Opus 2026-465: We Need to Talk

Sometimes I feel like a broken record, repeating the same things over and over again.  The reason for that is that those same things keep getting thrown in my face.  Maybe a better illustration is the record that gets worn out from being played so much.  This week, a friend called and, as usual, we got off onto enthusiastic discussions about the Bible, theology, and the difference between tradition and scripture.

His MAD (Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, their acronym, not mine) system of theology requires them to throw out everything except the writings of the apostle Paul.  They deny that’s what they do, but they love to say that if the scripture is not specifically addressed to you then it’s not for you.  This frees them up to quote whatever they want to back their position and allows them to use a hammer on anything you say.

We got off on the idea of grace versus the law and how we are not saved by works.  Most of us have a knee jerk reaction because our traditional theology has isolated this point.  There are verses where Paul makes very strong statements, such as,

(Gal 2:16 KJV)  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

And we ignore all of the other things that Paul says which make it impossible for us to interpret it the way in which traditional theology presents it.  We also have to reject much of the teachings outside of the Pauline corpus.

Traditional theology, and my friend, are correct, we are not saved by works of the law.  The place that they are confused is that the Bible never says we are saved by works of the law.  That is not a doctrine of what they like to call the dispensation of the law.  You don’t have to read very far in Psalms or even in the prophets to find out that the key is faith, trust, God’s power and that little thing called obedience.  They like to label obedience as being saved by works.

I tried to point out to my friend that in spite of the statement by Paul, that were not saved by works, if you continue reading, you find that he demands certain behaviors and rejects other behaviors and makes a clear statement that if you do those things you will not inherit the kingdom of God.  Check this out from the same book,

(Gal 5:21 KJV)  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, we are saved by grace.  We cannot save ourselves.  Faith is required.  However, saying that faith is required does not mean that we are saved by “faith alone”.  It does not mean that the role of faith in salvation is a New Testament concept.

Read wide and deep.  Think continually.

homo unius libri

Opus 2026-422: Missing the Point

As I have shared before, I am seeking to understand the seeming contradiction between Paul and David when it comes to the law.  I think a lot of the problem is that people misunderstand what Paul means when he talks about the law, but that’s not what I’m looking at today.  What I’m looking at today, comes to me and is summarized in this verse,

Galatians 2:16 (KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Do you know where I’m going?  You need to look at this also in the NASB.  The NASB translates this in a way that most translations put it.  As much as it hurts me to say it the KJV gets it more accurately here.  Take a look at these two translations and see if you can pick out where I’m going with the differences.

Galatians 2:16 (NASB95) nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Notice that the King James does not say “faith in Jesus Christ” it says “faith of Jesus Christ”.  That is not a misprint and it is not insignificant.  It reflects what the Greek says.  I know none of us were paying attention when we went through grammar, but these are both in the generative case which marks possession not direction.

When Paul says that we are not justified by the works of the law he is correct.  We are justified by the faith of Jesus.  You can take that to mean one of two things.  First, it can mean the faith that Jesus has in us.  Secondly, and I think this is more the point, you can translate this with faithfulness rather than believe or confidence.  That is a perfectly legitimate way to translate the Greek word.  Put that together, and you have a theological statement that is valid, it was the faithfulness of Jesus, in going to the cross and interceding for us, that gives us a hope of salvation.

The modern translations transpose this to us having faith in Jesus.  To be fair, there are places where that is the correct understanding.  This does not do away with the importance of faith, our faith, and the process that leads to salvation.  What this does is it points out the relationship of the works of the law and faith.  Notice that twice in this verse Paul points out that we are not saved, or justified, by works.  The point that we miss is that we never have been saved by works.  This is not a new doctrine.  This is not a new thought.  This is taking the old traditions of the rabbis and what Judaism had become, leaving them behind and going back to what the Bible actually teaches.

The purpose of the law was not to save people for eternity.  The purpose of the law was to mold a people, a nation, to provide the structure for the coming of the Messiah.  Although there are indications in the Old Testament of eternal life, the main emphasis of the promises to Abraham has to do with the land, not eternity.
    
I am in contact with people who take two extremes.  One rejects Paul.  The other puts Jesus below Paul.  Neither one is correct.  It is all the same God and the same truth.

homo unius libri

Opus 2026-287: Running Out of Cheeks, Part 4 of 5, Resistance

We all know the verse from the Sermon on the Mount which seems to go even deeper than turning the other cheek.

(Mat 5:39 KJV)  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This seems pretty clear if you isolate it and take it literally, but notice the previous verse,

(Mat 5:38 KJV)  Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

It would seem that this is not a blanket statement about letting evil have its way but instead personal revenge.  This is another one of those places where we get different instructions at different places and we need to put them together to understand what it means.

Lets take a look at the word “resist” in verse 39.

It is of no significance but this Greek word is where we get the medical term antihistamine.  I doubt if God meant it this way but I find it interesting that histamines are substances that cause allergies and other irritations in the body.  If I would preaching I would make an aside that we are not to respond to petty issues, but I am not preaching.

The word is used in 12 verses in the New Testament.  Four of them are of interest in trying to find a Biblical understanding of what Jesus is saying.

First we have Paul resisting Peter.

(Gal 2:11 KJV)  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

“Withstood” is our word.  I would not say that Peter was evil but he was certainly going against Paul.  Paul did not turn the other cheek.  There was an important spiritual principle involved.

Paul continues to use the word,

(Eph 6:13 KJV)  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Again, “withstand” is the word we are looking at.  In this case it is a command to resist and “evil” is the same Greek word Jesus used.  Evidently there are times when it is expected that we are prepared to resist.

Then we have a well known verse,

(Jas 4:7 KJV)  Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

How many times have you been told to resist the devil.  It seems like good advice.

And then Peter chimes in,

(1Pe 5:9 KJV)  Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

To be concluded...

homo unius libri