The Potter’s House: Law and Grace; Romans Chapter 4
Originally published January 2, 2013
We now come to chapter four in our study of Romans. Thus far, Paul has emphasized that all men, whether Jew or Gentile, are saved by faith alone. This salvation is a revelation of God’s righteousness, and is imputed to us when we believe in Jesus Christ. We have learned that the gospel is the full counsel of God which of course includes the death burial, and resurrection of Christ. We have learned that Paul was very concerned with a spiritual caste system that would render the Gentiles as second-class citizens in the church. Though the church is uniquely Jewish, God shows no partiality in regard to race and gives the various gifts of salvation to all men freely.
What we have in the book of Romans is a radical dichotomy between justification and sanctification; or said another way, salvation and its imputed righteousness set against the Christian life as kingdom citizens living on earth as aliens and ambassadors. However, there is NO dichotomy between law and gospel. Why? Because both are the full counsel of God. In the Bible, “law,” “truth,” “gospel,” “Scriptures,” “holy writ,” “the law and the prophets,” and other terms are used interchangeably to speak of the closed canon of God’s full counsel for life and godliness. Christ as well as Paul made it absolutely clear: man lives by every word that proceeds from God and ALL Scripture is profitable to make the servant of God complete in every good work.
Now listen: though the life application of some Scripture changes with time and circumstances, it still remains that all Scripture informs us in regard to our walk with God in the way we pray, think, and act. We do not stone rebellious children in our day. Nay, when we have a rebellious teen in the church, we do not gather the congregation together and stone him/her to death. With that said, does the fact that God at one time instructed the Jews to do so inform us in regard to many applications for teen rebellion in our day? Absolutely. Oh my, the contemporary applications in our day are almost endless. Not only that, Old Testament ritual and symbolism offers a built-in protective hermeneutic for the Scriptures as a whole. What do I mean by that? Well, you can mess with words, but symbolism is very difficult to mess with. If it’s a lampstand, it’s hard to change that to a Honda Civic. Right?
Paul delves into a paramount truth for Christians in the book of Romans: The relationship of the law to the unsaved verses the saved. And here it is: the lost are UNDER the law, and the saved are UNDER grace, but informed by the law. Let me repeat that: the lost are UNDER the law, and the saved are UNDER grace, but informed by the law. And we can see this right in the same neighborhood of the text that we are in.
Romans 3:21—But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
That verse pretty much says it all. We are justified apart from the law, and as we will see, Paul means totally apart from the law. But we are informed by it. Paul states in Romans 3:28:
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Now note what he states after a few verses following in Romans 4:3,
For what does the Scripture say?
Paul strives to make the point in this letter that law is not even on the radar screen in regard to justification. And this is extremely important to know in our day for many teach that law is on the justification radar screen and therefore Christ must keep the law for us in order to maintain our justification. Not so, there is no law to keep in regard to justification—a righteousness APART from the law, the very righteousness of God has been imputed to our account in full. Paul even writes (and this is very radical) that Christians are sinless in regard to justification because there is no law in justification to judge us:
Romans 7:1—Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?
Romans 7:6—But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive….(v.8) Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Now, the law can judge our sin in our Christian life, but that can’t touch the fact that we are “washed.” Therefore, in sanctification, we only need to wash our feet to maintain a healthy family relationship with our Father God and Brother, the Lord Jesus Christ. Turn with me and let’s look at this in John 13:1-11:
Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 4 rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. 5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” 8 Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”
Clearly, “washing” refers to salvation, and differs from needing the lesser washing of the feet. The example is set against the unregenerate betrayer among them. Note that Jesus said that even though we needed to wash our feet, we are still “completely clean.” My, my, what a strong contrast to much of the teachings in our day; i.e., the idea of “deep repentance” that is the same repentance that saved us and keeps us saved—as long as we are in a Reformed church where such forgiveness is available. (more…)
Predestination is Not True: 2Peter 3:1-13
As PPT/TANC will invariably move toward a more solution oriented vision while moving away from blogosphere drama that seeks to save the institutional church, which is un-save-able, and founded on the false gospel of Protestantism, evangelism is a very important subject to us. And let’s face it; a Protestant view of predestination/election is a disincentive to evangelize. I have been a Protestant Baptist for many years, and know full well that most Protestants would rather kiss an alligator than witness. I believe this indifference to the Great Commission can be laid at the feet of Protestant orthodoxy.
Don’t get me wrong, my argument isn’t based on a desire to see more evangelism. If predestination is true, so be it. But the fact is—it’s not biblical. It has taken many years for me to come to this conclusion, and there are still a lot of pieces to put together, but in all my research on this issue of late, 2Peter 3:1-13 is the passage that has led me to this foundational conclusion:
God did not predetermine or choose some for salvation and others for hell. Man can be persuaded to believe.
I know that the typical lazy thinking Protestant Calvinists will call me an “Arminian,” but I have never read Jacobus Arminius, nor have I read anything about him. My conclusions come from reading the Calvin Institutes and the Bible. I also find it interesting that Neo-Calvinists find the same angle that I have settled on so intimidating that they changed words in the ESV to hide the meaning of “willing.” That doesn’t exactly dissuade me from thinking that I am on to something.
In 2Peter 3:1-13, Peter is reminding Christians of the following:
3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
Notice that men “deliberately” overlook the truth because it is inconvenient to their own desires. That’s a choice. Men are not completely blinded, they are aware of the truth, but they deliberately suppress it (Rom 1:18,19). In this case, they deny the second coming by pointing to how long the earth has been functioning normally for thousands of years. Peter then defines their deliberate and false assertion:
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
The first discrepancy is the ESV’s (a Neo-Calvinist translation) use of “you”—but is patient towards you. This implies a second person plural which infers a continuing same salvation for believers as well as unbelievers. The correct translation (KJV) that fits with the context is “us-ward” (third person plural) which implies mankind in general and their need for salvation. The second person plural goes hand in hand with Calvinism’s progressive justification.
More interesting is how the ESV translates the word “willing” as “wishing” in this text—not wishing that any should perish. The actual word follows:
g1014. βούλομαι boulomai; middle voice of a primary verb; to “will,” i. e. (reflexively) be willing:— be disposed, minded, intend, list, (be, of own) will (- ing).
The idea is “intent,” or to “will.” This is what settled the issue for me. It is clearly NOT God’s “will” or “intent” that any parish. If God predestined certain men for destruction, that is clearly His intent and will. But that is not the case. But it gets better: on the one hand, God does not predetermine people for destruction because that is not His will or intent, and on the other hand, he desires all men to be saved:
1Timothy 2:1 – First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The word for “desires”—who desires all people to be saved is,
g2309. θέλω thelō; to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas 1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i. e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i. e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly);
Here, the ESV uses a proper word; God desires for all people to be saved, but of course, that’s not going to happen. But on the other hand, he doesn’t will or intend for people to be eternally condemned. That must mean it’s by their own choice, and contrary to God’s desires, will, or intent. Calvinists plainly do not like these renderings in holy writ and consider them a threat to their doctrine of predestination. They replace “will” and “intent” with the idea of thelo, or “wish.” Also, Note how the ESV translates Matthew 11:27.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
The ESV uses the word “chooses”—anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Shockingly, this is the exact same word used in 2Peter 3:9—βούλομαι boulomai. In 2Peter it is wishful thinking according to the ESV, but the same word in Matthew 11:27 is a CHOICE or a choosing, or predestination on the part of the Son. Here is how the KJV properly translates the verse:
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
If the ESV was consistent with their questionable rendering of the word in Matthew 11:27, here is how 2Peter 3:9 would read:
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not choosing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Well then, the long list of Calvinist scholars that endorse the ESV agree with me:
God has not chosen anyone for condemnation.
paul
Addendum:
The word for “choose” follows: “g1586. ἐκλέγομαι eklegomai; middle voice from 1537 and 3004 (in its primary sense); to select:— make choice, choose (out), chosen. AV (21)- choose 19, choose out 1, make choice 1; to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one’s self.” Selecting the English word “choose” for boulomai (“willing”) in one place, and “wishing” in another seems to be a deliberate attempt to skew intended meaning.
They Just Had To Have Their Own Bible But….
….some things are just better left alone. The GS movement has been busily running about setting up there own spiritual infrastructure for some time now, and apparently, they wanted their own, unique Bible as well. The Bible of choice for the Sonship / GS faithful is the ESV, published in the very contemporary year of 2001. In the advertisement posted at the end of this article—featuring the who’s who of GS doctrine, Francis Chan says: “I’ve loved using the ESV translation because [it’s the GS thing to do] I trust the scholarship [emphasis mine] behind it and the accuracy [emphasis mine] of the interpretation.” Hmmmm: he’s wrong about Jesus being our Beverly Hills 90210 boyfriend—could he be wrong about the ESV as well?
The GS tsunami of the past ten years has fooled some into thinking that the ESV should be “The Bible of the future—ideal for public worship and private reading.” And apparently, not if Mark L. Strauss has anything to do with it. He recently wrote:
“So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the ‘Bible of the future’—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of ‘Biblish.’ Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV; NASB;NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of standard English.”
His entire review can be read here: http://bible-translation.110mb.com/improvingesv.pdf , but I will post the snafu’s documented by Strauss that even made me blush, and at times, laugh:
[Begin Strauss excerpt] For example, the ESV (following the RSV) originally rendered Gen. 30:35, “But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped …and put them in charge of his sons.”It is remarkable that Laban had so much confidence in his goats! This gaffe was pointed out and a second printing of the ESV corrected it, taking authority away from Laban’s goats: “… and put them in the charge of his sons.” Here are a few more “oops” translations that I have found in the ESV.
“Grinding Together”?!
Luke 17:35 ESV “There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.”
Comment: In contemporary English, “grinding together” suggests seductive dancing or something worse. (Perhaps both should have been taken for judgment!) Most versions clarify that this means grinding “grain,” “meal” or “flour” (cf. TNIV, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET, NRSV, REB, etc.)
Rock badgers are people too!
Prov. 30:26 ESV “the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer; rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs;”
Comment: In addition to the tortured word order, the ESV’s use of “people” is very strange. We sometimes joke that animals are people too, but surely ants and rock badgers are “creatures” or “species,” not people.
Nice legs!
Ps. 147:10 ESV “His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man,”
Comment: Taking pleasure in a man’s legs will surely leave readers chuckling. TNIV reads “in the power of human legs”; NET has “by the warrior’s strong legs.”
Such clean teeth!
Amos 4:6 ESV “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities”
Comment: It sounds like God is distributing toothbrushes to the Israelites. The Hebrew idiom means they had nothing to eat. The TNIV reads “I gave you empty stomachs,”; HCSB: “I gave you absolutely nothing to eat.” NET: “I gave you no food to eat.”
Trembling loins?
Psalm 69:23 ESV Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually.
Comment: This translation will surely send twitters through the junior high group. Trembling loins sounds like someone has to go to the bathroom.
“Double-tongued” deacons?
1 Tim. 3:8 ESV Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain
Comment: Sounds like a mock “Indian-speak” (with forked-tongue) or some strange alien creature. The Greek is dilogoi (etymologically, “two words/messages”), which means “insincere,” “lacking integrity,” “hypocritical,” or even “two-faced” (NET; GW).
Keep that faith to yourself!
Rom. 14:22 ESV The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.
Comment: The ESV seems to be discouraging believers from sharing their faith. But the word pistis here refers to personal convictions about food and drink, not about saving faith.6 TNIV So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. REB If you have some firm conviction, keep it between yourself and God.
Showing off the flesh
Gal. 6:12 ESV It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised….
Comment: “A good showing in the flesh” sounds like a bikini contest.
Ruth the mother of Boaz?
Ruth 4:14-15 ESV Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, Who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be Renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.”
Comment: The only antecedent to “him” is Boaz. It sounds like Ruth gave birth to her husband Boaz.
Planting ears?
Psalm 94:9 ESV He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?
Comment: “Planting an ear” sounds like an agricultural metaphor. The Hebrew nata in this context means “formed,” or “fashioned.” TNIV Does he who fashioned the ear not hear?…NET Does the one who makes the human ear not hear?
Watch out for falling lots!
Acts 1:26 ESV And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias…
Comment: One hopes Matthias was not hurt when the lot fell on him. The TNIV has “the lot fell to Matthias.” The NET has “the one chosen was Matthias.”
Israel’s gender confusion
Hosea 8:14 ESV For Israel has forgotten his Maker and built palaces, and Judah has multiplied fortified cities; so I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour her strongholds.
Comment: Readers will probably wonder why he gets the cities and she gets the strongholds.
Comforted or not?
Acts 20:12 ESV And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.
Comment: “Not a little comforted” sounds like they were not comforted in the least by Eutychus’ recovery. The meaning of course is the opposite, that they were greatly comforted. TNIV: …and were greatly comforted.
REB: …greatly relieved that he was alive.
A man without a city
Acts 21:39 ESV Paul replied, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city.”
Comment: Paul sounds like a man without a city. TNIV is only slightly better (“a citizen of no ordinary city”). NLT captures the sense: “Tarsus in Cilicia, which is an important city.”
Oh man!
Rom. 2:1 ESV Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.
Comment: In contemporary English, “Oh man!” is an exclamation, not a vocative. It sounds like Paul is saying, “Oh man, are you in trouble!” which of course is something like what he means (!), but not what the ESV intended. Even a literal version like the NASB recognizes the potential misunderstanding of the vocative, translating, “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment