Tracking with Thought Order, Not the Word Order (Titus 2:11-14)

When reading the New Testament epistles, one thing to keep in mind is that the order in which a paragraph’s sentences appear is not necessarily representative of the logical order of the author’s thoughts. The concepts may have occurred to the author in a different order, but they appear in the order they do on the page for clarity and instruction. The goal when reading, which is can be a difficult task, is tracking the author’s thought process, and sometimes when writing, what comes first in a paragraph is not necessarily logically or chronologically first in the author’s mind. It’s the reader’s job to figure out what that was in order to see the function and purpose of a given passage. As an example I’ll use a paragraph from this morning’s reading plan: Titus 2:11-14. 
Placement of 2:11-14 in the letter. 

The way Titus 2:11-14 fits into the letter is not the typical placement for Paul. Paul often writes something of theological significance first, then lays out its application afterward. In his letter to Titus, the main theological explanation (2:11-14) comes right in the middle. The letter is written to tell Titus, a church leader working under Paul, to establish church elders in the city churches on the island of Crete where Titus was living and doing ministry. Most of the first chapter lays down the qualifications for those Titus would appoint as elders. The qualifications are not arbitrary, but have a definite purpose and function. 

Throughout the letter Paul keeps emphasizing sound doctrine among church leaders (and consequently of the members) as a defense of the church so that those who are theological opponents (those against Paul’s mission who hold false doctrines) have no grounds of criticism against them. The reason is that right doctrine leads to right living. He points out that those who hold false doctrines show the falseness of their theology by their behavior. “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.” (ESV) 

So the logic of the whole letter is this: those holding right doctrine will live rightly, and those who hold wrong doctrine will live wrongly, so make sure those who hold leadership positions in church LIVE rightly (a result of their right doctrine), and teach members to do the same, so that opponents can’t accuse them of wrongdoing. 
2:11-14 then shows what the right doctrine is that produces the right living. And within this paragraph, we see a great example of the order of events or concepts not being the order in Paul’s mind, but the order in which they are most clearly understood. We still have to understand the paragraph in the order in which the sentences or concepts came to Paul’s mind. 

Here’s the paragraph: 11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. (ESV)

The way I believe this occurred to Paul is like this, written as if he wrote out his thought process: “I have to show how their living according to right doctrine will silence opponents of Christ and not give any room for their criticism of the Church….The best way to communicate this is to show the relationship between right doctrine and right behavior, and the best way to explain the church’s good works as a result of, and defense of, its doctrinal basis is to explain what that doctrinal basis is: the grace of God in the giving of His Son to save us, redeem us, giving us a living hope, and that the glory and wonder of this gift to us IS what causes us to live a life of good works.” 

So when we look at the paragraph, the order in Paul’s mind is seen by putting verses 11 and 14b together: “For the grace of God has appeared…to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” That’s the argument for Paul. 2:11, 14b is Paul’s main point for the whole letter. That’s how this whole thing works. God’s grace (undeserved gift) purified for Himself a people passionate to do good works. God set out to create a people for Himself who wouldn’t just do good works, but would be passionate for doing good works, and He set out to do so using a people who hated good works! God is making a display to world, saying “Look what I can do with evil people who hate me. I can do something to them that melts their heart of stone and causes them to love me and to love doing good to the world around them.” Nothing and no one else could ever produce that. 

Everything in between 11 and 14b is the explanation of that grace of God that does this work in people. The grace is Jesus Himself, given to undeserving people who, while they may have done good works, did not do them with a passion for them. And that is the distinct mark of right doctrine (Jesus’ perfect life, death and resurrection gifted to us while we were rebelling against God) and wrong doctrine (in this instance, “you must follow the Law of Moses in order to be saved by Jesus”). 
Religion says that there exists potential in everyone, and it is on them to seek to develop that potential. Religion says “you are here, and you need to be there, so get building on your bridge.” Grace says “Your hope of potential is gone because you are too sick and weak to grow; I (Jesus) give you My life, My record, My holiness, My joy in God, My obedience, and My desires in place of your own so that you are accepted by My Father who is now your Father….now as you have been given so much grace and mercy, do likewise for the people around you so that they too can see Me in you and know My Father.” The outcome of religion may include good works, but never for the right reasons. Religious living for good works will end in one of two ways: looking down your nose at other people, or giving up. Arrogance or hopelessness. Religion says the verdict of whether or not you lived a good life comes after this life, so you either believe you did enough and will inevitably think less of those who don’t do enough, or you will give up hope because you know you’ll never be good enough. The Gospel says the verdict of your life was declared before the world was even made, so your sin is no match for God’s love…therefore go and love others. No arrogance, no snobbery, and with an eternal hope. 

The good news is that Jesus came precisely for that hopeless person. He came to give those without hope hope, and to give those without righteousness righteousness. He came to give the outsiders a place at His table. An orphan old enough to know he’s an orphan, when adopted by a loving father, wants to please his father and live by his rules, and does so with joy, not out of a sense of obligation. The gift of grace changed his life because the gift WAS a new life. 

Maybe someone will find this way of thinking through Titus helpful. We have to do what we can to get inside the author’s mind so we know what things came first and in what order they should be understood. If we don’t track with Paul we can end up interpreting this in a wrong way. I have heard this passage preached multiple times, and it’s normally just about how God’s grace is given to us to empower us to live rightly. But that misses the fact that the grace of God isn’t an empowerment, some giving and receiving of a mystical form of “grace,” but that the grace IS Jesus Himself. Grace as a spiritual empowerment says, “God gives you strength when you don’t deserve it, so give your life to Jesus and live for Him.” Grace as Jesus Himself says the opposite: God gave you Jesus’ life in exchange for yours, so His life can be lived out through your body…so live in light of that grace. Becoming a Christian is not giving your life to Jesus, but Jesus having given His life to you. Repentance is not willfully ceasing from sin, but accepting the truth of what Jesus did, which melts hearts and causes them to not want to sin. 

So we have to read this in an effort to track with Paul. That is not to say that Paul’s paragraph here is out of order…it is in its perfect inspired order. But my point is that the order in which it was written is not the order in which it occurred to Paul to write it, so understanding what logically was first in his mind helps us see what the purpose and function of the paragraph is. 

Making Sense of Psalms

A post on my church’s blog, but I’m putting it here because it is relevant to the topic of how to read and understand the Bible

Michael Durso Blog

What to make of the Psalms?

This past week I sat down with a few friends and walked through the shortest Psalm in the Bible, Psalm 117, complete at only two verses.

One of the friends at the table admitted he steers clear of Psalms because it’s hard to know what to do with them now in modern times. How do we move from ancient Hebrew poetry to visible, measurable Christian action?

For those of you who attended our worship service this past week (March 8, 2015), Psalm 117 was the chosen Scripture reading…so for those interested I wanted to show some of what makes even a tiny, short Psalm like this pack a huge punch in our understanding of what it means to be God’s people today.

Part of our issue with Psalms is that it’s poetry. —INSERT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM–Most of us have enough trouble…

View original post 1,363 more words

Would We Recognize Him?

I was reading John 1 this morning, and saw a couple things I hadn’t seen before.

4. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.
5. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome/comprehended it.
8. (of John) He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light.
10. (of Jesus) He was in the world, and the world did not recognize him.
11. (of Jesus) He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.
12. But to all who have received him–those who believe in his name–he has given the right to become God’s children.
19. ….Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
26. (John says) “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize…”

There’s a parallel between mankind and darkness in vs 4-5. The life of the Son of God shines in the dark, or shines into the dark of evil, unbelieving mankind. The religious leaders didn’t know who John was because they did not recognize God when He came in the flesh. The big question to me for the church is “How many in the church would recognize God in the flesh if He came?” Will not many be deceived into thinking the antichrist is the Messiah? I’m convinced that if the antichrist would have shown up in the 1st century AD the Jewish leaders would have fell for it head over heels. How gullible we are…how heartily we craft our ideas of God from our own image…how narcissistically we put more stock in our theology than in personal fellowship with the living I AM.

God is a God of wrath, judgment, mercy, grace and fierce, inexhaustible love. He’s not a chump, and He intends to prove it. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day were not wrong because of finer points of doctrine and belonging to the right sect…they were wrong because they were so far from their understanding of God that they couldn’t even recognize Him when He showed up. That’s not trivial. In Hosea’s day God said “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge,” the Hebrew verb for “to know”, yada, being an experiential knowledge of God, not just theology.

It seems to me that if God were to give us an evaluation He might say something like “I don’t care about you getting to know my Scriptures as much as I care about you getting to know ME through my Scriptures.” There’s a difference. We’re not destroyed for lack of Bible trivia or subpar systematic theology; we ruin ourselves by not knowing Him.

The goal of studying the Word is to know God…not just to know the Word. Knowledge of the Word can lead to pride; knowledge of the Living Word leads to humility. Approach the Word with this mindset: “God, you have revealed yourself in these written words; open my eyes to see you more clearly through what You have said and done.”

Update:

In the verses following the passage quoted above, John the Baptist admits that he too did not recognize the Messiah but announced Him based on God’s revelation to Him. In this post I’m not comparing the Jewish leaders who didn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah to John who did. Neither did. The contrast then is not based on who recognized Jesus, but based on who wanted to know God and who did wanted to know the Scriptures for their own purposes. John’s disciples who left to follow Jesus are a prime example. They wanted to know God; the Pharisees did not. An openness to seek God in a way that is unexpected without shutting it out because it does not completely accord with your current understanding of Him is a virtue. It is no virtue, when confronted with an idea of God or a potential act of God, to respond by digging more firmly into your current understanding so as to shut out new possibilities. Seeking God is about open-handedly looking up to God in expectation, not grabbing a shovel to dig a bunker down into what you already think.

Can Americans Claim 2 Chronicles 7:14?

This post originally appeared as a note I put up on Facebook in 2011. I’ve put it here in Common Sense Bible Reading because it’s a good example of using context to interpret and understand the Bible to keep us from “bad theology,” which I talked about in the first blog post here.

Over the last few years I have frequently heard the following quote from 2 Chronicles 7:14 presented as an encouraging call for prayer on the part of American Christians to pray for the nation, drawing on this passage as a promise to heal the land of people who call on God for forgiveness:

“If my people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

I’d like to take a look at this passage in its context beginning a chapter before to see what exactly is being said here. To give a small hint at the conclusion, I’ll just mention here that I’ve purposely misquoted this verse to accord with the way it is typically remembered.

This statement from God occurred at Solomon’s dedication of the temple. At this dedication, beginning at 6:1, Solomon faced the people of Israel and said,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who spoke with His mouth to my father David and has fulfilled it with His hands, saying, ‘Since the day that I brought My people from the land of Egypt, I did not choose a city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house that My name might be there, nor did I choose any man for a leader over My people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem that My name might be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’” (2 Chr. 6:4-6)

After bringing up remembrance of the covenant for the people of Israel, Solomon then prays to God:

“Now therefore, O Lord, the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David, my father, that which You have promised him, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your sons take heed to their way, to walk in My law as you have walked before Me.’ “Now therefore, O Lord, the God of Israel, let Your word be confirmed which You have spoken to Your servant David.” (2 Chr. 6:16-17)

Later that day, God appeared to Solomon in response and said the following (emphases mine):

“I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Look at these words that appear in the passage….

“If,” “if,” “if,” “and,” “then”…

This is a very specific, conditional statement that looks to a previous agreement, which is the land blessing/cursing promises of the Mosaic Covenant, the Law of Moses, made between God and His covenant people Israel at Mt. Sinai. From the beginning of Chapter 6 this whole passage has everything to do with the nation Israel. Remembering that Israel and the Church are distinct entities throughout all of Scripture, promises like these do not involve the Church. Although Romans 9-11 describes the Church as the ingrafted branch into “true Israel,” all that is being described in those chapters is the fact that all are saved by grace through faith, in the way Abraham was (Gen. 15:6), not that the Church has replaced Israel, becoming the new recipient of Old Testament promises to Israel. Prophecies about Israel have not all been fulfilled, meaning that those land promises are still in effect, and are not ultimately being fulfilled solely in a “spiritual” sense by the Church today. This promise was not made to the New Testament church, much less to the United States of America. How would this apply to our nation? Are we the chosen people of God? How could a conditional promise to Israel be part of America’s relationship with God?

One reason it is so easy for many to see “my people who are called by my name” as being Christians is Christ followers are literally called by the name of Christ. But what God is actually saying is “my people who are called by, associated with and are identified with My reputation.” If you read Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 9, you see this clearly. Daniel is praying for restoration of Israel and removal from their exile in Babylon. Daniel refers back to God’s rescue of Israel from Egypt and he says that through that “You made a name for yourself,” and then requests forgiveness and restoration from their sin “For Your name’s sake.” “My people who are called by my name” refers to the relationship between Israel and God’s reputation that is either helped or hindered by their behavior. 

I’m not writing this to be a kill-joy or to ruin anyone’s day. I’m not even writing to say that God has no positive dealings with the United States. I’m only saying that if we’re going to look through Scripture to find encouragement or direction as far as what are spiritual obligation is to our country, we should do so in a way that is truthful and faithful to Scripture, “accurately handling the Word of truth.” We cannot expect God to uphold promises He never made. This is being a false witness of God, making untrue claims about Him…obviously something we should take great care to not do.

Now, this look at 2 Chronicles 6-7 does not in any way negate the forgiving and restorative nature of God’s character. This we can in fact take away from this passage as an application for us Gentiles. God brings about affliction or chastisement to those of His followers who are living contrary to His Word in an attempt to restore them to fruitfulness. When God does this to us, and we repent, He forgives and restores us. It’s a great encouragement to know we’re never too far gone to be restored in God’s eyes, although a life of fruitless living results in loss of reward in heaven (1 Cor. 3).

As Americans we have a responsibility to submit to our governing authorities, and to pray for and support our nation, and God surely has a hand in what’s going on in all nations of the world, but it is not fair to hold God to a promise He never made to America.

Psalm 130:3-4. Gospel Goes in….what comes out?

I haven’t written a post in a while, and after posting this I still will not have posted anything about Bible reading in a while. Today’s little blurb here is a straying from the norm of what we’ve intended this blog for, but I just felt I should share this anyway. The way this does tie into the subject of Bible reading, however, is in the department of application. We read it, we understand it, now what?

I’ve been spending some time lately looking at the Psalms of Ascents, and this morning’s reflections are on two verses in Psalm 130.

My translation:

If you would keep a watchman’s eye on iniquities,
who could stand?
But with You, YHWH, there is forgiveness [this forgiveness is only from God in the OT]
In order that You might be feared.

This is Paul’s “passing over” of past sins in order for there to be full atonement at the cross. Our view of God in the OT is usually more bleak than David’s. We typically think of God scrutinizing every action of people with a judgmental eye in the old covenant, and then stepping back in grace in the new…David believed otherwise. David saw God as NOT keeping a watchful observing eye on sinful behaviors because if He did, no one could stand before God and all would be condemned.

If awe, reverence, and sobriety do not result from our understanding of the atonement of our sins and our having been forgiven, then either we don’t understand it correctly, or we don’t believe it. Our response to doctrine can help us gauge either our understanding or true acceptance of what we’ve read. Our goal should be to preach these things to ourselves so that the doctrines we assent to take root and bear fruit. Understanding the doctrine is the first step; drilling the doctrine into our heads and hearts so that there is a fruit from it is the second, even if it takes time. Understanding the doctrine and stopping the pursuit there (short!) is to disbelieve in the doctrine on some level. To hear the Word and not do the Word is to not really have heard it. Faith comes from hearing…faith produces action….to hear and then not to have faith-driven application is not to have heard it on some level.

I’m sounding pretty Calvinistic this morning, yes…but it makes some sense I think. Probably not in an absolute sense since we can still allow the sin nature to have its way and suppress these things…but I think it still is true. The NIV is more Calvinistic sounding than the Hebrew text…it says “therefore you are feared.” The Hebrew’s passive imperfect is not quite as certain as that. “In order that you might/would/will be feared.”

Bottom line: When the Bible says what should come out when the gospel goes in, and “it” doesn’t come out, we need to self-examine until we find out what the hindrance is. As Tozer says, what we believe about God is the most important thing, not just what we think we believe about God because those can be different things.

When “Because the Bible Says So” Isn’t Enough (pt 1)

Commands in the Scriptures are the commands of God, and if the almighty Creator, Judge and Ruler of a universe that exists by His verbal power says “Go,” then you go, right??

Well……………….Yes. Yes you do.

But there is a difference between responding to a divine command issued to you, and correctly interpreting a text that happens to contain imperatives. Obviously the commands of God are commands of God and to be taken appropriately, but sometimes we can make too much of a verb that is grammatically imperative. Let’s explore this briefly.

There is an old exhortation given to preachers to “always ground the imperative in the indicative.” Unfortunately all too many preachers seem never to have been taught this, or simply have not known how to do this. All it means is that in the Bible every command (imperative) stems from a statement of fact (the indicative). There are reasons why commands exist in the Bible, and almost always commands are the author’s way of saying “In light of ___, the only reasonable thing for you to do is ___.”

One of the best examples is the Ten Commandments. In the book of Exodus, under the leadership of Moses, God miraculously redeems Israel from oppressive slavery in Egypt. He tells them He is taking them out to give them the land promised to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:1-3;15:1-21). He takes them to Sinai, gathers them as a nation and issues the Decalogue (“ten words”), commanding Israel to love Him, worship only Him, etc. Right?

Well that’s how we remember the story anyway. As always, read the whole thing. The commandments begin in chapter 20, but chapter 19 is God’s introduction to the commandments, and what He tells Moses to say to the people is this:

“You yourselves have seen how I lifted you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. And now, if you will diligently listen to me and keep my covenent, then you will be my special possession out of all the nations, for all the earth is mine, and you will be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exod. 19:4-6a, NET)

God does not simply issue a set of laws. He first gives them the justification for issuing the commandments, which will become their motivation for obeying them (Israel’s redemption) and the results should they obey them (they will be pleasing to Him because they glorify Him, pointing the world to their Redeemer). So we see that the reason Israel would obey these commands is not to earn God’s favor, or that they would become His people (He called them “my son, my firstborn” way back in chapter 4!), but they would obey God out of thankfulness to Him for rescuing them.

Imperative (decalogue) grounded in the indicative (redemption).

 

Keep this in mind especially when reading the Epistles in the New Testament. Whenever you see moral commands, read backwards to earlier sections of the letter until you find the theological indicative…then once you find it, you will find the moral/ethical commands of the epistles reading not as “Do this because I said ” but as “Because this is so (the indicative), then it only makes sense for us to behave this way!”

Sometimes, “Because the Bible says so” isn’t enough…you have to read more of the Bible to find out why the Bible says that!

 

Matthew 3: Baptizing the Repenting Creator?

One issue we’ve noticed over the years is our tendency as Bible readers to struggle with theologically-loaded words. “Save,” “salvation,” “grace,” etc., The word we struggle with the most it seems is “repent.” The problem with these words is that, since the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not only do words mean different things in different contexts in English, but all the more do the original language words have different meaning in different contexts. So when John the Baptist or Jesus says “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near,” and Peter says “Repent,” those words may have slightly different meanings in context. I think a careful reading of Matthew 3 shows a different meaning of “repent” than when Peter used it in Acts 2.

 

The most basic meaning of “repent” is a change of mind. Most Christians I know have latched onto the definition “Make a 180-degree turn,” and while that idea is involved, the most basic meaning is to change the mind, and on the grand scale of responding to Christ, repent seems to take on the force of “Change your worldview and accept the new revelation of Jesus as put before you.” I think that is how Peter meant it. What we typically think when we hear the word “repent” is “Stop sinning.” Well, if it was that easy then why did we need to be re-identified with Jesus in his death, killing off the “old man” in Adam? (Rom. 6:1-7)

What did John the Baptist mean when he said “Repent?” The context of Matthew 1-3 (yes, even chapter 1!) will give us the clues needed to interpret John’s meaning.

Here are some reading observations, leaving the theological baggage of certain words behind and looking at the context to determine the words’ meaning.

-Matthew 1:1 is reminiscent of Genesis. “The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” The book of Genesis is divided into ten sections that begin in this exact way, as translated in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (abbrv LXX). A Jewish reader would have been clued in immediately to look for creation in Genesis.

 

3:2- For Israel to repent, for John, seems to mean coming out to the Jordan (You mean those geographical references hold significance??). The Pharisees and Sadducees came out for baptism and John equated this with “fleeing the coming wrath” and “repentance.”

His baptism was a sort of re-crossing of the Jordan for Israel (Deut. 7:1; 9:1-3, 6; Joshua 1:2-5, 3:1-17), a re-consecration in preparation for the coming Kingdom. For the 2nd Generation of Israel, crossing the Jordan meant to take the land that was given to them and possess it. This was a failed operation, even guided by God and done in His strength. Without the “Great King” missing in the period of the Judges God’s people would never possess the land or maintain faithfulness to the covenant mediated by Moses.

-Here, though, re-crossing the Jordan in preparation for the coming Kingdom is different. While the land promises of the covenant made with Israel are still future for Israel, the Kingdom will not be possessed and taken by human hands, not even human hands guided and strengthened by divine power (because that didn’t work the last time), but is accomplished by the Great King Himself, Jesus, whose kingdom He has now brought to earth (our kingdom cannot be reformed into His; it must be overtaken and replaced). He is the fulfillment of every promise and every failed (also read “human”) leadership endeavor in the Old Testament.

-John is baptizing people who were confessing their sins. “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is near,” in 3:2 is like issuing a warning of an invading King (Francis Chan’s take is that people hearing this announcement could decide then to either prepare to make peace or fight). In 3:7 (look carefully) John equates the coming kingdom with “the coming wrath.” This warning is even followed by the life-or-death terms of the invading King. In 3:10 John warns that every “tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” In 3:11 John warns that Jesus is coming to baptize people “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” According to NT scholar Charles Quarles, it is wrong to read this as one thing (the fire of the Holy Spirit) but is two separate things, “fire and the Holy Spirit”. Contextually (as always, keep reading 🙂 ) this is certain because 3:12 confirms that Jesus is separating wheat and chaff and the chaff He will “burn with inextinguishable fire.”

Here’s a chart that might help see this.

3:10.  Bear good fruit                    or             burned in the fire

3:11.  Baptized with Spirit             or              fire 

3:12.  Wheat gathered                   or              burned with inextinguishable fire 

 

Ones response to the coming kingdom determines the outcome. Bearing good fruit, baptized with the Holy Spirit and being gathered wheat are outcomes, not responses. Seeing them grouped together opposite the negative outcomes helps clarify this. A person does not bear fruit in order to escape hell. A believer bears good fruit because of the Holy Spirit’s power in him because  he/she repented in humility to the coming king and will therefore be gathered as wheat. Bearing fruit in an outcome, an outflowing of the Holy Spirit. Repentance is not a requirement but a response of the mind in acceptance of something presented, in rejection of something else. Despite some theories out there, if we take these words in their most natural meaning, fruit is evidence, not of salvation, but of the Holy Spirit. We need to keep that distinction, I believe. Saying “fruit is the ultimate proof of salvation” is misleading because it leaves the agent of fruit-bearing, the Holy Spirit, out of the equation and leaves the impression that if we are not producing sufficient fruit then we are not saved. But a saved person can resist the Holy Spirit and not produce fruit for a time, so the whole idea breaks down. Fruit=evidence of the Holy Spirit and inspect-able only by God Himself.

3:13. Why was Jesus baptized? Let’s use context clues for an answer.                                                                                                     When Jesus comes to be baptized by John, John didn’t need to be baptized by Jesus, the one who baptized with the Holy Spirit; John was born with the Holy Spirit! Jesus, the Great King, was going back to the Jordan, stepping into the representative place of Israel and having the Holy Spirit “brooding” on him in the water (Gen. 1:2, “the spirit of God brooded over the waters”), initiating the time of re-creation by the Holy Spirit, the means by which fruit will be borne. The reference to Genesis (as qtd in LXX) in Matthew 1:2 helps set the Jewish reader’s eyes to look for creation in Matthew.

In Exodus 4, God calls Israel “my son, my firstborn” before the Law is given and the covenant is cut. In the last verse of Matthew 3 God calls Jesus, who is standing in Israel’s place in the Jordan, “my beloved son in whom I am pleased,” before the Law is re-interpreted (ch 5-7) and the New Covenant is cut (the crucifixion).

Here’s my take at understanding Matthew’s theology:

Jesus, the Creator, the King of the Jews, came into the world as a greater “prophet like Moses” to redirect God’s people back to His heart and character as reflected in the Law, and to take Israel’s place in fulfilling the Law’s moral and sacrificial requirements, cutting a new superior covenant in His own blood thereby establishing perfectly the Kingdom of Heaven, extended to Gentiles, conquering sin and death and establishing His followers as rulers in His Kingdom who are empowered by the Holy Spirit (regeneration, which is a new act of creation) to live miraculously and naturally (not in self-willed determination) according to a supremely high moral and social ethic which reflects the character of God the Father.

Luke 1: Zacharias and Mary

When I was studying the book of Revelation while at Moody, my professor quoted a renowned theologian known for his work in studying John’s apocalyptic visions. This scholar was quoted saying that interpreting the book of Revelation he found much easier than interpreting the four Gospels. Let’s be honest here…the Gospels are hard to understand. Jesus is hard to understand.

Reading the Gospels for interpretation beyond simply reading for content takes practice.I have found that I have to read long portions of a Gospel before I start to get a feel for the rhythm in their writing. Matthew, for instance, I have to read chapters 1 through 5 before I start to get a feel for what is going on and what Matthew is doing as he writes. It is impossible to read a few verses of one chapter of Matthew or Luke, for instance, and know what the theological message is apart from reading a lot of that particular Gospel.

Let’s look at the first chapter of Luke’s Gospel, leaving off Luke’s introductory message to Theophilus. No one knows who Theophilus was anyway.

As you read through the whole chapter, the first big thing to notice is that Luke is making a comparison between two people, Zacharias and Mary. Gabriel appears to both, Gabriel brings a message of a miraculous pregnancy to both, the coming Messianic hope is included in the message to both, and both people respond differently.

This is a literary device called interchange. We see this in movies all the time where the director has the film edited to switch back and forth between two characters to develop a comparison or contrast. The two events are normally depicted as happening simultaneously as part of an overall story development. Although that is not what is happening here–in verse 26 it says Mary’s story takes place at least six months following Zacharias’ story (perhaps the stated time lapse is highlighting the fact that God’s will is carried out whether or not it is accepted)–the effect is the same. The parallel elements in both stories are supposed to draw the reader’s attention to the differences.

Look at the series of events:

Vs. 13-17, Angelic Greeting to Zarcharias, related to Christ coming as Lord

Vs. 28-33, Angelic Greeting to Mary related to Christ coming as Savior and Lord

Vs. 13b, To Zacharias: “You will have a son”

Vs. 31, To Mary: “You will have a son”

Vs. 13a,  Zacharias had petitioned God for a son!

Vs. 28. Son not petitioned for but given to “favored” Mary (same word as “grace”)

Vs. 18, Zacharias’ Confusion and doubt

Vs. 34, 38, Mary’s Confusion and humble acceptance

Vs. 63. Zacharias’ humble acceptance after being humiliated

Vs. 19-20. Zacharias’ Curse

Vs. 24. Elizabeth’s Pregnancy

Vs. 41. Elizabeth filled with Holy Spirit

Vs 67. Zacharias filled with Holy Spirit

Vs. 46-66. Mary’s song of rejoicing

-Emphasis in song on proud and humble (vs. 48, 51-53)

Vs. 48-79.. Zacharias’ song of rejoicing

-Emphasis in song on Jesus as Lord and Savior who rescues His people (vs. 68, 69, 74, 78, 79)

 

Luke, the historian-story-teller is showing us that the reasonable response to accepting the rule of God (a dominating theme in Luke) is humility and joy. If a person has an encounter with God that does not leave them rejoicing, it was an encounter that did not come with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by a lack of joy. A lack of joy is possibly linked to a lack of humility. We spend too much time trying to understand everything when the main thing we need to grapple with is that God has visited his people in salvation and extended that visitation to all the outsiders as well. Accepting this visitation brings joy by the Holy Spirit.

This story has to do with the human acceptance of God’s rule. God’s rule in Christ, again, is a major theme of Luke’s Gospel. So we have the story’s subject: God’s rule up for acceptance by humans. Now we need a qualifier for “rule” or “lordship”: rest in His salvation provided in Christ.  My preliminary thoughts on this chapter leads me to this principle: humility before God’s rule results in rejoicing; pride before God’s rule results in cursing. This can be confirmed from within Luke’s Gospel by a number of other passages, such as the story Jesus tells about the rich man and Lazarus. The pride of the Jewish leadership is the cause of them being set aside from God’s blessing for the Gentiles to come into it. Pride and humility; one leads to cursing and the other leads to joy in Christ’s salvation.

I have intentionally left this free from a lot of details and observations, hopefully providing you with a starting point to reading this and studying it yourself. There is a lot I have not included here on purpose.

Don’t complicate it. Just read it. 🙂

 

Introduction: What is Bad Theology?

Welcome.
I don’t imagine anyone who doesn’t already know me has stumbled across this blog, but if the extremely unlikely has occurred, my name is Michael Durso and I’m writing this blog to fill a void I have sensed in the world of reading and studying the Bible. Much has been written on inductive Bible study, such as Kay Arthur’s books and Precepts study series, and there are also quite a few seminary level textbooks on the subject, but I have come across little to present a common sense reading approach (what I would call normal literary reading) for the average Christian in the pew to help him return to reading the Bible as a book, as literature, and THEN as God’s Word having first understood the words before spiritualizing them.

I currently serve as an associate pastor in a small Baptist church in Michigan, and one of the minisry tasks I am most passionate about is equipping; when I tally up my experiences, conversations, education and things I happen to have a few semi-clear thoughts about, the subject of how to study the Bible bubbles to the top. I suppose I have seen so much “bad theology” (a harmless term, I promise…I’ll define it later) that came from weird ways of reading the Bible that I’d like to offer a help to fellow believers to avoid the same pitfalls.

By “bad theology,” I do not mean theology that happens to be different from my own, or even unorthodox theology (although I would argue that too is a result of poor reading methods), but theology that is developed pre- or mid-interpretation, rather than post-interpretation. “Bad theology” is what happens when we ask “How does this text fit into a particular theological system” before the passage is read in all its contexts. It would be like asking what chocolate cake recipe A looks like when cooked compared to cake recipe B before one or the both of them have been cooked all the way. The results of both have to be arrived at before they can be compared.

For a biblical example of “bad theology,” imagine Bob is wrestling with the concept of perseverance as it is related to the paradox of divine sovereignty versus individual responsibility, and was on the fence about the whole concept. Bob begins reading Philippians and comes across this well-known statement by the Apostle Paul:

“I am confident that He who began a good work in you will carry it out until completion.”

Bob has an “aha” moment and believes he has discovered the key ingredient…his theology is further developed with this principle he believes he has just read: “If a believer does not continually grow but falls back, he was never a believer.”

Bob now has some “bad theology,” not because his theology is wrong necessarily (although nearly everyone would argue that it is skewed on this point), but because he “theologized” before he understood what Paul was saying. A closer, common-sense reading of Philippians 1 reveals that Paul’s confidence was not based on a theological principle such as what Bob believes he has uncovered, but on the Philippian church’s track record of remaining joyously involved in proclaiming the Gospel despite Paul’s imprisonment. Paul mentions time periods, “from then til now,” and “until the day of Christ,” etc., indicating that because they had kept up faithfully in their participation of Paul’s ministry of gospel proclamation prior to his imprisonment, and that they had continued after, he was confident that they would continue on all the more.

Whether or not Bob’s newfound theological principle is correct is irrelevant to the issue Paul was addressing. In Philippians 1, Paul is not teaching theology, but fellowshipping and encouraging.

This text is not about perseverance, but joy. Deriving the application from the Philippians’ perseverance cuts the reader’s analysis in half, and results in a moralistic, behavior-driven application. The question is not “what did the Philippians do?” (so that we can do likewise) but “Why did they persevere despite Paul’s imprisonment?
Here we have an instance of reversal from the assumed outcome. This is not a theme foreign to the Bible; it was Jesus’ own disciples that DID fall away when their leader was imprisoned. So here is the issue at hand: what differs situationally from the disciples and the Philippians that when one shrunk back the other persevered in the same situation?

To this Paul says “To live is Christ, to die is gain.”

The difference was not spiritual, moral or behavioral, but revelational. When the disciples fell away the resurrection had not occurred yet, which would serve to authenticate and prove Jesus’ words “I am the resurrection and the life.” Progressive revelation provided the Philippians with the additional needed resource to remain joyful and persevere despite persecution: the resurrection, a life hid in Christ.

What Bob did was import a theological concept from elsewhere in the Bible and then use a totally unrelated passage of Scripture in order to interpret the concept. This is “bad theology.” Bob missed out on the whole amazing message of Philippians (joyful perseverance in the face of persecution) all because of an ill-timed, irrelevant theological question. Bob needed to stop doing systematic theology and just read Philippians.

The majority of this blog from here out will be dedicated to specific passages of Scripture, walking through the process of common-sense reading toward a point of developing theology from the passage, or will present advice for difficult passages, helpful reading strategies or new things I happen to stumble across or figure out.

If you have questions about specific passages, or questions about content I post, please feel free to ask. I will answer as many as I can. My real desire here is to grow your confidence in reading the Bible so you can understand and apply it to yourself, and so you can identify bad theology and the underlying presuppositions of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rule #1 of Bible Reading: Your Theology is Not Context

The greatest advice ever given regarding how to read the Bible is “read it in context.” But I would suggest that while we have all heard this (honestly, how many of you had an “aha” moment just now?), rarely is it done successfully or honestly.

What does “read it in context” mean? What context?

When I hear people say this (usually as a challenge to others who don’t really understand the Bible like the one issuing the challenge) I think what they normally mean is historical context, what was going on historically and culturally when the author wrote the passage. I would argue this context is essential (although not always accessible, as with the prophet Joel, for instance), and, if possible, should be understood even before approaching the text in question when conducting any sort of serious study.

Most times, however, what people mean by “context”, however unintentionally,  is theology. I have caught myself in this one…”No, when God said _____ He didn’t mean it that way because God is ____. Read it in context!”

But is “God is___” context? No. “God is___” is theology. Theology is not context.
I see this over and over again, the insistence that a passage must be understood in its context only for the writer or speaker to then interpret the passage in light of his or her theology.

The most important context that should be meant by the above advice is literary context. This sounds more complicated than it really is. This does not mean you have to know Greek and Hebrew. This does not mean you need to go get an M.A. in literature. All this means is…

Read the whole thing. Just read the whole thing.

Granted, this applies predominantly to the New Testament epistles. While it does apply to other types of Scriptures, it applies at a different level with the epistles.

For instance, let’s say you have decided you’re going to spend the next few weeks or months reading Galatians for your own devotional reading/study. Great. My suggestion: read Galatians, at least once a day for the the next week or two. Don’t read FROM Galatians…don’t read a PORTION of Galatians. Read Galatians. Ignore the chapter and verse divisions entirely and just read the letter. For a long epistle like Romans this will take about 1 1/2 hours. You will be tempted the first two or three times through to stop at every few verses, and to dwell and theologize. Don’t. Not yet. Read the whole letter. Until the letter’s whole, primary message begins to crystallize, just keep reading, followed by prayer than God would speak to you through His Word.

We are extremely impatient people most of the time. We want to sit down, read the Bible for ten minutes, have God WHAMO slap a message into our brains and hearts and then see our behavior change with no effort of our own. That is what we want…but God rarely works that way. God never promised us that we would understand everything we read, or that we would find life-altering messages in every pasasge of study. He promised He would never leave us, and that His Word is “profitable  for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” He promised that salvation is made known in the Word of God. This is what satisfied God to give to us; we need to learn to be satisfied with what God deems sufficient. Perhaps there is a REASON this is how things are. Spend some time thinking about that one.
This should perhaps be Rule #1 of Bible reading: Your theology is not context. Your own crystalized, ordered theological system you adhere to, whether it is intentionally formulated or was allowed to be formulated by your surroundings, teachers and experiences, is not the context in which a particular passage of Scripture is to be understood (everyone has a theology, even if they don’t know it or call it that). But people use it that way SO MUCH of the time:
  “Such and such a passage doesn’t mean x, y and z, because my calvnist/arminian/lutheran/catholic theology says so.”

This sounds exaggerated, and I’ll admit to as much, but in principle I see this all over the place in theological writing. I have read countless theologians argue with differing theologians  in writing insisting their opponent is not understanding a passage in its context, only to turn around and present an interpretation that was predetermined by their theology. And where did their theology come from? Other people wrestling with the same issues we are. And where is the Bible in all of this? Where is the biblical author? Most likely speaking about something unrelated to the argument. (see introductory post for an example)

I will never forget what my hermeneutics professor said to the class nearly every week: “The mark of a good theologian is the willingness to change beliefs in light of better evidence.” These are words that will forever shape my Bible reading.

Another professor, John McMath, who teaches Old Testament and Hebrew at Moody Bible Institute-Spokane, put it this way: the foundational place to begin with the Bible is exegesis (What did the author say?), which leads us to biblical theology (what did this author believe about God?), which leads into EITHER systematic theology (what does the whole Bible say about the topic?) or into preaching/teaching (how are we to respond to what the author said?).  Anytime the above order is violated either our doctrine or our practice will go wrong; of course doctrine and practice always go right or wrong together if we are consistent and honest with ourselves.

Here is what substituting theology for context looks like:

A reader approaches a given text, perhaps Romans 2:6-7, with systematic theology in mind, rather than reading the whole letter for content as a first and primary step. Observation is the most important and overlooked step in Bible reading.

Romans 2:6-7 says “He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness.” (NET)  A person who approaches this verse with systematic theology on the brain reads and says “I know that salvation is not by works, but by grace, so Paul is obviously not saying that a person who ‘by perseverance in good works seek glory and immortality’ receive eternal life. Therefore ‘works’ in this context must mean something other than…works…” hmmmmm….

But isn’t that exactly what Paul said? Indeed, he did. Those who persevere in good works seeking glory and immortality will go to heaven. Judgment by God is based on works, but if you continue to read all of Paul’s argument you would see that this works to no one’s benefit, but to everyone’s certain condemnation. Why? Because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The dominant theme in the first 3 chapters of Romans is that Gentiles and Jews are equally under sin and fallen from fellowship with God. If this reader had spent more time reading and less time making verses fit into their theology they would not have misunderstood this verse. This reader wasn’t willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt.

This method of Bible reading seeks to read simply to reinforce the reader’s previously formed theological thoughts, but the purpose of Bible reading is to have previously formed thoughts challenged and reforged by the Word of God. This reader has done the opposite in his approach to Scripture.

The bottom line with this post: read the Bible in the most natural way possible, as literature. When you studied literature in school, you looked at different genres in which authors pen their works: different varieties of poetry, novel, short story, biography, etc. Of course, there are many other genres that we read all the time without thinking of them as literary genres, such as phone books (white page and yellow page varieties), form letters, utility bills, greeting cards (humor and serious varieties), packaging labels, acceptance/rejection letters, etc. You know intuitively that when you pick up a utility bill you’re not looking for themes and rhymes the way you would if you began reading a poem. If you pick up an acceptance letter from a college or other institution you wouldn’t look for plot elements such as setting, conflict, rising action, climax, resolution, etc.

The same rules apply to the Bible. If you are reading a New Testament Epistle, you’re reading, in essence, someone else’s mail (this is not an original idea, but has been said by many people before me). These are letters written to someone who is not you, who lived a long time ago. To use an example from the last post, when Paul says to the Philippians that his confidence in their future perseverance is grounded in their perseverance up to that point, it would be totally out of the character of the genre of letter-writing for Paul to have meant for you the reader to take a personalized message from that: “If I persevered before, then I will persevere in the future.” To quote a friend recently, “You wouldn’t read someone else’s college acceptance letter and think YOU were accepted to college.”

 

Back to advice for reading NT epistles…read the whole letter. Over and over. Read the whole thing. These letters were written to be read in one sitting to the gathered church, so do them justice by reading them all the way through until you start to see the major message (or messages) rise off the page. Allow God room and space and time to speak in a bigger way.

He will.