It's Not Who You Are or What You've Done.

As stated in a previous article, Now Paul has, in this passage so far given to us two hermeneutical (interpretive) principles as to how to read and understand the Old Testament. 

Principle #1: Everything culminates in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.  Everything!

Principle #2: The saving promises to Israel apply ONLY to believing Israel.

Now Paul's point is that this ought to be no surprise.  Rather than claim some new revelation as if this had never come up before, he takes the reader right back to the Old Testament.  Thus we read in Romans 9:6–13 (ESV),

⁶ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, ⁷ and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” ⁸ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. ⁹ For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” ¹⁰ And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, ¹¹ though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— ¹² she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” ¹³ As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Paul now intends to prove this idea that God never intended that all Israel could claim these redemptive promises, but only a part within the whole.  He takes us back to Genesis 21.  There we read: “But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” (Genesis 21:12, ESV).  The comparison is between Ishmael and Isaac.  Ishmael who was the offspring of Abraham according to the flesh did receive material blessings (cf: Genesis 17:20; 21:13) but not the spiritual blessings promised through Isaac.

What is unique about Isaac is emphasized here: "Isaac was unique in that he was the child who was promised. God's purpose was centered in him before he was born. It was God, in fact, not man, who set the time of his birth. Apart from divine enablement to the parents, Isaac would never have been born, for Abraham was impotent and Sarah was no longer able to bear children."[1]  Christians ought to immediately start to see what is been presented here: Isaac was (as it were) "born from above"[2] and apart from the "new birth", nobody can claim redemptive blessings.  Thus Jesus could say to Nicodemus when discussing this topic:  “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (John 3:10, ESV).

Now an opponent might suggest: "OK, that's a no brainer.  Ishmael and Isaac may have had the same father, Abraham, but they had different mothers and Ishmael's mother was an Egyptian slave. So Ishmael never did count in the line of covenant blessing."  So Paul then takes a different example.  Now the father is Isaac and it’s the same mother, Rebekah.  The sons are Jacob and Esau and they are both twins!  [how much more similar is that?]  But there's another problem that Paul needs to overcome with the Ishmael/Isaac.  They were both young teens when the separation occurred.  Perhaps someone would say that God's choice of blessing is based upon what they did.  So Paul provides a clearer example:

“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” (Romans 9:11–13, ESV) [emphasis mine]

 "Yet Paul advances that God, in His sovereignty, supersedes the process of natural primogenitureship and chooses Jacob the younger to be served by Esau the elder."^[3]  " The birth of Esau and Jacob is further evidence that God did not promise that every person of Jewish descent would be saved, for they had the same father and mother and were even twins, and yet God chose Jacob and not Esau."^[4]

Please do not miss the stress of Paul:  One of these twins receives the promises of redemption and it has absolutely nothing to do with what they have or have not done.  It has nothing to do with "works". Paul makes his case decisively by quoting Malachi 1:2, that says:  ² “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob. 

Remember the main thrust of this part of Paul's letter: the Word of God has not failed.  His answer is that it has not failed in those whom God has made His promise with.  And those whom God has made His promise with do not include all of national Israel, but only a portion within.  On what basis did God make His promise with these few?  On the basis of election.  " Election is not based on foreseen actions, deeds, or faith. Rather, it is based on God’s sovereign predestinating grace.^[5]

In the next article I will try to discuss clearly the controversial statement: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

_____________________________________________

Previous Blogs on this topic:

1	The Truth. The Whole Truth. And Nothing But The Truth	Romans 9:1-2
2	How They Have Fallen!	Romans 9:3-5
3	Proceeding From or Belong To. The Difference is Life and Death.	Romans 9:6–9
4
5
6

---

[1] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/VI. The Problem of Israel: God's Righteousness Vindicated (9:1-11:36)/B. God's Choice of Israel Based on Election, Not on Natural Generation or Works of Merit (9:6-13), Book Version: 4.0.2

[2] “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12–13, ESV) 

^[3] Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M. (Eds.). (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 2247). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

^[4] Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 2173). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[5] Whitlock, L. G., Sproul, R. C., Waltke, B. K., & Silva, M. (1995). The Reformation study Bible: bringing the light of the Reformation to Scripture: New King James Version (Ro 9:11). Nashville: T. Nelson.

Proceeding From or Belong To. The Difference is Life and Death.

Paul tackles a massive question in Romans 9.  The Jewish nation had incredible privileges.  They had a status before God unlike any other nation.  They had been given His Law and the order of His described worship.  They had been given a multitude of promises.   They were the nation to whom God chose to bring forth His Messiah – the Lord Jesus Christ.

But they are cut off from Christ.  They are cursed.

The question we would all have is: "How can these things be?"   Did the promises of God to this nation fail?  That's the question Paul deals with.

Romans 9:6–9 (ESV),

⁶ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, ⁷ and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” ⁸ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. ⁹ For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

So Paul asserts: The Word of God has NOT failed?   We respond: "It sure looks like it did?"  I was just reading in Isaiah this morning: ““Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness: I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off, and my salvation will not delay; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory.”” (Isaiah 46:12–13, ESV).  That sounds like a pretty sure promise of restoration and redemption for this nation.  Well Paul explains it this way:

The promises of grace and salvation given to Israel do not apply to all Israel.

That is not double-talk.  In fact  Paul is going to show that this was God's plan from the beginning. In fact it is clearly spelled out in the Old Testament.   There is an Israel that is not part of Israel.  It looks like this[1]:

Now Paul is going to describe these two Israel's (which the diagram above describes as: 1. National Israel; 2. The Believing Remnant.) and the description will fall out like this:

 Stated otherwise: The eternal, grace-filled, redemptive promises of God never applied to national Israel, descendants from Abraham; his offspring, children of the flesh – but no, they applied only to those who "belonged to" Israel, who were counted as offspring, children of God and of promise; and thereby divinely named by God.

Now Paul has, in this passage so far given to us two hermeneutical (interpretive) principles as to how to read and understand the Old Testament. 

Principle #1: Everything culminates in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.  Everything!

Principle #2: The saving promises to Israel apply ONLY to believing Israel.

So let's go back to my Bible reading in Isaiah 46.  The NIV translates the verse this way: “I am bringing my righteousness near, it is not far away; and my salvation will not be delayed. I will grant salvation to Zion, my splendor to Israel.” (Isaiah 46:13, NIV). 

How would you interpret that verse based upon Paul's criteria in Romans 9?

_____________________________________________

Previous Blogs on this topic:

1	The Truth. The Whole Truth. And Nothing But The Truth	Romans 9:1-2
2	How They Have Fallen!	Romans 9:3-5

---

[1] http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/42.htm?x=x

How They Have Fallen!

Romans 9 is a challenging chapter.  As a new preacher in my church, the regional supervisor for our fellowship suggested that I avoid it. For years I wondered why but it didn’t take long to understand that the reason so many people skip over Romans 9 is not so much the contentious idea of predestination, but also the scathing assessment of ethnic Israel.

Having said that, though, we must remember that Paul while engaging in this topic is not doing this to be controversial, he is doing this to tell the truth.  My earlier Blog was intended to show that Paul believed that what he was about to say was both in line with Christ Jesus’ teaching and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Having stated his credentials he then states the incredulity of the problem.  We note in Romans 9:2–5 (ESV),

“² that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³ For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. ⁴ They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. ⁵ To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

Stated succinctly, it is absolutely clear that Paul’s agonizing, unrequited distress is that he fellow Jews are both, and at the same time:

a. Cut off from Christ and cursed; and

b. Children of the Covenant.

Is Paul really saying that the Jews were cut off from Christ?  Or is he simply wishing that if it were possible he would be cut off for their sake?  I think both.  His love for them, mimicking Moses as recorded in Exodus 32:30-33 is very likely.  But I also think he is saying that he would take their position of being cursed (for that is what they are) so that they might be saved.  Does the Bible teach that the Jews as a nation are outside of Christ and under His wrath?  Yes! For example:

“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:22–24, ESV)

“Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:1–4, ESV)

On the surface, for any thinking student of the Word of God is inconceivable and inconsistent.  It makes total sense to me that when the notion of Israel’s loss of status before God is even suggested that well-meaning, thinking people would consider it absurd.  But it is not!

Notice the privilege of this nation.  Verse 4 and 5, I believe, is drafted in synonymous and parallel ideas.  It looks like this:

“Paul describes six benefits or privileges that rightfully belonged to Israel based on their status as God’s chosen people: the right to be part of God’s family (adoption), experience His presence (glory), enter into relationship with Him (covenants), receive His revelation (law), worship at His temple (service), and enjoy His promised blessings (promises).”^[1]  “All of these privileges pertain to the Patriarchs and their seed. Notice that Paul does not say that Christ belongs to them but that He came from their flesh. This is to indicate that the culmination of all the promises given to the Patriarchs is seen in the person of Jesus Christ.”^[2]

Therefore the stark realization that these Israelites had all these privileges and yet as a nation are “cut off from Christ” and are “accursed” is a stunningly sober reality – almost too much to believe. This will give rise to the very obvious and necessary question: “Has the Word of God failed?” (see verse 6)

This is a critical question to modern Christians, whether Jewish or Gentile.  Can we really trust God to save us as He promised or might we too be abandoned as Israel was?  When God says, “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Romans 8:38–39, ESV) will He actually keep that promise?

---

^[1] Barry, J. D., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Ro 9:4–5). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^[2] Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M. (Eds.). (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 2246). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

The Truth. The Whole Truth. And Nothing But The Truth

Christians should tell the truth. That's a truism, perhaps.  James taught “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.” (James 5:12, ESV).   Yet, Paul chose, in Romans 9, to dramatically emphasize the fact that he was telling the truth.  Note Romans 9:1–2 (ESV),

"¹ I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— ² that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart."

Why would he double his efforts to communicate his truthfulness in this passage?  Well we can make a pretty good guess why, by reading what he says in the next few verses:

Romans 9:6b (ESV)

"⁶ . . . For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."

Romans 9:27 (ESV), "²⁷ And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved."

Those are pretty radical statements!  For Paul to articulate those words in many Christian circles, he'd have to "cross his heart and hope to die" many, many times over.  Those statements are controversial, contentious and above all condemning.   So my guess is that he wants to preface these stunning remarks with an emphasized truth-claim. 

Notice again, verse 1: “I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—” (Romans 9:1, ESV).   Twice he says that what he is saying is true:

1st:  "I am speaking the truth"; and

2nd: "I am not lying".

Two questions I have: One, what does it mean to speak the truth IN CHRIST; and what does it mean that his conscience bears witness IN THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Speaking the Truth in Christ

The term "in Christ" is a favorite term of the Apostle.  Many places in Scripture refer to the believer’s being "in Christ" (e.g., 1 Peter 5:14;Philippians 1:1;Romans 8:1). In the most generic sense, to be in Christ, is to be in union with Him, both subjectively and objectively.  It means to be in relationship with Him; and it means to be in harmony with Him.  Paul is not saying anything in this passage that is not in keeping with Christ and Christ's teaching.  For example we read in Matthew 8:11–12 (ESV),

"¹¹ I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, ¹² while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

And likewise we read, “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”” (Matthew 21:43–44, ESV)

So I believe that Paul is saying, "I'm telling the truth. IT IS THE SAME TRUTH JESUS TAUGHT."

Conscience Bearing Witness in the Holy Spirit

Then to further amply his claim of veracity, Paul adds this phrase: "my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit."  "The Greek word translated “conscience” in all New Testament references is suneidēsis, meaning “moral awareness” or “moral consciousness.” The conscience reacts when one’s actions, thoughts, and words conform to, or are contrary to, a standard of right and wrong."[1]

So we can say that this inner judge, according to Paul, is telling Paul that his statement is morally pure.  But you and I know that our conscience can be hardened, calloused, dulled and rendered a very suspicious arbiter of our decisions.  So Paul adds ". . . his conscience as aided by the Holy Spirit." [2]  But how might Paul claim such authoritative insight?  The Reformed Study Bible helps us, I believe.  The notation reads: "Paul clearly thinks of it as moral self-awareness informed by divine revelation."^[3]

Paul, as an Apostle, was speaking by Divine revelation – Divine inspiration. ^[4]  This becomes therefore a phrase that we ourselves cannot claim to employ.  Only those men, moved by the Spirit of God, can assert such power.

Conclusion

So Paul, in moving into a discussion that decimates the common understanding about the ethnic nation of Israel, gets into the 'witness box' (so to speak) and says, "What I am about to tell you is the truth.  It is the truth because Jesus said it. ^[5]  And it is the truth because God, by His Holy Spirit, gave it to me by Divine inspiration.  That means that it is authoritative, undeniable Truth – the unimpeachable testimony of the Triune God.

To Paul, such shocking and disturbing truth about Israel required the equally magnanimous appeal to nothing short of the very words of God, a very God. 

---

[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/conscience.html#ixzz3fPoLeWzj

[2] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/VI. The Problem of Israel: God's Righteousness Vindicated (9:1-11:36)/A. Paul's Sorrow Over Israel's Condition (9:1-5), Book Version: 4.0.2

^[3] Whitlock, L. G., Sproul, R. C., Waltke, B. K., & Silva, M. (1995). The Reformation study Bible: bringing the light of the Reformation to Scripture: New King James Version (Ro 9:1). Nashville: T. Nelson.

^[4] " He not only had the testimony of his conscience, but what precluded the possibility of his deceiving, he spoke in the Holy Ghost—he spoke by inspiration." - Haldane, R. (1996). An exposition of Romans (electronic ed., p. 450). Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation.

^[5] Paul believe Jesus Christ is God. ". . . is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."  -- The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Ro 9:5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Today's Sufficient Grace

Isaiah 30:15–18 (ESV),

"¹⁵ For thus said the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.” But you were unwilling, ¹⁶ and you said, “No! We will flee upon horses”; therefore you shall flee away; and, “We will ride upon swift steeds”; therefore your pursuers shall be swift. ¹⁷ A thousand shall flee at the threat of one; at the threat of five you shall flee, till you are left like a flagstaff on the top of a mountain, like a signal on a hill. ¹⁸ Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him."

Judah, in fear of the Assyrian invasion looked to Egypt for help.  Their failure to look to their God is emphasized by the prophet.  Judah refused to listen to God's counsel, revealing the depths of their rebellion. The solution is clear: “For thus said the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.” But you were unwilling,” (Isaiah 30:15, ESV)

"This is the true path to victory and peace, but their general disinclination to heed the word of God (v. 9) becomes clear in their rejection of this particular message (cf. 28:12)."[1]  Yet in spite of all this we read these words in Isaiah 30:18 (ESV):

"¹⁸ Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him."

"As so often in the prophets, God's judgment falls first of all; but a remnant preserved through the judgment experiences the blessings of his grace and the fulfillment of his positive purpose for them. Those who wait for him will be identical with this remnant. The Babylonian exile and the return from it are chiefly in view here." [2]

________________________________________________ 

1. Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1294). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

2. Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Isaiah/Exposition of Isaiah/IV. God and His People (28:1-33:14)/C. Woe to the Rebellious Children (30:1-33), Book Version: 4.0.2

Today's Sufficient Grace

2 Kings 17 describes the dark hours in Israel's history.  Judah follows close to this rebellious nation. After a three year siege Israel (or known then as Samaria) falls to Assyria.  Many are taken captive.  The Assyrians occupy the land and the country becomes a hybrid nation -- Samaritans.

The Divine comment on the state of the Samaritans was this: “So they feared the Lord but also served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away.” (2 Kings 17:33, ESV).

This is 'syn·cre·tism'.  It is defined as the blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. The word comes from the Greek: synkretismos, or the "union of communities".   

Jehovah was worshiped merely as another god.  "The mixing of foreign people within the former land of Israel brought about religious havoc." [1]  Orthodox Jews would have nothing to do with this mongrel peoples.  Indeed the “. . . Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” (John 4:9, ESV).   But Christ Jesus, in spite of the significant challenges entered into the lives of the Samaritans, bringing the Gospel to them (John 4:6-26) and the Apostles followed suit (Acts 8:25).

The solution to racial intolerance, hatred, prejudice and reconciliation is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.  “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28, ESV).  

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10, ESV)

 

 

____________________________________________________
1. Criswell, W. A., Patterson, P., Clendenen, E. R., Akin, D. L., Chamberlin, M., Patterson, D. K., & Pogue, J. (Eds.). (1991). Believer’s Study Bible (electronic ed., 2 Ki 17:29). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 

 

“Jesus I Know. Paul I Know. Who are you?” – Part 10

Here is the 10th and final installment of this study. Having said all that we have determined so far in this study that the Spirit of God inwardly enables us to deal with sinful habits.  He also grants us deep understanding of the truths of God. He confirms that Jesus is the Christ, inwardly and subjectively … and He confirms to us subjectively that we are children of God freeing us to call upon the Lord.   We also believe that from time to time he gives spontaneous messages for the edification of the Church – but they must be weighed and tested – none of which take authority over the Word of God.  The content of such guidance in the New Testament tends to relate to the ministry of the church rather than to private, personal interests (e.g. Acts 11:27ff).

We are told in God’s Word that He has already revealed what is sufficient for life and godliness (Deu. 29:29; 2 Pet. 1:3). God has severely warned His people several times not to add to His word (Deu. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18, 19).  This is Sola Scriptura! 

Plainly speaking I have learned several things about this topic:

1. I've learned that God does lead people subjectively, but normally or perhaps only in the context of the gathered Church.

2. I've learned to claim subjective and authoritative leadings of the Spirit in individual and personal ways is at very best dangerous and at least lacking no Biblical affirmation.

3. I've learned that all subjectivity, even that originating with God, must be tested, for it is transmitted through fallible people.

4.  I've learned that the Bible is silent on the common practice to claim Divine insight and revelation on the plethora of activities that we as Christians engage in on a day to day basis. 

5. I have learned that there is no biblical warrant to listen to the “voice from within” to guide my day to day choices.

So, in my shepherding capacity, what advice can I offer?

IV - Some Practical and Pastoral Advice.

1.  God’s Word in Its Precepts and Principles is given to guide us.   It is of God's words in Scripture that we can say with confidence, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” (Psalm 119:105, ESV). A leader within a denomination that known for the charismatic gifts said this:  Donald Gee (of the Assemblies of God) writes:

"Many of our errors where spiritual gifts are concerned arise when we want the extraordinary and exceptional to be made the frequent and habitual. Let all who develop excessive desire for 'messages' through the gifts take warning from the wreckage of past generations as well as of contemporaries.... The Holy Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path."

Dr. J. I. Packer gives this stark warning:  "The idea of a life in which the inward voice of the Spirit decides and directs everything sounds most attractive, for it seems to exalt the Spirit's ministry and to promise the closest intimacy with God; but in practice this quest for super-spirituality leads only to frantic bewilderment or lunacy . . .."[1]

2. Right Spiritual Choices are the direct result of Godly Character.  “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them.” (Proverbs 11:3, ESV). A person’s who redeemed character is rooted in godly character (I dare say The Fruit of the Spirit) is better qualified to make godly decisions.  Why is that?  Answer?  Godly character produces godly motives. Godly motives are not self-pleasing, people-pleasing, but are God-pleasing kinds of motives.

More importantly, a godly character will be painfully aware of it own defects.  We need to be warned that our hearts are so deceitful and desperately wicked that we cannot understand them (Jer. 17:9).  This fact alone ought to make us very hesitant to heed promptings and messages that arise from within ourselves – without questioning and checking them out.  “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12, ESV)   The quality of life of the an individual is to be closely scrutinized (Mt. 7:15-20).

4. It appears to be a universal principle of discretion to affirm every matter by 2 or 3 witnesses.  (cf. Num 35:30 ; Deu 17:6 ; 19:15 ; Mat 18:16 ; John 8:17 ; and 1Tim 5:19 )  The Lord will always establish what He has said by two or three witnesses.  Note this Corinthian passage: “This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (2 Corinthians 13:1, ESV).  Every word (Greek: rhema[2]) here means everything opinion or idea – everything you are talking about -- including what you think is right is going to be dealt with fairly and judiciously because we are going to measure it before the right standard.  

5. This leads me into the last pastoral principle: God promises to give wisdom.  When it comes to getting guidance or even applying it to our lives, the thing we need most is wisdom. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:5–8, ESV)

Prudence is a cousin of wisdom. It basically means "to be discerning", but is often rendered "good judgment" in some Bible translations. Remember, the book of Proverbs was written for this end. "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel: To know wisdom and instruction, To perceive the words of understanding, To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, judgment, and equity; To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion; A wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel…" (Proverbs 1:1-5)  How does this instruct us?  Are we not to give all our attention to the words of Scripture?   Are we not to study, memorize the Word of God (Joshua 1:7-8; Psalm 1)?   Are we not to seek wise counsel (“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.” (Proverbs 12:15, ESV))?

v – conclusion

There is no doubt that our risen Lord and Savior indwells us in the person of the Holy Spirit.  Having believed, we've been sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. We've been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He comforts us in difficult times. He confirms in our hearts that we are children of God. He enables us to know the mind of Christ and the things of God.  The Holy Spirit is in and through every part of our lives, and He ought to be.

The question is not whether there is a Holy Spirit, or whether that Holy Spirit indwells us, or whether that Holy Spirit does things for us or to us in an experiential, subjective way. All of those things are the case.   The question is actually two-fold: Is it normal to expect inward subjective impressions of the Spirit on a regular, routine basis?   And secondly, is it right for Christians to simply say, “God told me (showed me, etc.) without applying due care and attention through weighing, testing and confirming? My answer to both is “no”.

John MacArthur adds a good summation:  “Once we see Scripture as less than the final infallible authority for faith and practice, we opened the doors to theological chaos.  Anyone or everyone can claim to be speaking God’s revelation.  While it is true that some of the new revelations or words of prophecy may agree with Scripture, it is equally true that some of them may not.”

---

[1] (J.I. Packer, Knowing God, p. 235.)

[2] rhema ( 4487 ) denotes “that which is spoken, what is uttered in speech or writing”; in the singular, “a word,” e.g., Matt. 12:36 ; 27:14 ; 2 Cor. 12:4 ; 13:1 ; Heb. 12:19 ; in the plural, speech, discourse, e.g., John 3:34 ; 8:20 ; Acts 2:14 ; 6:11 , 13 ; 11:14 ; 13:42 ; 26:25 ; Rom. 10:18 ; 2 Pet. 3:2 ; Jude 17 ; it is used of the gospel in Rom. 10:8 (twice), 17, rv , “the word of Christ” (i.e., the “word” which preaches Christ); 10:18 ; 1 Pet. 1:25 (twice); of a statement, command, instruction, e.g., Matt. 26:75 ; Luke 1:37 , rv , “(no) word (from God shall be void of power)”, v. 38 ; Acts 11:16 ; Heb. 11:3 .

The significance of rhema (as distinct from logos ) is exemplified in the injunction to take “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” Eph. 6:17 ; here the reference is not to the whole Bible as such, but to the individual scripture which the Spirit brings to our remembrance for use in time of need, a prerequisite being the regular storing of the mind with Scripture. (Vine, W., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1997, c1996). Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (electronic ed.) (Vol. 2, Page 683). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)

Today's Sufficient Grace

In the midst of Isaiah's prophecy he singles out one man, Shebna.  For some reason his breach of trust while serving Hezekiah is worthy of demotion. He is replaced by Eliakim.   Therefore we read in Isaiah 22:20–22 (ESV),

"²⁰ In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, ²¹ and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. ²² And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

"Eliakim will receive Shebna’s position of power and influence. The key is a symbol of royal authority held by the steward." [2]  "The authority of the steward to make binding decisions in the interests of the king." [2]

The Holy Spirit picks up this thought through the Apostle John in Revelation 3:7 (ESV),

"⁷ “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."

The glorious role of Christ is revealed.  He has been given all authority and influence.  He is the One that makes binding decisions on behalf of His Father, our God -- the only God.  

"The point of the quotation is that Jesus holds the power over salvation and judgment. In 1:18 the stress is on his sovereignty over death and judgment, while in 3:7 the emphasis is on his authority over those entering the kingdom." [3]  "Christ alone has the authority to admit persons to his heavenly city. Because he is holy and true, no one can ever argue that his admission of some and refusal of others is unrighteous." [4] "The way and manner in which he performs these acts, and that is absolute sovereignty, independent upon the will of men, and irresistible by the power of men." [5]

These are contentious words in our man-centered culture.  But to the Church they are comfort and grace, for they proceed from One who is "holy and true".  We can contend with our human ideologies but we cannot contend with God in Christ Jesus -- we can simply bow and worship this great Sovereign who has the key of David.

 

_________________________________________
1.  Barry, J. D., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Is 22:22). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
2. Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1279). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
3. Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 284). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.
4. Easley, K. H. (1998). Revelation (Vol. 12, p. 56). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
5. Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2468). Peabody: Hendrickson.

“Jesus I Know. Paul I Know. Who are you?” – Part 9

This is the 9^th article in this series. 

Part 1, 

Part 2, 

Part 3, 

Part 4,

Part 5,

Part 6,

Part 7,and

Part 8

Here's the point: Fallible vessels are the conduit for the infallible work of the Spirit and out of necessity must rely on an infallible source to validate their claims.   I can find no direct evidence in the Scripture that would permit an individual believer to claim personal, divine, authoritative guidance. Subjective guidance in the New Testament tends to relate to the ministry of the church rather than to private, personal interests (e.g. Acts 11:27ff).  Paul was very clear that prophecy was important to the development of the New Testament Church.

If we carefully examine the way Paul uses the notion of prophecy, as used in the Church, we must come to the conclusion that IT IS NOT:

1. Equal to the office of prophet.  Prophets have incredible authority and responsibility-they were able to speak and write words that had absolute divine authority. They could say, "Thus says the Lord," and the words that followed were the very words of God. The prophets wrote their words as God's words in Scripture for all time (see Deut. 18:18-20; Num. 22:38; Jer. 1:9; Ezek. 2:7). To disbelieve or disobey a prophet's words, therefore, was to disbelieve or disobey God (Deut. 18:19; 1 Sam. 8:7; 1 Kings 20:36).  And of extreme importance: if a prophet said something that was wrong, the prophet was to be stoned. 

When Paul says, "Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weigh what is said" (I Cor. 14:29), he suggests that they should listen carefully and sift the good from the bad, accepting some and rejecting the rest (this is the implication of the Greek word diakrino here translated "weigh what is said"). We cannot imagine an Old Testament prophet such as Isaiah saying, "Listen to what I say and weigh what is said-sort the good from the bad-sift what you accept from what you should not accept!" If prophecy had absolute divine authority, it would be sin to do this. But here Paul commands that it be done, which suggests that New Testament prophecy did not have the authority of God's very words.

2. Equal to the office of apostle.  In the New Testament we also find people who could speak and write God's very words and have them recorded in Scripture, but we are surprised to find that Jesus no longer calls them "prophets."  He uses a new term, "apostles." The apostles are the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament prophets (see I Cor. 2:13; 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:3; Gal. 1:8-9,11-12; 2 Thess. 2:13; 4:8,15; 2 Peter 3:2). It is the apostles, not the prophets, who have authority to write the words of New Testament Scripture. When the apostles want to establish their unique authority, they never appeal to the title prophet; they call themselves apostles (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 1: 1; 11: 1213; 12:11-12; Gal. 1: 1; Eph. 1: 1; 1 Peter 1: 1; 2 Peter 1: 1; 3:2).

So the “prophesy” that the apostle Paul refers to is not the inspired words of an apostle.  They are quite different  Paul, writing to Corinth, a church that experienced a great deal of prophecy, 1Corinthians 14: 37,38 claims authority far greater than any prophet at Corinth: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."

3. Equal to the Scriptures.   It might be a given, but if we establish that the words of a true prophet and the words of a true apostle are the very words of God -- indisputable, authoritative and undeniable, then we could easily see that these holy men who were inspired to write the Scripture wrote things that cannot be equated in authority to the “prophesy” that Paul wrote about.  Let’s look at some examples of the lesser authority of this type of prophesy.

In Acts 21:4 (ESV) we read, “⁴ And having sought out the disciples, we stayed there for seven days. And through the Spirit they were telling Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” This seems to be a reference to prophecy directed toward Paul, but Paul disobeyed it! He never would have done this if this prophecy contained God's very words.

In Acts 21:10–11 (ESV), “¹⁰ While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. ¹¹ And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ”   Agabus prophesied that the Jews at Jerusalem would "bind [Paul] and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles," a prediction that was nearly correct but not quite: The Romans were the ones who bound Paul (v. 33), and the Jews, rather than delivering him voluntarily, tried to kill him, and he had to be rescued by force (v. 32). The prediction was not far off, but it contained inaccuracy in detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet.

There was certainly prophesying in the local congregations in the New Testament. But it did not have authority equal to the prophets,apostles or Scriptures -- and that the authors of Scripture knew this!    


So how do we apply this?  I’ll try to deal with that in the next article.