Think Wink.

The other day I was asked by one of my youth and friends from Kansas City what my take on the prophet Jonah and his story as told in sacred Scripture. I went back and reread the story and looked to what I felt were some of the main points that the author, presumably Jonah but may be not, was trying to make. After some reflection, I think that the story of Jonah shows: 1.) The character of God, first seen in Exodus 33:19; 34:6-7; 2.) God’s promise to Abraham was to redeem all creation, not just Abraham’s posterity, and Abraham was to be the vessel through which this redemption comes; 3.) Israel had become blinded by her position as Yahweh’s elect people and ignored her function as the channel through which God’s promise to redeem creation, not just Israel, comes into the world; 4.) Only in Jesus the Messiah was/is/will God’s plan to redeem his creation through Israel to be carried out and accomplished.

In the first post I looked at how Jonah illustrates and points the reader the character of God see in Exodus 32-34. In the second post, I looked at how in Jonah, God’s desire to relent from executing his judgment upon Nineveh goes back to his purpose to redeem all of creation through the family-seed-nation promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. In this post I want to talk about what it is that Jonah most clearly and powerfully illustrates. Read more

Reflections on Jonah

Reflections on Jonah Part 2

Interview with Dr. Mark Futato

In the previous post, I mentioned I was asked about the book of Jonah and my thoughts on the text as a whole. In response I said I think that the story of Jonah shows: 1.) The character of God, first seen in Exodus 33:19Open Link in New Window; 34:6-7; 2.) God’s promise to Abraham was to redeem all creation, not just Abraham’s posterity, and Abraham was to be the vessel through which this redemption comes; 3.) Israel had become blinded by her position as Yahweh’s elect people and ignored her function as the channel through which God’s promise to redeem creation, not just Israel, comes into the world; 4.) Only in Jesus the Messiah was/is/will God’s plan to redeem his creation through Israel to be carried out and accomplished. In the previous post I looked at point 1 and how Jonah highlights the character of God, as first seen in Exodus 32-34. In this post, I want to continue going through the points of my answer. Read more

Reflections on Jonah

Reflections on Jonah Part 3

Interview with Dr. Mark Futato

Back in August I wrote two blog posts weaving my way through Psalm 72. In the first post, Justice and Psalm 72, I discussed the meaning of “righteousness” as the psalmist here uses it and looked at its impact upon my understanding of the New Testament’s use of “righteousness.” Suffice it to say, I find myself more inclined then, as I do now, that the traditional formulations of “righteousness” language is deficient due to the much needed impact of the Reformation of the 16th Century. However, righteousness, especially God’s righteousness, cannot be located solely in a sphere of merit theology and legalism. God’s righteousness is active and does more than merely declare someone to be righteous or wicked, but also acts according to that verdict, namely resurrecting Jesus and those who are in his kingdom from the grave.

Then in the second post, Domain and Psalm 72, I discussed the poem in a little bit more depth. But I saw there that the poet prays that Yahweh will expand the borders of the kingdom to include the whole world which would thus bring this saving righteousness of God to the whole world through the king and his kingdom. The wicked of the entire earth will be defeated by God through his king and the righteous poor will be prospered. God grants the king his own righteousness, and then gives the whole world that righteousness by bringing the world under the domain of his king.

In the following post, I want to conclude my look–yes I wrote the first two in August and it’s now March, my timing is off–at Psalm 72, namely Psalm 72:15-19. Read more

James 4 and Psalm 24

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 1

Pre-Pre-load Psalm

With the newly released Manhattan Declaration, from November 2009, comes a bit of controversy. The document in and of itself is controversial in what it asserts, namely the encouragement and engagement of civil disobedience to uphold certain principles. It is controversial because leaders in Protestant-Evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have signed this document and encourage others to do the same. It is also controversial because to get these groups together “the gospel of Jesus Messiah, the Son of God” (Mk 1:1) has not been clearly defined, thus other leaders–especially Evangelical–have refused to sign the document and encourage others to refuse to sign it as well.

In light of this and other considerations, I have decided to take an opportunity to present my definition of the gospel of Jesus Messiah. But to do that, I want to first tell the background story to the gospel. I feel that because the Bible is the story of God–both from and about–one needs to know the story before defining any single part of it, like the gospel. Read more

It’s Very Familar

The Gospel: Towards a Definition

One More Question

The other psalm that I want to look at in regards to the background to justification in the NT, specifically Paul who articulated the doctrine more clearly than any other writer, is Psalm 98. This passage’s understanding of sdq is very influential upon Paul, particularly in Romans as we shall see momentarily. I have to thank Dr. Mark Siefrid for pointing me to this psalm in his book Christ Our Righteousness. I hope to show in this post that the righteousness language in the OT that forms a large part of the background of Paul’s framework is more complex than many in my own Reformed tradition often present it. Read more

Expositing Revelation Postmillennially

A Question for Both Sides

The Temple, the Trinity, and the Apocalypse

To continue in a theme that has become very prevalent around this blog I want to look at a couple of psalms and how they understand righteousness and justice. The first text is Psalm 72, specifically Psalm 72:1-7, and I want to understand how this psalmist understands righteousness, the צדק word group. If one is to understand justification from a whole-Bible perspective, then seeing how the צדק word group, or righteousness-language, is employed is key. Read more

Justification and Psalm 82

Blessing and Psalm 72

Revelation and Psalm 98

In this post I wish to look at the impact of Isaiah 53:11 and Romans 5:18-19 and how they influence justification. Romans 4:25 has been shown that Paul (or someone from whom Paul adapts a traditional Christological formula) does in fact read Isaiah 53:11 into his doctrine of justification in that the resurrection of the Righteous One, Jesus Messiah, effects justification for the people of God. This follows what was seen in Acts 13:38-39 and that Jesus being the Righteous One comes from being raised by the Spirit of God, vindicated or justified in that resurrection or by that resurrection. It does seem that Isaiah 53:11 is playing a very central role in how Paul understands our justification. Read more

Romans 4:25 and Isaiah 53:11

Some Questions I Have

One More Question

In reading Michael Bird’s The Saving Righteousness of God, I have come to realize just how important Isaiah 53:11 is to many of Paul’s passages that formulate and utilize his doctrine of justification when dealing with his audiences and troubles, for example the Jew-Gentile divide in Romans and Galatians. I want to briefly delve into this simple text and paint a background for the many places that Paul speaks of justification that does not seem to fit neatly with the traditional Protestant view (this post follows much of what Bird said in The Saving Righteousness of God). Then in the coming posts I want to just illustrate how Isaiah 53:11 impacts those Pauline texts in his letters and in Acts that reflects this verse and understanding. Read more

Romans 4:25 and Isaiah 53:11

Some Questions I Have

Michael Horton’s Review of N.T. Wright

Yesterday I linked to a quiz by an Arminian/Wesleyan for Calvinists to take. I’m not certain how serious of a quiz it is but I just wanted to address each question. First up is a question based upon Genesis 25:23 (NIV) which reads,

The LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

THe question is, “What was in Rebekah’s womb?” The answers available are a.) two nations/people; b.) an elect person and a reprobate person; c.) “Don’t even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic” (I find this last answer to be somewhat funny).

The question seems straightforward enough fromt he text. Why would this Arminian quiz a Clavinist on this verse is puzzling until one looks at answer c. Then one who is familiar in the Calvinism/Arminianism debates realizes that the question is asked to show that Paul in Romans 9 is talking about Israel on a national level. Clearly Genesis 25:23 speaks of two nations bing seen in Jacob and Esau–the twin boys in Rebekah’s womb when I AM gives this prophecy to her. Therfore when Paul cites this text in Romans 9:12, he is talking about Israel and Edom, not Jews who are going to heaven and hell. Salvation isn’t the issue in that portion of Romans. Optoin c in the quiz is a shot at Calvinists (again is seems like a playful one to me) who say you cannot go to the Old Testament text cited to determine Paul’s meaning. One Calvinist who is adamant on this is James Whtie (go to his website and click on the Romans 9 exegesis link in the center of the page).

What we have here is two approaches to Romans 9 and the texts Paul cites to support his argument. The ARminian is wanting to see what texts Paul cites and go back and read them, exegete them, to find out what Paul is arguing. The Calvinist wants to identify what Paul is arguing first, and then see how the cited OT texts supports his position.

I personally think there is nothing wrong with looking up the cited OT texts in their own OT contexts to see what was intended by Paul/NT author. The problem that White and myself have with doing this before determining Paul’s point in citing the text is that one runs the danger of forcing Paul to say something he actually isn’t if taken on his own terms.

Take this idea that Paul is speaking of nations in Romans 9:6-18. Romans 9:6 becomes somewhat confusing when Paul speaks of two Israels, “οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ·”, “for not all those out of Israel are Israel” becomes “for not all out of the nation Israel is the nation Israel.” This can be consistently maintained through Romans 9:18, although 9:16, 18 can present problems. But once one gets to Romans 9:19, nations gets a bit tricky, although still can be maintained.

What kills this is the preceeding context of Romans 1:18-9:5. Romans 1:18-8:39 is Paul’s discussion of salvation for sinners on an individual level. He is presenting the problem of humanity, asking and answering the question “How can a person be saved from this plight.” Romans 9:1-5 is Paul expressing his anguish over his kinsmen, his fellow Israelites, being ἀνάθεμα (anathema) from I AM inspite of everything listed in Romans 9:4-5. Indeed Paul would desire to become ἀνάθεμα in their place if he could. If Jews aren’t being saved as Paul described in Romans 1:18-8:39, why does he lanch a discussion about Israel as a nation that does nothing to furhter what was said in Romans 9:1-5. What does “the word of God” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) refer to in 9:6 if not in some part to what was listed in 9:4-5? The nations approach becomes uncharacteristic for Paul because it has absolutely nothing to do with the anguish he has over the plight of his kinsmen and why he prays for them!

This is furthered by what was said by Paul in Romans 9:30-11:36. Paul goes back into speaking of salvation on an individual level again whil still talking about Israel. Paul seems to lose his mind in Romans 9:6-29 (being nice in allowing the Arminian to have more text to work with) and discusses a topic that is irrelevent to anything Paul is speaking about in this letter. Not even Paul’s rabbit trail in Romans 3:1-8 is irrelevent to his over all theme in Romans 1:18-3:20. It was a necessary rabbit trail that also sets up Romans 9:1-5. But why this “nations” trail in Romans 9:6-29? Whast does it contribute to the overall flow of thought in Romans about salvation and the gospel? As far as I can tell, nothing.

What I find Arminians missing is this. Yes Paul cites two texts in Romans 9:12-13 that deal with nations, Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3. But one must undestand these texts to prove that the word of God has not fallen because not everyone from Israel is Israel. God’s electing purpose stands because it is based upon his call and choice, not by works or birthright. That’s what the texts are proving, the principle of sovereign election. It is being proven from I AM’s interactions with nations in the OT and applied to why the Jews are rejecting Jesus as their Savior and Messiah. They are ἀνάθεμα in spite of all the promises given them because not everyone who is an Israelite is an Israelite. Why is that? Because God’s electing purpose is based upon his call and not human works or birthorder. The nation of Israel was loved and Edom/Esau wasn’t was because of I AM’s unconditional choice of Israel. Jews are rejecting Jesus because of I AM’s sovereign and unconditional choice, I AM’s not calling them to Jesus.

An Interesting Question

I cannot tell a lie?

One More Question

I just finished reading Dr. Mark A. Seifrid’s article in the Concordia Theological Quarterly from January 2008 entitled “The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright.” I really enjoyed reading Dr. Seifrid’s article and am awaiting the book he is editing entitled The Faith of Christ Debate (he writes an essay in this book called “The Faith of Christ). I really liked what Dr. Seifrid said about faith in this article (pp 42-44; 26-28 of pdf),

The righteousness of God revealed in Christ for salvation is made ours by faith. More precisely, it is “through the faith of Jesus Christ.” Neither the traditional reading of this expression as “faith in Christ,” nor the currently popular reading “faith/faithfulness of Christ,” is fully satisfying, the former because Paul generally presupposes the object of faith in the term πίστις itself and the latter because we never find in Paul a verbal expression of Christ’s faith/faithfulness. Furthermore, there are a number of signals in this passage, and elsewhere, that in this usage Paul views the crucified and risen Christ himself as the source from which faith flows. Already his description of justification taking place “in Christ Jesus,” and that implicitly as the restoration of the glory of God (Rom 3:24), points in this direction, as does his concluding description of the believer as one who is “of the faith of Jesus” (Rom 3:26). It is also important to see that Paul describes Abraham’s faith in the following chapter as the work of the promissory word of God the Creator “who makes alive the dead and calls (for his purposes) that which is not as if it exists” (Rom 417). Abraham believes and acts, yet, in Paul’s reading of Genesis, Abraham is more fundamentally- acted upon: despite his aging body and Sarah’s barrenness, with respect to the promise “he was made strong in faith” and “is made fully assured” that the Creator could do what he promised. Abraham’s “giving glory to God” -Paul here overlooks his rather remarkable failure (Genesis 20)-is nothing other than the work of the Creator in Abraham (Rom 420). Our believing in “the One who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” is no different. Faith for Paul is nothing other than the word of promise performing its work in those who believe…

Faith is the creation of God by the word of promise, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which stands over against the unfaithfulness of the human being.

My Standing Before God

Faith: Created or Wooed

More thoughts on “euaggelion.”