 11 :30).

Cet avertissement ne fait pas spécifiquement allusion au mariage, même si cela serait certainement inclus. Il s’agit de toute association inappropriée entre croyants et incroyants. Un « joug » est une relation ou un accord qui lie des personnes en étroite association les unes avec les autres, une relation qui ne peut être harmonieuse et durable que si les parties sont d’accord. Évidemment, cela parle spécifiquement d’un accord sur des choses spirituelles, mais le principe s’applique sûrement à toute relation - ce ne sera pas heureux et productif si les parties ne sont pas d’accord (philosophiquement, spirituellement, économiquement, etc.). Et typiquement, si l’une des parties est un croyant et l’autre un incroyant, l’influence de l’incroyant dans le “joug » l’emporte sur celle du croyant. Comme le dit poétiquement David Garland, « Ceux qui s’attèlent aux incroyants se retrouveront bientôt à labourer les champs de Satan » (Garland, 331).

Dans ce contexte, être attelé à un incroyant signifie une alliance - d'où le choix des mots : :

(a) “partenariat » (14a) - partage, participation (μετοξη)

(b) « fraternité » (14b) – communion (κοινωνια)

(c) « accord “(15a) - harmonie, lit. “symphonie “(συμφωνησις)

(d) « avoir en commun » (15b) - part, portion (μερις)

(e) « accord » (16a) – syndicat (συγκαταθεσις)

Pour un chrétien, être “attelé “à un non-chrétien, c’est former une alliance intime entre quelqu’un qui professe être juste en Christ d’une part, et quelqu’un qui vit en opposition et en violation de la loi juste de Dieu d’autre part - c’est-à-dire « l’anarchie » (6 :14b). C’est comme essayer de fusionner « la lumière et les ténèbres » (6 :14c) en une entité commune - impossible. C’est comme essayer de forcer un accord entre des pôles opposés, entre « Christ et Bélial / Satan “(6 :15a), entre un « croyant » et un “incroyant “(6 :15b), entre « le temple de Dieu “et le temple des « idoles » (6 :16).

La question rhétorique dans le texte est la suivante : “Comment un croyant peut-il entrer dans une relation qui prétend être un accord uni, égal et commun avec quelqu’un dont la vision du monde et la pratique de base s’y opposent ? » Et la réponse implicite est : “Vous ne pouvez pas le faire ! “- au moins vous ne pouvez pas le faire et maintenir un témoignage chrétien cohérent ou vivre une vie chrétienne heureuse et productive. Non, sûrement…

(a) Nous “avons part “au Saint Esprit (Héb. 6 :4) et, en tant qu’enfant de Dieu, nous “participons » châtiment de Dieu (Héb. 12 :8).

(b) Notre « communion est avec le Père et son Fils Jésus Christ » (1 Jn. 1 :3b ; cf. 1 :6), pas avec les hors-la-loi. Notre «communion» est avec «Jesus Christ notre Seigneur» (1 Cor. 1:9) and with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13), not with darkness or demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

(c) Notre « accord » est avec la parole de Dieu 15 :15) et avec l’église de Dieu (1 Cor. 1 :10-11 ; Matt. 18 :19-20).

(d) Notre « part » (héritage) est dans “l’héritage des saints » (Col. 1 :12), pas avec les incroyants dont la part est dans un étang de feu.

(e) Notre « accord » (lit. union, cause commune) est avec l’église du Dieu vivant (1 Tim. 3 :14), pas avec le temple des démons morts (2 Cor. 6 :16b).

Bien que Paul ne dise pas explicitement à quoi il se réfère ici, une analyse des contrastes qu’il établit (la communion de la justice avec l’iniquité ; la communion de la lumière avec les ténèbres ; l’accord de Christ avec Satan ; la communauté entre un croyant avec un incroyant ; l’accord du temple de Dieu avec le temple des idoles) semblerait indiquer qu’il a à l’esprit principalement toute association de chrétiens avec l’idolâtrie et les sacrifices païens (cf. 1 Cor. 8 :1-13 ; 10 :14- 33).

Toute l’imagerie d’un “joug » élimine l’application de cet enseignement aux relations occasionnelles, sinon les chrétiens devraient complètement quitter le monde, ce que, comme Paul le dit ailleurs, nous ne devons pas faire (1 Cor. 5 : 9- dix). Nous ne devons pas vivre dans des communautés isolées, séparées de tout contact avec le monde. En effet, cela irait à l’encontre de tout l’enseignement du Christ concernant le fait d’être sel et lumière du monde. Ce sur quoi Paul insiste ici, c’est que les chrétiens gardent leur christianisme (leurs valeurs spirituelles, leurs normes éthiques, leurs relations, leurs pratiques, leurs croyances) séparés des valeurs, des normes, des relations, des pratiques et des croyances du monde. En effet, être attelé à un incroyant, c’est former la relation la plus étroite et la plus permanente avec quelqu’un qui est, en fait, un ennemi de la croix de Christ (Phil. 3 :18).

Le soutien de l’argument de Paul (6 :16-18) se présente sous la forme de citations diverses et reconstituées de l’A.T. (Lév. 26 :11-12 ; Ézéchiel 37 :26, 27 ; Ésaïe 52 :11 ; 2 Sam. 7 :14 ; cf. aussi Deut. 32 :18-19), qui renforcent…

(a) L’unité et la relation exclusive de Dieu avec son peuple: “J’habiterai et je marcherai au milieu d’eux; je serai leur Dieu, et ils seront mon peuple » (6:16), lesquelles unité et relation excluent toute autre personne.

(b) L’appel à la séparation d’avec ceux au milieu desquels Dieu n’habite ni ne marche : “C’est pourquoi, sortez du milieu d’eux, et séparez-vous, dit le Seigneur, et Je vous accueillerai. Je serai pour vous un père, et vous serez pour moi des fils et des filles, dit le Seigneur tout puissant. » (6:17-18).

Ces citations de l’A.T. ont à voir avec l’adoration de Dieu, qui doit être faite dans une séparation complète de toute “chose impure » (Apoc. 17 :4 ; Lév. 5 :2 ; 10 :10). En d’autres termes, le culte de Dieu et le culte des idoles ne peuvent en aucun cas être mis ensemble. Puisque les croyants sont “le temple de Dieu “(1 Cor. 3 :16), nous ne pouvons pas être unis au temple des idoles (2 Cor. 6 :16). Ce n’est que lorsque nous nous séparons de telles choses et personnes que « Je vous accueillerai. Je serai pour vous un père, et vous serez pour moi des fils et des filles, dit le Seigneur tout puissant. »

Remarques Finales. Il y a un équilibre délicat entre se séparer du monde dans le but de maintenir la sainteté pour le Seigneur et se connecter avec le monde dans le but de l’évangélisation. De toute évidence, les Corinthiens étaient bien intégrés au monde et non séparés de lui. C’est peut-être pour cela que nous ne lisons rien sur la persécution contre eux. Au lieu de cela, ils ont été acceptés comme participants au culte du temple païen (1 Cor. 8 :10) et engagés dans l’immoralité sexuelle (1 Cor. 5). Les croyants n’ont aucune place dans l’adoration d’idoles ni dans aucun comportement immoral ou impur, qui, comme le dit Paul, ne devrait pas : “ne soient même pas nommé parmi vous, ainsi qu’il convient à des saints » (Eph. 5 :3).

L’équilibre semble être que, d’une part, nous devons nous séparer afin que nous ne soyons ni « attelés » aux incroyants (c’est-à-dire que nous ne soyons pas sous leur influence ; pas obligés envers eux ; pas indistincts d’eux ; pas corrompus par eux ; n’adoptons pas leurs pratiques immorales), et pourtant, d’un autre côté, nous devons nous efforcer de développer avec eux des relations basées sur la gentillesse, l’honnêteté, l’amour, la pureté et la grâce chrétiennes, de sorte qu’ils soient réceptifs à notre témoignage du Christ et de l’Évangile.

III. Plan de Sermons

Titre : Apprendre de Jésus, être des chrétiens influents, pt. 2 (Matt. 5 :14-16)

Sujet : Vivre efficacement pour Dieu dans le monde

Thème : Les chrétiens influents sont ceux qui font la différence pour Dieu dans le monde

I. Seuls les disciples de Jésus transmettent la lumière de Dieu dans un monde spirituellement ténébreux (5 :14-15)

A. Seuls les chrétiens transmettent la lumière de Dieu à travers le monde... en vertu de qui nous sommes (14a)

1. Nous seuls, sommes Ses disciples (cf. Jn. 1 :9 ; Jn. 8 :12)

2. Nous seuls, sommes Ses représentants dans le monde (cf. 1 Jn. 4 :17)

B. Seuls les chrétiens transmettent la lumière de Dieu à travers le monde... en vertu de ce que nous savons (14a)

1. Nous seuls, savons ce qui est caché dans les ténèbres (cf. 1 Cor. 4 :5 ; Eph. 5 :13)

2. Nous seuls, connaissons la cause des ténèbres

a) Nous savons que nous vivons dans les derniers jours (cf. 2 Tim. 6 :1-5)

b) Nous savons que c’est le temps des esprits trompeurs et des doctrines des démons (1 Tim. 4 :1)

c) Nous savons que tous les faux prophètes sont dans le monde (1 Jn. 4 :1-3)

d) Nous savons que « tous ont péché... » (Rom. 3 :23 ; Jn. 3:19)

3. Nous seuls, connaissons la solution aux ténèbres

a) La solution aux ténèbres est la vérité de Dieu (cf. 1 Jn. 1 :5-10 ; 1 Jn. 4 :6 ; Jn. 1 :17 ; Jn. 8 :32)

b) Seuls les chrétiens peuvent répondre aux questions ultimes de la vie - qui nous sommes, d’où nous venons, pourquoi nous sommes ici, où nous allons

C. Seuls les chrétiens transmettent la lumière de Dieu à travers le monde… en vertu de notre raison d’être (14b-15)

1. Nous existons pour occuper une position spécifique (5 :14b)

2. Nous existons pour remplir un but spécifique (5 :15)

Point 2 : Seuls les disciples de Jésus transmettent la gloire de Dieu à travers un monde spirituellement sombre (5 :16)

2a. En obéissant au commandement de Jésus de laisser briller notre lumière (5 :16a)

2b. En faisant de bonnes œuvres qui pointent à Dieu comme étant la source (5 :16b)

Related Topics: Pastors

Журнал для пасторов Net, Rus Ed 43, весеннее издание 2022

Служение Института Библейского Проповедования…

Усиливая Церковь посредством Библейской проповеди и лидерства

Автор: Проф. Роджер Паскоу, Президент института,
Email: [email protected]

I. Усиливая изъяснительную проповедьStrengthening Expository Preaching:
Проповедование новозаветных евангелий Ч.2

Эта серия статей «Усиление разъяснительной проповеди» началась с осеннего выпуска 2018 года (выпуск 29) журнала NET для пасторов. Цель этой текущей серии — развить то, что мы узнали из предыдущей серии («Основы разъяснительной проповеди», выпуски 1–28, осень 2011 — лето 2018 года). До сих пор в этой текущей серии мы рассмотрели следующие темы:

1. Усиление введений к проповедям (осень 2018 г.)

2. Усиление выводов проповеди (зима 2019 г.)

3. Усиление иллюстраций к проповедям (весна 2019 г.)

4. Усиление применений проповеди (лето и осень 2019 г.)

5. Усиление библейского толкования (зима, весна, лето, осень 2020 г.)

6. Усиление проповедей еврейских повествований (зима и весна 2021 г.)

7. Усиление проповедей еврейской поэзии (лето и осень 2021 г.).

8. Усиление проповедей новозаветных евангелий (зима 2022 г.).

В зимнем выпуске 2022 года я рассмотрел раздел A «Жанр Евангелия: его литературный стиль, структуру и характеристику». В этом выпуске я продолжу ту же тему, перейдя к разделу Б…

Б. Советы по толкованию и принципы понимания евангельских повествований

В этом разделе мне особенно помогли работы Грэма Голсуорси («Проповедь всей Библии как христианского Писания», с. 222–232), Сиднея Грейдануса («Руководство по современной проповеди», с. 329–343) и Дж. Скотта Дюваля. и Дж. Дэниел Хейс («Понимание Божьего Слова», с. 249–253).

1. Помните о различиях в перспективе. Толкование зависит от точки зрения. Наша точка зрения отличается от точки зрения писателей Евангелий во многом из-за культурных, хронологических, теологических и языковых различий между ними и нами. Поэтому, когда мы проповедуем Евангелия, нам нужно знать об этих различиях и правильно их толковать.

Первый вопрос, который следует задать себе, звучит так: «Какова теологическая направленность или намерение автора Евангелия?» Я думаю, мы можем с уверенностью сказать, что общее послание всех авторов Евангелий – это Царство Божье. Действительно, как пишет Сидней Грейданус, «все четыре Евангелия связывают эту центральное послание о Царстве Божьем с личностью и работой Иисуса Христа… Эта всеобъемлющая благая весть о том, что в Иисусе Христе Царство Божье приближается, пришло , и грядет - призывает к теоцентрически-христоцентристскому истолкованию каждого отдельного проповеднического текста из Евангелий» («Проповедь в Евангелиях», с. 332).

2. Начните с текстового анализа. Анализ текста помогает лучше понять структуру и содержание рассказа.

Что касается структуры, то обычно евангельские рассказы состоят из четырех последовательных разделов:

1) Жизненная ситуация, контекст или предыстория.

2) Проблема или вопрос под рукой.

3) Конфликт или кульминация.

4) Резолюция.

5) Заключение - применение, урок или вызов.

В структуре вы хотите узнать, что двигает историю вперед — это вопросы, страх, противодействие Иисусу и т. д.?

Что касается содержания, то вы довольно легко можете проанализировать его контекст, персонажей, места и события, задав шесть стандартных вопросов к тексту:

1) Какие персонажи задействованы? - по имени или без имени.

2) Что происходит?

а) Предыстория рассказа.

б) Затронутая проблема (например, исцеление или буря и т. д.).

в) Развитие событий.

г) Что персонажи сказали или сделали, как они отреагировали и т. д.

3) Когда это произошло? – время суток или время года, во время еврейского праздника или на свадьбе и т. д.

4) Где это произошло? – на озере, в частном доме, в городе, в синагоге и т. д.

5) Почему произошли события этой истории? – для совершения чуда, для разоблачения чьей-то веры или маловерия, или из-за сомнения в том, кем был Иисус и т. д.? На этом аналитическом этапе ищите любые подсказки, которые может дать автор относительно цели рассказа. Эти подсказки могут быть даны в начале или в конце рассказа. Возьмем пример (из Дюваля и Хейса) из Марка 4:35-41, где последний вопрос учеников указывает на то, что Марк включил это событие, чтобы научить и закрепить то, кем был Иисус. Он был не просто раввином, но и самим Богом, который один контролирует и направляет свое творение.

6) Как разворачивается история? – ответить на чью-то потребность или вопрос, показать власть Иисуса над природой или его вмешательство в кризис и т. д.

Еще один полезный аналитический инструмент — обратить внимание на использование повторов в рассказе. Это указатель толкования во всей библейской литературе, а не только в Евангелиях — повторение слова, фразы или темы. Повторение используется автором, чтобы безошибочно донести мысль.

3. Определить универсальный, богословский принцип рассказа. После того, как вы тщательно проанализировали структуру и содержание истории, вам нужно свести ее воедино в общий принцип, которому она учит. Здесь вы отвечаете на вопрос: «В чем смысл рассказа?» В частности, какой теологический вывод делает автор, включив эту историю и рассказав ее так, как он это сделал? Это об отношениях или вере или неверии и т.д.? Есть ли в этой истории урок, который нам нужно усвоить? Отражается ли наша реакция на Иисуса в реакциях, описанных в этой истории?

Иногда авторы Евангелий подчеркивают какую-либо мысль серией историй. Например, в 15-й главе Луки есть три параболических истории: 1) о заблудшей овце; 2) о потерянной монете; и 3) о потерянном сыне. Наша задача состоит в том, чтобы определить общую теологическую тему, которая их связывает. То, что одна история тематически связана с предыдущей или последующей, часто может определяться обстановкой, персонажами, темами (например, общая тема в Лк. 15 — «потерян» и «найден»).

Как только вы определили богословские принципы, постарайтесь сформулировать их так, чтобы они были уместны, применимы и персонализированы для вашей аудитории сегодня. Это то, что нам нужно проповедовать — богословский пункт, применимый ко всем слушателям во все времена. Легко пересказать саму историю для вашей аудитории, но наша работа состоит в том, чтобы рассказать им больше. Наша работа состоит в том, чтобы конкретизировать принципы истории не только в том, что касается их персонажей, но и в том, что касается нас. Нам нужно ответить на вопрос: «Какое это имеет отношение ко мне?» Поступая так, убедитесь, что вы верны самому тексту в контексте более широкой истории Писания.

Заключительные замечания. Эти шаги очень важны, когда вы готовитесь проповедовать евангельское повествование. Недопустимо просто пересказывать историю и извлекать из нее какие-то нравственные выводы. Вы должны понять богословскую перспективу и христоцентрическую направленность евангелиста, проанализировать структуру и содержание рассказа и определить богословский принцип рассказа в целом, а также каждой сцены рассказа. Тогда вы готовы подготовить свою проповедь и должным образом применить принципы этой истории в жизни сегодня.

II. Усиливая Библейское Руководство
“Служение примирения, ч. 4: Призыв к примирению Божьего народа к Божьему служителю.” (2 Кор 6:11-7:16)

Тема служения примирения объединяет весь раздел от 2 Коринфянам 5:18 до 2 Коринфянам 7:16 следующим образом:

А. Примирение всех людей (2 Кор. 5:18-21).

Б. Примирение Божьего народа (2 Кор. 6:1-7:16)

1) Их примирение с Богом (2 Кор. 6:1-2).

2) Их примирение с Божьими служителями (6:3-7:16) - ибо примирение с Богом может быть полностью и должным образом совершено только примирением также и с пастором, ибо он посланник Божий (5:20).

В этом исследовании мы рассмотрим 2 Коринфянам 6:11-18 и продолжим изучение этого раздела в следующих выпусках.

Во-первых, позвольте мне сделать несколько вступительных замечаний о структуре отрывка, который мы собираемся изучить (2 Кор. 6:11-7:16), потому что среди текстологов ведутся обширные споры о том, был ли он написан апостолом. Павла и, если да, то содержит ли он фрагмент из другого письма. Причина этого спора в том, что язык 6:11-13 резко меняется в 6:14-7:1. Действительно, 7:2 кажется продолжением 6:13, с 6:14-7:1 в качестве несвязанной вставки. Но на самом деле ход мысли можно проследить по всему отрывку, и нет нужды догадываться, что 6:14-7:1 — это фрагмент какого-то другого документа или редакционная вставка. Действительно, формулировка 7:3 («ибо Я уже сказал, что вы в наших сердцах») является явной отсылкой к 6:11-13 и предполагает, что он сказал что-то большее между строк.

Таким образом, этот раздел является кульминационным пунктом целостного трактата об апостольском служении Павла, начавшегося в 2:14 и завершившегося в 7:16. Как проницательно отмечает Дэвид Гарланд, последний раздел, который мы изучаем, не является отступлением, а резюмирует всю его аргументацию с кульминационным призывом. Отсюда список повелений: а) «Примиритесь с Богом» (5:20); б) «Просим вас: не принимайте благодати Божией напрасно» (6:1); в) «Откройте нам свое сердце» (6:13); г) «Не преклоняйтесь под ярмо с неверующими» (6:14); д) «Выходите... отделяйтесь... не прикасайтесь» (6:17); и (е) «Дайте нам место в сердцах ваших» (7:2) [см. Дэвид Гарланд, 2 Коринфянам, New American Commentary, с. 322–323].

Во-первых, обращение Павла к ним основано на…

1. Пастырский призыв к любви (6:11-13). 11 Уста наши отверсты к вам, коринфяне; наше сердце расширено. 12 Вам не тесно в нас, но в сердцах ваших тесно. 13 В равное возмездие, - говорю, как детям, - распространитесь и вы».

Это обращение к коринфянам уникально в письмах Павла к ним. Возможно, он использует этот способ обращения, чтобы выразить любовь, которую он испытывает к ним в своем сердце, и делает свое обращение особенно личным, называя их по имени. Павел был с ними откровенен и откровенен не только в своей речи, но и в своих чувствах. Он говорил с ними открыто из-за своей любви к ним. Без сомнения, его прямолинейная речь мотивирована опасностью, с которой они столкнутся, если будут следовать курсом, которым шли. Чем больше опасность, тем явнее и откровеннее наши предупреждения, как мы знаем, когда присматриваем за детьми. Открытость его сердца по отношению к ним никогда не менялась, несмотря на их греховные поступки, которые нуждались в строгом порицании. Его любовь к ним и его порицание им не исключают друг друга — он не выражает и не чувствует любви к ним только тогда, когда они идут совершенно и должным образом для Господа (хотя это, несомненно, было бы его предпочтением).

Обращаясь к ним как к их пастырям, он подчеркивает свою любовь к ним — «отверзлось сердце наше» (6:11). Но любовь должна быть взаимной. В то время как «мы не утаиваем от вас своей любви, — говорит он, — вы утаиваете от нас свою» (6:12). Таким образом, Павел далее призывает их ответить взаимностью на его любовь – «откройте нам сердца ваши» (6:13). Пылкость и искренность его привязанности к ним не поколебались; тогда как их любовь к нему рассеялась или, по крайней мере, не была очевидной. В этом нет ничего необычного для тех, кого резко упрекнули и кто ведет образ жизни, полностью противоположный тому, кто их упрекал.

Поучительно, как Павел передает им этот упрек. Он делает это в контексте выражения и заверения в своей любви к ним (6:11-13; 7:2-4). Это своевременное напоминание нам о том, что для того, чтобы упреки были приняты и эффективны, они должны быть сделаны в духе любви. Имея дело с верующими, которые согрешают, хотя мы должны наказывать их, если нет покаяния (ср. 1 Кор. 5), тем не менее, мы должны уравновешивать дисциплину христианской любовью, чтобы не подвергать себя своего рода законническому наказанию, фактически заставляя их стоять в углу, пока они не покаются, или отсекая их, пока они не изменятся. Во всех случаях мы должны «говорить истину в любви».

Павел обращается к ним как отец к своим «детям» (6:13), чтобы они ответили взаимностью на его любовь. Для детей естественно и нормально любить своих родителей. Они были его духовными детьми. Им он проповедовал весть о примирении, и они ее приняли. Они были получателями служения Павла, как с точки зрения их спасения, так и с точки зрения их продолжающегося церковного служения. Теперь они были в опасности бросить ему в лицо это великое благословение, как напрасное. Поэтому за этим пастырским призывом любви следует…

2. Пасторский призыв к предостережению (6:14-18). 14 Не преклоняйтесь под чужое ярмо с неверными, ибо какое общение праведности с беззаконием? Что общего у света с тьмою? 15 Какое согласие между Христом и Велиаром? Или какое участие верного с неверным? 16 Какая совместность храма Божия с идолами? Ибо вы храм Бога живого, как сказал Бог: вселюсь в них и буду ходить в них, и буду их Богом, и они будут моим народом. 17 И потому выйдете из среды их и отделитесь, говорит Господь, и не прикасайтесь к нечистому, и Я приму вас. 18 И буду вам Отцом, и вы будете Моими сынами и дщерями, говорит Господь Вседержитель.”

Этот призыв предостережения, кажется, возникает из ниоткуда в потоке мысли этого отрывка. И все же, как я упоминал ранее, из контекста кажется, что это имеет непосредственное отношение к а) предыдущим стихам (6:11-13) относительно удаления коринфян от Павла (и их одновременного приближения к лжеапостолам или, по крайней мере, попасть под их влияние – ср. главы 10 и 11); и б) вопросы, которые были подняты в первом послании и отмечены мирским характером. Ибо если кому и нужно было внимать этому увещеванию о святости, так это коринфянам, которые разделялись на партии (1 Кор. 1), хвастались блудом в церкви (1 Кор. 5), судились друг с другом в суде (1 Кор. 6), блудить с блудницами (1 Кор. 6:15-20), заниматься идолопоклонством (1 Кор. 8 и 10) и злоупотреблять вечерей Господней (1 Кор. 11:17-34). Эти проблемы и то, что им нужно было с ними делать, были сутью его первого письма, и это увещевание во 2 Коринфянам 6:14-7:1 является еще одним повторением этих наставлений относительно их греховного, мирского образа жизни и его практик.

Чтобы отношения коринфян с Павлом полностью восстановились, им нужно было продемонстрировать, что они полностью отделились от зла. Свою любовь к Павлу они могли бы полностью выразить только в том случае, если бы они продемонстрировали ее своим послушанием ему, в частности, своим отделением от мира (6:14-7:1), ибо любовь и святость идут рука об руку; любовь никогда не может игнорировать грех. Самым искренним выражением их любви к нему было бы выполнение того, чему он учил их, ибо, как сказал Иисус, «кто имеет заповеди Мои и соблюдает их, тот любит Меня» (Ин. 14:21).

Таким образом, вполне разумно утверждать (и это соответствует общему смыслу и теме обоих посланий), что 6:11-7:16 является последним пастырским призывом Павла к этим людям чтобы примириться с ним, тем более что они очевидно, предприняли по крайней мере некоторые шаги, необходимые для того, чтобы отделить себя от зла (например, наказывая человека, виновного в инцесте, в 1 Кор. 5). И вполне логично, что такого рода призыв произошел бы к концу всей его аргументации, касающейся примирительной природы пастырского служения.

Проблема в том, что коринфяне были «соединены под ярмом с неверующими» (6:14), объединение, от которого они должны освободиться (6:15-18). Возможно, и вполне вероятно, что весь этот вопрос о неравном ярме был корнем проблем в Коринфе, вызывая такое разделение и нечестие. Быть «вместе под одним ярмом» с нехристианином — значит быть несовместимым (букв. неправильно сочетаться) — быть соединенным с неподходящим партнером, как когда быки или лошади в были в упряжке непарные и, следовательно, не могли тянуть (на самом деле не могут) в одном направлении. Они не могут работать вместе, ибо как могут двое идти вместе, если они не согласны (Амос 3:3)? Ярмо верующего есть ярмо Христово, легкое, и оно легкое для тех, кто соединен с Ним (Мф. 11:30).

Это предостережение не имеет прямого отношения к браку, хотя оно, безусловно, должно быть включено. Речь идет о любых неуместных ассоциациях между верующими и неверующими. «Ярмо» — это отношения или соглашение, которые связывают людей в тесной связи друг с другом, отношения, которые могут быть гармоничными и прочными только в том случае, если стороны согласны друг с другом. Очевидно, речь идет именно о согласии в духовных вещах, но принцип, безусловно, применим в любых отношениях – они не будут счастливыми и продуктивными, если стороны не будут согласны (философски, духовно, экономически и т. д.). И обычно, если одна из сторон верующая, а другая неверующая, влияние неверующего в «ярме» перевешивает влияние верующего. Как поэтически выразился Дэвид Гарланд: «Те, кто запрягает себя вместе с неверующими, вскоре обнаружат, что пашут поля сатаны» (Гарланд, с. 331).

В этом контексте быть под ярмом с неверующим означает союз — отсюда и выбор слов:

а) «партнерство» (14а) – совместное использование, участие (μετοξη)

б) «общение» (14б) – общение (κοινωνια)

в) «аккорд» (15а) - гармония, букв. «симфония» (συμφωνησις)

г) «иметь общее» (15б) – доля, часть, порция (μερις)

д) «соглашение» (16а) – союз (συγκαταθεσις)

Для христианина быть «под ярмом» вместе с нехристианином означает образовать тесный союз между тем, кто, с одной стороны, исповедует свою праведность во Христе, и тем, кто, с другой стороны, живет против и вопреки праведного закона Божьего – т.е. в «беззаконии» (6:14б). Это все равно, что пытаться соединить «свет и тьму» (6:14с) в единое целое — это невозможно. Это все равно, что пытаться добиться согласия между полярными противоположностями, между «Христом и Велиаром/Сатаной» (6:15а), между «верующим» и «неверующим» (6:15б), между «храмом Божьим» и храмом «идолов» (6:16).

Риторический вопрос в тексте звучит так: «Как может верующий вступать в отношения, претендующие на единое, равноправное, общее согласие с кем-то, чье базовое мировоззрение и практика противоречат этому?» И неявный ответ: «Вы не можете этого сделать!» – по крайней мере, вы не можете сделать это и поддерживать последовательное христианское свидетельство или жить счастливой, продуктивной христианской жизнью. Нет, обязательно…

а) Мы «делимся» в Святом Духе (Евр. 6:4) и, как Божьи дети, «делимся» в Божьем наказании (Евр. 12:8).

б) Наше «общение с Отцом и Сыном Его, Иисусом Христом» (1 Ин. 1:3б; ср. 1:6), а не с нарушителями закона. Наше «общение» происходит с «Иисусом Христом, Господом нашим» (1 Кор. 1:9) и со Святым Духом (2 Кор. 13:13), а не с тьмой или бесами (1 Кор. 10:20).

в) Наше «согласие» со словом Божьим (Деяния 15:15) и с церковью Божьей (1 Кор. 1:10-11; Мф. 18:19-20).

г) Наша «часть» (доля) находится в «наследии святых» (Кол. 1:12), а не с неверующими, чья часть в огненном озере.

д) Наше «соглашение» (букв. союз, общее дело) заключено с церковью Бога живого (1 Тим. 3:14), а не с храмом мертвых бесов (2 Кор. 6:16б).

Хотя Павел прямо не говорит, о чем он здесь упоминает, анализ противопоставлений, которые он проводит (общение праведности с беззаконием, общение света с тьмой, соглашение Христа с сатаной, общность между верующим и неверующим; согласие храма Божия с храмом идолов) как бы указывает на то, что он имеет в виду прежде всего всякую связь христиан с языческим идолопоклонством и жертвоприношениями (ср. 1 Кор. 8:1-13; 10:14-33).

Весь образ «ярма» исключает применение этого учения к случайным связям, иначе христианам пришлось бы вообще уйти из мира, чего, как говорит Павел в другом месте, мы не должны делать (1 Кор. 5:9-10). Мы не должны жить в изолированных сообществах, отделенных от любого контакта с миром. Ведь это противоречило бы всему учению Христа о том, чтобы быть солью и светом в мире. Павел настаивает здесь на том, чтобы христиане хранили свое христианство (свои духовные ценности, этические стандарты, отношения, практики, верования) отдельно от мирских ценностей, стандартов, отношений, практик и верований. В самом деле, быть под ярмом неверующего означает вступить в самые близкие и постоянные отношения с тем, кто на самом деле является врагом креста Христова (Флп. 3:18).

Резервная поддержка аргумента Павла (6:16-18) представлена в виде различных, собранных воедино цитат из В.З. (Лев. 26:11-12; Иез. 37:26, 27; Ис. 52:11; 2 Цар. 7:14; ср. также Втор. 32:18-19), которые укрепляют…

а) Единство и исключительные отношения Бога со Своим народом: «Я буду жить и ходить среди них, и буду их Богом, а они будут Моим народом» (6:16), что единство и отношения исключают кого-либо еще.

б) Призыв к отделению от тех, среди которых Бог не обитает и не ходит: «Итак, выйдите из среды их и отделитесь, говорит Господь, не прикасайтесь ни к чему нечистому, и Я приму вас. И буду вам Отцом, и вы будете Мне сынами и дочерьми, говорит Господь Вседержитель» (6:17-18).

Эти ветхозаветные цитаты имеют отношение к поклонению Богу, которое должно совершаться в полном отделении от всего «нечистого» (Откр. 17:4; Лев. 5:2; 10:10). Другими словами, поклонение Богу и поклонение идолам ни при каких обстоятельствах не могут быть соединены вместе. Поскольку верующие являются «храмом Божьим» (1 Кор. 3:16), мы не можем быть присоединены к храму идолов (2 Кор. 6:16). Только когда мы отделяемся от таких вещей и людей, мы можем и будем «приветствовать/принимать вас. И (тогда) Я буду вам Отцом, а вы будете Моими сыновьями и дочерьми, говорит Господь Вседержитель».

Заключительные заметки. Существует тонкий баланс между отделением от мира с целью сохранения святости для Господа и соединением с миром с целью евангелизации. Очевидно, коринфяне были хорошо интегрированы в мир, а не отделены от него. Возможно, поэтому мы ничего не читаем о гонениях на коринфян. Вместо этого они были приняты в качестве участников языческого храмового поклонения (1 Кор. 8:10) и занимались сексуальной безнравственностью (1 Кор. 5). Верующим нет места ни в идолопоклонстве, ни в каком-либо безнравственном или нечистом поведении, о котором, как говорит Павел, «не должно быть и слышно у вас, как прилично святым» (Еф. 5:3).

Равновесие, по-видимому, состоит в том, что, с одной стороны, мы должны отделиться, чтобы мы не были «под одним ярмом» с неверующими (т. е. не попадали под их влияние, не были обязаны им, не были похожи на них, не совращались ими; не перенимали их аморальные обычаи), и все же, с другой стороны, мы должны стремиться развивать отношения с ними, основанные на христианской доброте, честности, любви, чистоте и благодати, чтобы они были восприимчивы к нашему свидетельству о Христе и Евангелии. .

III. План проповеди

Название: Учиться у Иисуса, быть влиятельными христианами, ч. 2 (Мф. 5:14-16)

Тема: Эффективная жизнь для Бога в мире

Тема: Влиятельные христиане — это те, кто меняет мир для Бога.

Пункт 1. Только ученики Иисуса передают свет Божий в духовно темный мир (5:14-15)

А. Только христиане передают свет Божий по всему миру... в силу того, кто мы есть (14а)

1. Мы единственные Его ученики (ср. Ин. 1:9; Ин. 8:12).

2. Мы единственные Его представители в мире (ср. 1 Ин. 4:17).

Б. Только христиане передают свет Божий по всему миру... в силу того, что мы знаем (14а)

1. Мы единственные знаем, что сокрыто во мраке (ср. 1 Кор. 4:5; Еф. 5:13).

2. Мы единственные знаем причину для тьмы

а) Мы знаем, что живем в последние дни (ср. 2 Тим. 6:1-5)

б) Мы знаем, что это время духов обольстителей и учений бесовских (1 Тим. 4:1)

в) Мы знаем, что в мире есть лжепророки (1 Ин. 4:1-3)

г) Мы знаем, что «все согрешили...» (Рим. 3:23; Ин. 3:19)

3. Мы единственные имеем решение для тьмы

а) Выходом из тьмы является истина Божия (ср. 1 Ин. 1:5-10; 1 Ин. 4:6; Ин. 1:17; Ин. 8:32).

б) Только христиане могут ответить на главные вопросы жизни – кто мы, откуда мы пришли, почему мы здесь, и куда мы идем

В. Только христиане передают свет Божий по всему миру… в силу того, почему мы существуем (14б-15)

1. Мы существуем, чтобы занимать определенную позицию (5:14б)

2. Мы существуем для достижения определенной цели (5:15)

Пункт 2. Только ученики Иисуса передают славу Божью в духовно темном мире (5:16)

2а. Мы послушны повелению Иисуса, чтобы наш свет сиял (5:16а)

2б. Мы делаем добрые дела, которые указывают на Бога, как на источник (5:16б)

Related Topics: Pastors

网上牧师杂志–中文版(简体), SCh Ed, Issue 43 2022 年 春季

A ministry of…

作者: Roger Pascoe,博士,主席,
邮箱: [email protected]

I. 加强讲解式讲道:
传讲新约福音,第二部分

“加强讲解式讲道”这个系列开始于本杂志2018年秋(29期)。本系列文章的目的是建立在我们前一个系列文章所学的基础上(“讲解式讲道的要领”,1-28期,2011秋到2018夏)。在目前为止,这个系列已经包含了以下的主题:

1.强化引言(2018秋)

2.强化结尾(2019冬)

3.加强例子(2019春)

4.强化应用(2019夏和秋)

5.加强圣经讲解(2020冬、春、夏、秋)

6.加强传讲希伯来叙事(2021冬和春)

7.加强传讲希伯来诗歌(2021夏和秋)

8.加强传讲新约福音(2022冬)

在2022冬季版,我讲解了第一部分“福音体裁:文学风格、结构和特点”。在这一版中,我要继续相同的主题、进入第二部分…

B.理解福音故事的解释性提示和原则

对于这一部分,我从格雷姆·戈兹沃西

(“Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,” 222-232), 西德尼·格雷达努斯

(“Handbook of Contemporary Preaching,” 329-343), and 杰.·斯科特·杜瓦尔

and 杰.丹尼尔·海斯(“Grasping God’s Word,” 249-253)得到特别的帮助。

1.注意角度的不同。诠释受到角度的影响。我们的观点与福音书作者的观点不同,这在很大程度上是因为他们与我们之间的文化、时间、神学和语言差异。因此,当我们讲福音书的时候,我们需要知道这些不同并恰当地解释。

我们要问的第一个问题是:“福音作者的神学目的是什么?”我想我们可以这样认为:所有福音作者的总体信息都是神的国度。实际上,就像Sidney Greidanus说的,“四部福音书将神国度这个中心信息与耶稣基督的个人和工作联系起来…这个包含一切的好消息—在耶稣基督里,神的国度临近了,已经临到了,也将要临到—要求以神为中心——以基督为中心——来解释福音书的每一篇讲道经文”(“Preaching in the Gospels,” 332)。

2.从分析经文开始。经文分析能帮助你对故事的结构和内容有一个更好的理解。

关于结构,一般来说,福音故事一般围绕四个部分进行:

(1)生活的状况、上下文和背景

(2)手头的问题和难处

(3)矛盾或高潮

(4)解决的方法

(5)结论——一个应用、教训或挑战

在这个结构中,你想知道是什么推动故事向前发展—是它的问题、恐惧还是对耶稣的反对等?

关于内容,通过对经文提出六个标准问题,你可以很容易地分析它的上下文、人物、地点和事件:

(1)故事里有哪些角色?不论是有名字的或者没有名字的。

(2)发生了什么?

a)故事的背景。

b)所涉及的问题(比如医治或者风暴等)。

c)事件的进展。

d)这些角色说了什么,做了什么或者他们如何反应等。

(3)什么时候发生的?—发生的时间或者季节,在一个犹太节期还是一个婚宴等。

(4)发生在哪里?在湖上,在一个人家里,在一个城里,或者在会堂里等。

(5) 这个故事的事件为什么会发生?—为了行使神迹,还是显明一个人的信心或者信心的缺乏,或者因为怀疑耶稣是谁等?在分析经文这一步中,寻找任何作者给出的,能够帮助我们理解这个故事目的的线索。这些线索可能在故事的开头或者结尾。以马可福音4:35-41为例(Duval and Hays),门徒问的最后的问题说明了马可使用这个事件是为了教导和加强对耶稣是谁的认识。他不只是一个夫子,而是神本身,独有权柄掌管和带领他的受造物。

(6)故事是如何展开的?——是为了满足或回答某个人的需要或问题,为了显示耶稣超越自然的能力或者他对危机的介入等。

另外一个有帮助的分析工具就是注意故事中的重复。这是适用于所有圣经文献的解释指针,而不仅仅是福音书—一个词、一个短语或一个主题的重复。作者用重复的手法使观点明白无误地表达出来。

3.确定故事中普遍的神学原则。一旦你仔细地分析了故事的结构和内容,你就要把它们放在一起,从中找出故事所教导的整体原则。这里你要回答的问题是:这个故事的意义是什么?尤其是,作者包含了这个故事并如此讲述,表达了他什么样的神学观点,是关于关系、信心还是缺乏信心等?故事中是否有我们需要学习的教训?我们对耶稣的反应是否映射了了故事中描述的反应?

有时候福音作者通过一系列故事来强调一个观点。比如,路加福音15章3个比喻:(1)迷失的羊;(2)丢失的钱;以及(3)浪子。我们的工作是找到将他们联系起来的共同神学观点。一个故事与前一个或后一个故事之间的主题联系通常是由背景、角色和主题决定的(比如路加福音15共同的观点是“失丧”和“找到”)。

一旦你找到了神学原则,试着将它用一种与你的听众相关的、适于应用的方式表达出来。这是我们需要讲的东西——在任何时候都适用于所有听众的神学观点。向听众复述故事很容易,但是我们要告诉他们的不仅仅是这些。我们的工作是充实故事的原则,不仅要让它们与故事中的角色产生联系,更要让它们与我们产生联系。我们需要回答的问题是:“这跟我有什么关系?”这样做的时候,一定要参照经文更大的故事背景,忠实于经文本身。

结语。当你准备讲福音故事的时候,这些步骤是至关重要的。单单复述故事,找出一些道德上的应用是不够的。你必须了解福音作者的神学观点和以基督为中心的焦点,分析故事的结构和内容,确定整个故事以及故事每个场景的神学原则。然后你就可以准备你的讲道,并将故事的原则恰当地应用到今天的生活中。

II.加强圣经化领导
“和好的职分,第四部分:呼吁神百姓与神的执事和好” (哥后 6:11-7:16)

和好职分的主题贯穿了哥林多后书5章18节到7章16节,如下

A.所有人的和好(哥后5:18-21)

B.神百姓的和好(哥后6:1-7:16)

(1)与神和好(哥后6:1-2)

(2)与神的执事和好(6:3-7:16)—因为只有与牧师和好,才能完全正确地与神和好,因为他是神的使者(5:20)。

这次我们将学习哥林多后书 6:11-18 并在后续版本中继续研究本节。

首先,让我对我们要学习的段落(哥后6:11-7:16)结构做一些介绍性的评论,因为在经文评论家之间一直存在广泛的争论,关于这是否是使徒保罗写的,如果是,它是否包含另一封信的片段。争议的原因是 6:11-13 的语言在 6:14-7:1 中发生了非常突然的变化。确实,7:2似乎与6:13相连接,而6:14-7:1就好像与上下文没有连接的插入。但事实上,整个段落的思路是一体的,无需推测6:14-7:1是来自其他的文件或者编者的插入。事实上,7:3中的这句话(“我已经说过,你常在我心里”)明确引用6:11-13,并说明在这之间他说了一些其他的东西。

因此,这一节,是一个关于保罗使徒事工的完整论文的高潮,开始于2:14,结束语7:16。就像David Garland很敏锐的指出,与其说是题外话,不如说我们要学习的最后一部分总结了他的整个论点,并带以高潮的呼吁。 因此,命令的列表如下:(a) 与神和好” (5:20); (b) ,不可徒受他的恩典” (6:1); (c) 宏的心答我” (6:13); (d) 与不信的原不相配,不要同” (6:14); (e) 出来不要沾” (6:17); 以及 (f) 心地大收” (7:2)见 David Garland,哥后, New American Commentary, 322-323]

首先,保罗的呼吁基于…

1.一个牧者爱的呼吁(6:11-13).“哥林多人哪,我向你口是开的,心是宏的。你狭窄,原不在乎我,是在乎自己的心狭窄。你也要照宏的心答我。我这话正像自己的孩子的”

在保罗写给哥林多教会的信中,保罗对哥林多的这段讲话是独一无二的。可能他通过这种方式表达他心里对他们的爱,也通过直呼他们的名字使他的呼吁更个人化。保罗不论对他们的讲话还是对他们的情感,都是坦诚透明的。因为他对他们的爱,他与他们坦诚交流。毫无疑问,保罗对他们讲话直截了当,因为他知道如果他们继续同样的道路所要面对的危险。就像我们在监督孩子时所知道的那样,危险越大,我们的警告就越明显和直白。尽管他们的罪行需要严厉的指责,但是保罗对他们敞开的心从未改变,他对他们的爱和他对他们的指责并不是互相排斥的——并非只有他们在主面前谨守遵行的时候,他才会爱他们,表达对他们的爱 (虽然那毫无疑问是他所愿意看到的)。

作为他们的牧者对他们发出呼吁,他强调了他对他们的爱—“我们的心是宽宏的”(6:11)。但是爱必须是相互的。保罗说“你们狭窄,原不在乎我们,是在乎自己的心肠狭窄”(6:12).因此,保罗进一步呼吁他们回应他的爱——“用宽宏的心报答我”(6:13)。 他对他们的热情和真诚并没有动摇;而他们对他的爱已经消散,或者至少不明显了。 这对于一个被严厉斥责并且生活方式与斥责他的人截然相反的人来说,并不罕见,

保罗如何向他们表达指责的方式很有指导性。他是在表达和肯定他对他们的爱的基础上这样做的(6:11-13;7:2-4)。这对我们是一个及时的提醒,要想使指责被接受并使之有效,就必须本着爱心去做。当我们面对犯罪的信徒时,如果他们没有悔改的心,我们必须管教他们(参考哥前5),不管怎样,我们必须在管教和基督徒的爱心之间保持平衡,免得我们施行某种律法上的惩罚,使他们站在角落里,直到他们悔改,或将他们剪除,直到他们改变。 不论在什么情况下,我们都必须“用爱心说诚实话”。

保罗像一个父亲呼吁他的“孩子”一样(6:13)来回应他的爱。孩子爱他们的父母是自然和正常的。他们是他属灵的爱子。他对他们宣讲和好的信息,并且他们已经接受。他们是保罗事工的受益者,无论是从他们的救恩,还是他们持续的教会事奉。现在,他们处于这样的危险之中,那就是把这个伟大的祝福看作是白费的,丢在他的脸上。因此,接着这个这个牧者爱的呼吁是…

2.一个牧者警告的呼吁(6:14-18). 14和不信的原不相配,不要同和不有什么相交呢?光明和黑暗有什么相通呢? 15 基督和彼列有什么相和呢?信主的和不信主的有什么相干呢? 16神的殿和偶像有什么相同呢?因是永生神的殿,就如神曾我要在他居住,在他来往;我要做他的神,他要做我的子民。 17们务要从他出来,与他,不要沾不洁净的物,我就收 18我要做你的父,你要做我的儿女。是全能的主的”。

这个告诫的呼吁似乎是在这一段落的思路中突然出现的。然而,就像我之前提到的,从上下文背景来说,这一告诫似乎直接关联于(a)之前的经文(6:11-13)讲到哥林多人远离保罗(以及巧合之下他们接近假使徒,或者至少受到他们的影响—参考10和11章);和(b)在第一封信中提到的世俗化的问题。因此,若有人需要为圣洁听从这劝戒,那就是哥林多教会,他们分党(哥前1),在教会中以淫乱为傲(哥前5),将彼此告上法庭(哥前6),和妓女淫乱(哥前6:15-20),拜偶像(哥前8,10)以及乱用主的饼和杯(哥前11:17-34).这些问题以及他们应该如何处理这些问题是保罗第一份书信的主要内容,而哥林多后书6:14-7:1的劝戒,是对保罗第一份书信中指示(针对他们罪恶的、世俗的生活方式和实践)的重申。

为了使哥林多人与保罗的关系完全恢复,他们需要证明自己已经与罪恶完全分离。只有当他们顺服保罗,尤其是与世界分别(6:14-7:1),他们对保罗的爱才能得到充分地表达,因为爱和圣洁相辅相成。爱能遮掩罪。他们对他的爱的最真诚的表达就是按照他的指示去做,就如耶稣说的,“有了我的命令又遵守的,人就是我的(14:21)”

因此,我们有理由断言(事实上它与这两封书信的主旨和主题是一致的),6:11-7:16是保罗对这些人最后一次牧者的呼吁,呼吁他们与他和好,尤其是他们已经做出了一些必要的改变与罪恶分离(比如哥前5章管教那个乱伦的人)。这个呼吁出现在他整个论点的最后,是有道理的,这与牧养事工所具有的和好的本质是相关联的。

问题是哥林多人与“不信的同一扼(6:14)”,并处于一个他们必须脱离的关系之中(6:15-18)。有可能,或者说极有可能,这个不相符的轭是哥林多教会问题的根源,导致纷争和罪恶。和一个非基督徒“同”,就是错配(即不相配)——与不合适的同伴结合,如套着马具的牛或马不相配,因此不往(事实上也不能往)一个方向用劲。他们不能够一起工作,因为二人若不同心,岂能同行呢(摩3:3)?信徒的轭是基督的轭,对于和基督同负一轭的人来说,他的轭是容易的,轻省的(太11:30).

这个劝戒并不是特指婚姻的,尽管婚姻肯定包含在内。这里讲的是信徒和不信的人之间不恰当的联系。是一种将人们紧密联系在一起的关系或协议,是只有双方达成一致,才能和谐持久的一种关系。显然,这是指在属灵的事情上达成一致,但这个原则肯定适用于任何关系——如果双方意见不一致,就不会愉快和富有成效(理论上、属灵上、经济上等)。尤其是,如果一方是信徒,另一方不是信徒,在所负的中非信徒一方的影响超过信徒的一方。 就像David Garland所描写的,“那些将自己和非信徒拴在一起的人,很快就会发现自己在耕种撒旦的田地”(Garland, 331)。

在此背景下,和不信的人同负一轭指的是一种联盟—因此,有以下选择的词语:

(a) 相合(14a) – 分享,参与 (μετοξη)

(b) 相交” (14b) – 共享 (κοινωνια)

(c) 相干” (15a) – 和谐, 字面意思. “交响乐” (συμφωνησις)

(d) 相和” (15b) – 共享, 参与, 有份 (μερις)

(e) 相同” (16a) – 联合 (συγκαταθεσις)

对于一个基督徒,和非基督徒同负一就是他们之间形成一种亲密的联盟关系,一方是在基督里称义的,而另一方站在和神对立的角度并且违背神公义的律法——也就是“不”(6:14b。这就像把“光明和黑暗”融合在一起——是不可能的。这就像试图强迫两极之间达成协议,“基督和彼列/撒旦”之间(6:15a),一个“信徒”和“不信的”之间(6:15b),“神的殿”“偶像”的殿之间(6:16).这段经文反问的问题是: “一个信徒怎么可能与一个基本世界观和行为都于自己对立的人建立一种自诩为合一、平等、一致的关系呢?”。隐含的答案就是“你不可能这样做”—至少你不可能既这样做,又保持一致的基督徒见证或者过一个快乐的,有果效的基督徒生活。这一定是不行的…

(a)我们于圣灵“有份”(来6:4),并且作为神的孩子,我们“有份于”神的管教(来12:8)

(b) 我们“与父并他儿子耶基督相交”(11:3b,参考1:6,而不是和不义的人。我们和“我的主耶基督”(哥前1:9)以及圣灵(哥后13:13)“相交”,而不是黑暗或恶魔(哥前10:20)

(c) 我们是和神的话语(徒15:15)以及神的教会(哥前1:1-11;太18:19-2)同”.

(d)我们是和“众圣徒”“同得基”(西1:12,而不是和不信的人,他们的份是火湖。

(e)我们是和活神的(提前3:14)教会合”(即合一,共同的事业),而不是和必死的魔鬼的庙(哥后6:16b).

虽然保罗没有明确地说他在这里指的是什么,但是分析他所做的一系列对比(义和不义的相交;光明和黑暗的相通;基督和撒旦的相合;信主的和不信的相和;神的殿和偶像的庙的相连),似乎表明他首先想到的是任何基督徒和外邦偶像以及献祭相联合的关系(参考哥前8:1-13;10:14-33)。

“轭”这个意象排除了将这一教导应用于普通的关系,否则基督徒就需要从世界中完全隔绝出来,而保罗在其他地方说过,我们不需要这样做(哥前5:9-10)。我们不能生活在与世隔绝的社区里,与世界没有任何联系。如果这样的话,我们就与所有基督关于在世界中做光做盐的教导相违背。保罗在这说的是,基督徒要保持他们的基督信仰(他们属灵的价值观、标准、关系、实践、信仰)与世界的价值观、标准、关系、实践和信仰有区别。实际上,与不信的人同负一轭就是与一个与基督十字架为敌的人形成一种最亲密的、最长久的关系(腓3:18)。

有来自于各种各样拼凑起来的来自旧约的引用可以支持保罗的观点(利. 26:11-12; 结. 37:26, 27; 赛. 52:11; 撒下 7:14; 参考. 申 32:18-19)

(a)神与他的百姓之间合一的排它的关系“我要在他们中间居住,在他们中间来往。我要作他们的神,他们要作我的子民”(6:16)

(b)呼召与那些神不居住其间或者不来往的人分别:们务要从他出来,与他,不要沾不洁净的物,我就收。我要做你的父,你要做我的儿女”(6:17-18.

这些旧约的引用与敬拜神相关,必须与“任何不洁之物”分开(启17:4;利5:2;10:10)。换句话说,敬拜神和偶像的敬拜在任何情况下都不能相通。既然我们是“神的殿”(哥前3:16),我们就不能和偶像的庙相通(哥后6:16)。只有我们与那样的事情和人分别的时候,神才会“我就收。我要做你的父,你要做我的儿女,是全能的主的”。

结语。在为了圣洁的目的与世界分别与为了传福音的目的与世界联系之间,存在着微妙的平衡。显然,哥林多教会的人很好地融入这个世界,而不是与之分别。或许这就是为什么我们没有看到任何关于哥林多教会遭逼迫的事情。相反,他们被接纳进入外邦偶像的庙中(哥前8:10),参与淫乱的事情(哥后1:5)。偶像崇拜以及任何不道德或不洁的事情,在信徒这里不应该有半点存留的余地,就像保罗说的“在你间连提都不可,方和圣徒的体”(弗5:3.

所需要保持的平衡似乎是这样的,一方面,我们必须将自己分别出来,从而不与不信的人“负轭”(也就是,不在他们的影响之下,不对他们负有义务,不和他们没有区别,不被他们侵蚀,不学习他们不道德的行为)。而另一方面,我们必须基于基督徒的恩慈、诚实、爱、圣洁和恩典,努力与他们建立关系,他们是基督和福音见证的接收者。

III.讲道大纲

题目: 像基督学习,做有影响力的基督徒, 第二部分 (太. 5:14-16)

主旨:在这个世界为神活出影响力

主题:有影响力的基督徒是那些为神在这个世界做出不同的人

要点I.只有耶稣的门徒在这个属灵黑暗的世界传播神的光亮(5:14-15)

A.只有基督徒在个世界播神的光亮的所是(14a

1.只有我们是他的门徒(参考约1:9;约8:12)

2.只有我们是他在这个世界的代表(参考1约4:17)

B.只有基督徒在个世界播神的光亮所知道的(14a

1.只有我们知道在黑暗里隐藏了什么(参考哥前4:5‘弗5;13’)

2.只有我们知道黑暗的起因

a)我们知道我们生活在末后的世代(参考提后6:1-5)

b)我们知道这是引诱人的邪灵的时代和魔鬼的教导(提前4:1)

c)我们知道假先知在这个世界上(约前4:1-3)

d)我们知道“人都犯了罪…”(罗3:23;约3:19)

3.只有我们知道黑暗的解决之道

a)黑暗的解决之道是神的真理(参考 1约 1:5-10; 1约 4:6; 约 1:17; 约 8:32)

b) 只有基督徒能够回答关于生命的最终问题—我们是谁,我们从哪里来,我们为什么在这里,我们要到哪里去。

C.只有基督徒在个世界播神的光亮存在的原因(14b-15)

1.我们存在是为了填补一个特定的位置(5:14b)

2.我们存在是为了实现一个特殊的目的(5:15)

要点2:只有耶稣的门徒在这个属灵黑暗的世界传播神的荣耀(5:16)

2a.遵行耶的教,使我的光出来(5:16a

2b.的好行,指向神是的源5:16b

Related Topics: Pastors

網上牧師雜誌 – 中文版(繁體), TCh Ed, Issue 43 2022 年 春季

A ministry of…

作者: Roger Pascoe,博士,主席,
郵箱: [email protected]

I. 加強講解式講道:
傳講新約福音,第二部分

“加強講解式講道”這個系列開始於本雜誌2018年秋(29期)。本系列文章的目的是建立在我們前一個系列文章所學的基礎上(”講解式講道的要領”,1-28期,2011秋到2018夏)。在目前為止,這個系列已經包含了以下的主題:

1.強化引言(2018秋)

2.強化結尾(2019冬)

3.加強例子(2019春)

4.強化應用(2019夏和秋)

5.加強聖經講解(2020冬、春、夏、秋)

6.加強傳講希伯來敘事(2021冬和春)

7.加強傳講希伯來詩歌(2021夏和秋)

8.加強傳講新約福音(2022冬)

在2022冬季版,我講解了第一部分”福音體裁:文學風格、結構和特點”。在這一版中,我要繼續相同的主題、進入第二部分…

B.理解福音故事的解釋性提示和原則

對於這一部分,我從格雷姆·戈茲沃西

(”Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,” 222-232), 西德尼·格雷達努斯

(“Handbook of Contemporary Preaching,” 329-343), and 傑.·斯科特·杜瓦爾

and 傑.丹尼爾·海斯(“Grasping God’s Word,” 249-253)得到特別的幫助。

1.注意角度的不同。詮釋受到角度的影響。我們的觀點與福音書作者的觀點不同,這在很大程度上是因為他們與我們之間的文化、時間、神學和語言差異。因此,當我們講福音書的時候,我們需要知道這些不同並恰當地解釋。

我們要問的第一個問題是:”福音作者的神學目的是什麼?”我想我們可以這樣認為:所有福音作者的總體資訊都是神的國度。實際上,就像Sidney Greidanus說的,”四部福音書將神國度這個中心資訊與耶穌基督的個人和工作聯繫起來…這個包含一切的好消息—在耶穌基督裡,神的國度臨近了,已經臨到了,也將要臨到—要求以神為中心——以基督為中心——來解釋福音書的每一篇講道經文”(”Preaching in the Gospels,” 332)。

2.從分析經文開始。經文分析能説明你對故事的結構和內容有一個更好的理解。

關於結構,一般來說,福音故事一般圍繞四個部分進行:

(1)生活的狀況、上下文和背景

(2)手頭的問題和難處

(3)矛盾或高潮

(4)解決的方法

(5)結論——一個應用、教訓或挑戰

在這個結構中,你想知道是什麼推動故事向前發展—是它的問題、恐懼還是對耶穌的反對等?

關於內容,通過對經文提出六個標準問題,你可以很容易地分析它的上下文、人物、地點和事件:

(1)故事裡有哪些角色?不論是有名字的或者沒有名字的。

(2)發生了什麼?

a)故事的背景。

b)所涉及的問題(比如醫治或者風暴等)。

c)事件的進展。

d)這些角色說了什麼,做了什麼或者他們如何反應等。

(3)什麼時候發生的?—發生的時間或者季節,在一個猶太節期還是一個婚宴等。

(4)發生在哪裡?在湖上,在一個人家裡,在一個城裡,或者在會堂裡等。

(5) 這個故事的事件為什麼會發生?—為了行使神跡,還是顯明一個人的信心或者信心的缺乏,或者因為懷疑耶穌是誰等?在分析經文這一步中,尋找任何作者給出的,能夠説明我們理解這個故事目的的線索。這些線索可能在故事的開頭或者結尾。以馬可福音4:35-41為例(Duval and Hays),門徒問的最後的問題說明了馬可使用這個事件是為了教導和加強對耶穌是誰的認識。他不只是一個夫子,而是神本身,獨有權柄掌管和帶領他的受造物。

(6)故事是如何展開的?——是為了滿足或回答某個人的需要或問題,為了顯示耶穌超越自然的能力或者他對危機的介入等。

另外一個有幫助的分析工具就是注意故事中的重複。這是適用於所有聖經文獻的解釋指標,而不僅僅是福音書—一個詞、一個短語或一個主題的重複。作者用重複的手法使觀點明白無誤地表達出來。

3.確定故事中普遍的神學原則。一旦你仔細地分析了故事的結構和內容,你就要把它們放在一起,從中找出故事所教導的整體原則。這裡你要回答的問題是:這個故事的意義是什麼?尤其是,作者包含了這個故事並如此講述,表達了他什麼樣的神學觀點,是關於關係、信心還是缺乏信心等?故事中是否有我們需要學習的教訓?我們對耶穌的反應是否映射了了故事中描述的反應?

有時候福音作者通過一系列故事來強調一個觀點。比如,路加福音15章3個比喻:(1)迷失的羊;(2)丟失的錢;以及(3)浪子。我們的工作是找到將他們聯繫起來的共同神學觀點。一個故事與前一個或後一個故事之間的主題聯繫通常是由背景、角色和主題決定的(比如路加福音15共同的觀點是”失喪”和”找到”)。

一旦你找到了神學原則,試著將它用一種與你的聽眾相關的、適於應用的方式表達出來。這是我們需要講的東西——在任何時候都適用於所有聽眾的神學觀點。向聽眾複述故事很容易,但是我們要告訴他們的不僅僅是這些。我們的工作是充實故事的原則,不僅要讓它們與故事中的角色產生聯繫,更要讓它們與我們產生聯繫。我們需要回答的問題是:”這跟我有什麼關係?”這樣做的時候,一定要參照經文更大的故事背景,忠實於經文本身。

結語。當你準備講福音故事的時候,這些步驟是至關重要的。單單複述故事,找出一些道德上的應用是不夠的。你必須瞭解福音作者的神學觀點和以基督為中心的焦點,分析故事的結構和內容,確定整個故事以及故事每個場景的神學原則。然後你就可以準備你的講道,並將故事的原則恰當地應用到今天的生活中。

II.加強聖經化領導
“和好的職分,第四部分:呼籲神百姓與神的執事和好” (哥後 6:11-7:16)

和好職分的主題貫穿了哥林多後書5章18節到7章16節,如下

A.所有人的和好(哥後5:18-21)

B.神百姓的和好(哥後6:1-7:16)

(1)與神和好(哥後6:1-2)

(2)與神的執事和好(6:3-7:16)—因為只有與牧師和好,才能完全正確地與神和好,因為他是神的使者(5:20)。

這次我們將學習哥林多後書 6:11-18 並在後續版本中繼續研究本節。

首先,讓我對我們要學習的段落(哥後6:11-7:16)結構做一些介紹性的評論,因為在經文評論家之間一直存在廣泛的爭論,關於這是否是使徒保羅寫的,如果是,它是否包含另一封信的片段。爭議的原因是 6:11-13 的語言在 6:14-7:1 中發生了非常突然的變化。確實,7:2似乎與6:13相連接,而6:14-7:1就好像與上下文沒有連接的插入。但事實上,整個段落的思路是一體的,無需推測6:14-7:1是來自其他的文件或者編者的插入。事實上,7:3中的這句話(我已經說過,你們常在我們心裡)明確引用6:11-13,並說明在這之間他說了一些其他的東西。

因此,這一節,是一個關於保羅使徒事工的完整論文的高潮,開始於2:14,結束語7:16。就像David Garland很敏銳的指出,與其說是題外話,不如說我們要學習的最後一部分總結了他的整個論點,並帶以高潮的呼籲。 因此,命令的列表如下:(a) 與神和好” (5:20); (b) 也勸你們,不可徒受他的恩典” (6:1); (c) 用寬宏的心報答我們” (6:13); (d) 你們與不信的原不相配,不要同負一軛” (6:14); (e) 出來分別不要沾” (6:17); 以及 (f) 心地寬大收納我們” (7:2)見 David Garland,哥後, New American Commentary, 322-323]

首先,保羅的呼籲基於…

1.一個牧者愛的呼籲(6:11-13).哥林多人哪,我們向你們口是張開的,心是寬宏的。你們狹窄,原不在乎我們,是在乎自己的心腸狹窄。你們也要照樣用寬宏的心報答我。我這話正像對自己的孩子說的

在保羅寫給哥林多教會的信中,保羅對哥林多的這段講話是獨一無二的。可能他通過這種方式表達他心裡對他們的愛,也通過直呼他們的名字使他的呼籲更個人化。保羅不論對他們的講話還是對他們的情感,都是坦誠透明的。因為他對他們的愛,他與他們坦誠交流。毫無疑問,保羅對他們講話直截了當,因為他知道如果他們繼續同樣的道路所要面對的危險。就像我們在監督孩子時所知道的那樣,危險越大,我們的警告就越明顯和直白。儘管他們的罪行需要嚴厲的指責,但是保羅對他們敞開的心從未改變,他對他們的愛和他對他們的指責並不是互相排斥的——並非只有他們在主面前謹守遵行的時候,他才會愛他們,表達對他們的愛 (雖然那毫無疑問是他所願意看到的)。

作為他們的牧者對他們發出呼籲,他強調了他對他們的愛—”我們的心是寬宏的”(6:11)。但是愛必須是相互的。保羅說”你們狹窄,原不在乎我們,是在乎自己的心腸狹窄”(6:12).因此,保羅進一步呼籲他們回應他的愛——”用寬宏的心報答我”(6:13)。 他對他們的熱情和真誠並沒有動搖;而他們對他的愛已經消散,或者至少不明顯了。 這對於一個被嚴厲斥責並且生活方式與斥責他的人截然相反的人來說,並不罕見,

保羅如何向他們表達指責的方式很有指導性。他是在表達和肯定他對他們的愛的基礎上這樣做的(6:11-13;7:2-4)。這對我們是一個及時的提醒,要想使指責被接受並使之有效,就必須本著愛心去做。當我們面對犯罪的信徒時,如果他們沒有悔改的心,我們必須管教他們(參考哥前5),不管怎樣,我們必須在管教和基督徒的愛心之間保持平衡,免得我們施行某種律法上的懲罰,使他們站在角落裡,直到他們悔改,或將他們剪除,直到他們改變。 不論在什麼情況下,我們都必須”用愛心說誠實話”。

保羅像一個父親呼籲他的”孩子”一樣(6:13)來回應他的愛。孩子愛他們的父母是自然和正常的。他們是他屬靈的愛子。他對他們宣講和好的資訊,並且他們已經接受。他們是保羅事工的受益者,無論是從他們的救恩,還是他們持續的教會事奉。現在,他們處於這樣的危險之中,那就是把這個偉大的祝福看作是白費的,丟在他的臉上。因此,接著這個這個牧者愛的呼籲是…

2.一個牧者警告的呼籲(6:14-18). 14你們和不信的原不相配,不要同負一軛。義和不義有什麼相交呢?光明和黑暗有什麼相通呢? 15基督和彼列有什麼相和呢?信主的和不信主的有什麼相干呢? 16神的殿和偶像有什麼相同呢?因為我們是永生神的殿,就如神曾說:我要在他們中間居住,在他們中間來往;我要做他們的神,他們要做我的子民。 17又說:你們務要從他們中間出來,與他們分別,不要沾不潔淨的物,我就收納你們。 18我要做你們的父,你們要做我的兒女。這是全能的主說的

這個告誡的呼籲似乎是在這一段落的思路中突然出現的。然而,就像我之前提到的,從上下文背景來說,這一告誡似乎直接關聯於(a)之前的經文(6:11-13)講到哥林多人遠離保羅(以及巧合之下他們接近假使徒,或者至少受到他們的影響—參考10和11章);和(b)在第一封信中提到的世俗化的問題。因此,若有人需要為聖潔聽從這勸戒,那就是哥林多教會,他們分党(哥前1),在教會中以淫亂為傲(哥前5),將彼此告上法庭(哥前6),和妓女淫亂(哥前6:15-20),拜偶像(哥前8,10)以及亂用主的餅和杯(哥前11:17-34).這些問題以及他們應該如何處理這些問題是保羅第一份書信的主要內容,而哥林多後書6:14-7:1的勸戒,是對保羅第一份書信中指示(針對他們罪惡的、世俗的生活方式和實踐)的重申。

為了使哥林多人與保羅的關係完全恢復,他們需要證明自己已經與罪惡完全分離。只有當他們順服保羅,尤其是與世界分別(6:14-7:1),他們對保羅的愛才能得到充分地表達,因為愛和聖潔相輔相成。愛能遮掩罪。他們對他的愛的最真誠的表達就是按照他的指示去做,就如耶穌說的,有了我的命令又遵守的,這人就是愛我的(約14:21

因此,我們有理由斷言(事實上它與這兩封書信的主旨和主題是一致的),6:11-7:16是保羅對這些人最後一次牧者的呼籲,呼籲他們與他和好,尤其是他們已經做出了一些必要的改變與罪惡分離(比如哥前5章管教那個亂倫的人)。這個呼籲出現在他整個論點的最後,是有道理的,這與牧養事工所具有的和好的本質是相關聯的。

問題是哥林多人與不信的同負一扼(6:14並處於一個他們必須脫離的關係之中(6:15-18)。有可能,或者說極有可能,這個不相符的軛是哥林多教會問題的根源,導致紛爭和罪惡。和一個非基督徒同負一軛”,就是錯配(即不相配)——與不合適的同伴結合,如套著馬具的牛或馬不相配,因此不往(事實上也不能往)一個方向用勁。他們不能夠一起工作,因為二人若不同心,豈能同行呢(摩3:3)?信徒的軛是基督的軛,對於和基督同負一軛的人來說,他的軛是容易的,輕省的(太11:30).

這個勸戒並不是特指婚姻的,儘管婚姻肯定包含在內。這裡講的是信徒和不信的人之間不恰當的聯繫。是一種將人們緊密聯繫在一起的關係或協議,是只有雙方達成一致,才能和諧持久的一種關係。顯然,這是指在屬靈的事情上達成一致,但這個原則肯定適用於任何關係——如果雙方意見不一致,就不會愉快和富有成效(理論上、屬靈上、經濟上等)。尤其是,如果一方是信徒,另一方不是信徒,在所負的中非信徒一方的影響超過信徒的一方。 就像David Garland所描寫的,”那些將自己和非信徒拴在一起的人,很快就會發現自己在耕種撒旦的田地”(Garland, 331)。

在此背景下,和不信的人同負一軛指的是一種聯盟—因此,有以下選擇的詞語:

(a) 相合14a – 分享,參與(μετοξη)

(b) 相交” (14b) – 共用 (κοινωνια)

(c) 相干” (15a) – 和諧, 字面意思. “交響樂” (συμφωνησις)

(d) 相和” (15b) – 共用, 參與, 有份 (μερις)

(e) 相同” (16a) – 聯合 (συγκαταθεσις)

對於一個基督徒,和非基督徒同負一就是他們之間形成一種親密的聯盟關係,一方是在基督裡稱義的,而另一方站在和神對立的角度並且違背神公義的律法——也就是不義6:14b。這就像把”光明和黑暗”融合在一起——是不可能的。這就像試圖強迫兩極之間達成協議,”基督和彼列/撒旦”之間(6:15a),一個信徒和”不信的之間(6:15b),神的殿偶像的殿之間(6:16).這段經文反問的問題是: “一個信徒怎麼可能與一個基本世界觀和行為都於自己對立的人建立一種自詡為合一、平等、一致的關係呢?”。隱含的答案就是”你不可能這樣做”—至少你不可能既這樣做,又保持一致的基督徒見證或者過一個快樂的,有果效的基督徒生活。這一定是不行的…

(a)我們於聖靈”有份”(來6:4),並且作為神的孩子,我們”有份於”神的管教(來12:8)

(b) 我們與父並他兒子耶穌基督相交11:3b,參考1:6,而不是和不義的人。我們和我們的主耶穌基督(哥前1:9)以及聖靈(哥後13:13)相交,而不是黑暗或惡魔(哥前10:20)

(c) 我們是和神的話語(徒15:15)以及神的教會(哥前1:1-11;太18:19-2)認同”.

(d)我們是和眾聖徒”“同得基業(西1:12,而不是和不信的人,他們的份是火湖。

(e)我們是和活神的(提前3:14)教會聯合(即合一,共同的事業),而不是和必死的魔鬼的廟(哥後6:16b).

雖然保羅沒有明確地說他在這裡指的是什麼,但是分析他所做的一系列對比(義和不義的相交;光明和黑暗的相通;基督和撒旦的相合;信主的和不信的相和;神的殿和偶像的廟的相連),似乎表明他首先想到的是任何基督徒和外邦偶像以及獻祭相聯合的關係(參考哥前8:1-13;10:14-33)。

“軛”這個意象排除了將這一教導應用于普通的關係,否則基督徒就需要從世界中完全隔絕出來,而保羅在其他地方說過,我們不需要這樣做(哥前5:9-10)。我們不能生活在與世隔絕的社區裡,與世界沒有任何聯繫。如果這樣的話,我們就與所有基督關於在世界中做光做鹽的教導相違背。保羅在這說的是,基督徒要保持他們的基督信仰(他們屬靈的價值觀、標準、關係、實踐、信仰)與世界的價值觀、標準、關係、實踐和信仰有區別。實際上,與不信的人同負一軛就是與一個與基督十字架為敵的人形成一種最親密的、最長久的關係(腓3:18)。

有來自於各種各樣拼湊起來的來自舊約的引用可以支援保羅的觀點(利. 26:11-12; 結. 37:26, 27; 賽. 52:11; 撒下 7:14; 參考. 申 32:18-19)

(a)神與他的百姓之間合一的排它的關係”我要在他們中間居住,在他們中間來往。我要作他們的神,他們要作我的子民”(6:16)

(b)呼召與那些神不居住其間或者不來往的人分別:你們務要從他們中間出來,與他們分別,不要沾不潔淨的物,我就收納你們。我要做你們的父,你們要做我的兒女6:17-18.

這些舊約的引用與敬拜神相關,必須與”任何不潔之物”分開(啟17:4;利5:2;10:10)。換句話說,敬拜神和偶像的敬拜在任何情況下都不能相通。既然我們是”神的殿”(哥前3:16),我們就不能和偶像的廟相通(哥後6:16)。只有我們與那樣的事情和人分別的時候,神才會我就收納你們。我要做你們的父,你們要做我的兒女,這是全能的主說的

結語。在為了聖潔的目的與世界分別與為了傳福音的目的與世界聯繫之間,存在著微妙的平衡。顯然,哥林多教會的人很好地融入這個世界,而不是與之分別。或許這就是為什麼我們沒有看到任何關於哥林多教會遭逼迫的事情。相反,他們被接納進入外邦偶像的廟中(哥前8:10),參與淫亂的事情(哥後1:5)。偶像崇拜以及任何不道德或不潔的事情,在信徒這裡不應該有半點存留的餘地,就像保羅說的在你們中間連提都不可,方和聖徒的體統(弗5:3.

所需要保持的平衡似乎是這樣的,一方面,我們必須將自己分別出來,從而不與不信的人”負軛”(也就是,不在他們的影響之下,不對他們負有義務,不和他們沒有區別,不被他們侵蝕,不學習他們不道德的行為)。而另一方面,我們必須基於基督徒的恩慈、誠實、愛、聖潔和恩典,努力與他們建立關係,他們是基督和福音見證的接收者。

III.講道大綱

題目: 像基督學習,做有影響力的基督徒, 第二部分 (太. 5:14-16)

主旨:在這個世界為神活出影響力

主題:有影響力的基督徒是那些為神在這個世界做出不同的人

要點I.只有耶穌的門徒在這個屬靈黑暗的世界傳播神的光亮(5:14-15)

A.只有基督徒在這個世界傳播神的光亮因為我們的所是(14a

1.只有我們是他的門徒(參考約1:9;約8:12)

2.只有我們是他在這個世界的代表(參考1約4:17)

B.只有基督徒在這個世界傳播神的光亮因為我們所知道的(14a

1.只有我們知道在黑暗裡隱藏了什麼(參考哥前4:5’弗5;13’)

2.只有我們知道黑暗的起因

a)我們知道我們生活在末後的世代(參考提後6:1-5)

b)我們知道這是引誘人的邪靈的時代和魔鬼的教導(提前4:1)

c)我們知道假先知在這個世界上(約前4:1-3)

d)我們知道”人都犯了罪…”(羅3:23;約3:19)

3.只有我們知道黑暗的解決之道

a)黑暗的解決之道是神的真理(參考 1約 1:5-10; 1約 4:6; 約 1:17; 約 8:32)

b) 只有基督徒能夠回答關於生命的最終問題—我們是誰,我們從哪裡來,我們為什麼在這裡,我們要到哪裡去。

C.只有基督徒在這個世界傳播神的光亮因為我們存在的原因(14b-15)

1.我們存在是為了填補一個特定的位置(5:14b)

2.我們存在是為了實現一個特殊的目的(5:15)

要點2:只有耶穌的門徒在這個屬靈黑暗的世界傳播神的榮耀(5:16)

2a.通過遵行耶穌的教導,使我們的光發出來(5:16a

2b.通過我們的好行為,指向神是的源頭(5:16b

Related Topics: Pastors

Q. Can you explain the “works of the Law” phrase Paul uses in Galatians? Does this relate to modern applications of tithing, baptism, church-going, good works, etc. or should it just be more specifically applied to the Old Testament sacrifices, the priest

Answer

Dear *****,

Thanks for your question.

As you know, Paul speaks of the law in two ways. On the one hand, he (along with Old Testament writers) speaks of the Law of Moses as something wonderful and glorious:

5 “See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it. 6 “So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ 7 “For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him? 8 “Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, NAU)

O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day (Psalm 119:97, see also verses 113, 163).

So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Romans 7:12).

He also speaks of the law as a system of keeping the Old Testament Law of Moses, in order to earn God’s blessings. (The expression, “the works of the Law” is often associated with this negative outlook on law-keeping.) The problem is that law-keeping cannot save, but will only condemn one as a guilty sinner:

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19-20 NAU).

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness (Romans 10:1-5).

This “works of the law” salvation was certainly something which unbelieving Jews sought to accomplish, but seeking to do so only led to their rejection of God’s provision of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written, “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED” (Romans 9:30-33).

A major problem, frequently addressed in the New Testament, was that “law-works” Jews sought to compel Gentile believers to keep the Old Testament law, just as they sought to keep it themselves. We see this very clearly in Acts chapter 15:

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue . . . . 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:4-5).

At the Jerusalem Council the apostles made it very clear that it was folly for these Jews to require law-keeping of the Gentiles when they could not keep the law themselves:

“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are” (Acts 15:10-11).

As I understand the Scriptures, the Jewish legalists first insisted that Gentiles must become Jewish proselytes (be circumcised and submit to the Old Testament law) in order to be saved (Acts 15:1-4ff.), but then, having been disapproved by the apostles at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), they proceeded to insist that law-keeping was essential for sanctification. I believe this is apparent in the Book of Galatians.

The Judaizers infiltrated the churches with their distorted emphasis on keeping the Old Testament Law as a means of earning God’s favor. We see this error frequently addressed in the epistles (see Philippians 3:2ff.; Colossians 2; 1 Timothy 1:3-11; Titus 1:14; 3:9).

Thus, when Paul condemns and forbids law-keeping as a means of salvation and sanctification, he is condemning this for both Jews and Gentiles. That this applies equally to Gentiles is clear in Galatians chapter 5:

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love (Galatians 5:1-6).

I believe it is clear that in the New Testament “the works of the Law” referrs to man’s efforts at keeping the Old Testament law in order to attain righteousness and salvation, whether this be by Jews or Gentiles.

Having said this, we should also note that Paul applied the Scriptures beyond their immediate, direct, application. An example of this is found in 1 Corinthians 9:

I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. 11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:8-12).

The law which instructed ox owners to allow their animals to partake of the fruits of their labors taught the principle that the laborer was worthy of his wages. Thus Paul had no difficulty applying the law beyond the specific applications spelled out by the law.

In doing so, Paul applied the Old Testament Law in the same way that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell” (Matthew 5:27-30).

Jewish legalism (well, really any brand of legalism) seeks to narrow the focus and application of a particular principle, law, or rule, so that it wouldn’t really apply generally, and thus it could be avoided (disobeyed) or disregarded. For example,

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ 19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Matthew 23:16-24)

Legalism strives to appear to be zealous about keeping the law, but in reality, it works hard at narrowing the application of the law (“straining the gnat”?) to the point where it no longer applies. So, when one swears by the temple, he or she is not obligated to keep their vow. They are only bound to keep their oath when they swear by the gold of the temple.

Legalistic Jews also found ways to use their traditions to overrule the clear commands of the Law:

8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” 9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (Mark 7:8-13).

So, when interpreted and applied legalistically, the command, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:27), was understood to forbid a literal act of adultery. So, one kept this law so long as they did not literally commit adultery. While legalistic Jews narrowed the law to the point where they could pride themselves for keeping (or, in some cases, avoiding) it, Jesus extended the application of this law: Since it is wrong to commit adultery, lusting after a woman (which leads to adultery) is also wrong. If murder is wrong, then so is hatred, and thus one should pursue forgiveness and reconciliation.

So, let’s apply this way of interpreting and applying Scripture to “the works of the law.” If it is wrong to pursue law-keeping as the means by which a person can earn righteousness and God’s favor, then it is also wrong to seek to earn God’s favor by keeping any set of rules and regulations. This is not to cast aside rules and regulations (including speed limits, etc.), but rather to avoid seeking to keep the rules (whichever they might be) in order to earn God’s favor and blessing.

Thus, I believe that preachers who use Paul’s teaching on “the works of the law” to condemn any legalistic system of rule-making and rule-keeping are right in doing so. They are extending the application of the literal teaching of Paul to other, yet related, evils.

Blessings

Bob

Related Topics: Christian Life, Law, Sanctification, Soteriology (Salvation)

Pages