Romans 3:9-20

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being [3] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

It is becoming less and less fashionable these days to speak of sin and evil. Why is this nation struck with a plague of underachieving, lazy, mischief makers? Well, it’s certainly not sin. A lack of self-esteem maybe. Never mind that most in our younger generations think they will be rich, highly successful people even though they continually chose X-box over algebra. Never mind that a sixteen year old who doesn’t have the patience to learn a guitar chord thinks he will be a celebrated rock star because he can beat out the rhythms on Guitar Hero World Tour with the best of them. Yes, self-esteem is clearly the problem.

Even when a word like sin is finally used it falls upon terrorist acts or genocide. Perhaps if there isn’t sufficient parental damage in a rapist’s previous history, we might even dare to call him “sinful” or “evil” rather than a victim. Alright, I’m being somewhat patronizing, I know. But we do have an irrational knee jerk reaction to personal moral responsibility, and a double knee jerk reaction to harsh words like sin. Can a person be arrogant? Yes. Stupid? Sometimes. Sinful? Let’s not get judgmental.

The Bible, however, has no such qualms. Everyone is “under the power of sin.” That was a highly offensive statement when Paul made it. Many Jews thought that Gentiles were obviously “sinners,” but Jews were God’s people. But Paul backs up his radical claim with the only thing Jews would listen to, their Old Testament Scriptures. Verse 10-18 are simply quotes from those scriptures, and all of them say basically the same thing: “No one is righteous, no one seeks for God, no one does what is good.” Then Paul nails the coffin shut with the killer conclusion: “Whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law.” You want to live by the teaching of the Torah? Great, it says that no one is good.

Then Paul moves to a central point of Christianity, the point the Jews could not accept, the point that leads our culture to reject any notion of a “depraved” humanity. God gives us his law, his moral standard, not because we can keep it, but because we can’t. He gives his standard so that every mouth will be stopped before him, so that every individual will realize his guilt, so that we all come to turns with the fact that there is no hope of being clean and innocent before God.

One cannot help but wonder whether our aversion to the terminology of “sin” lies in a guilt complex. We intuitively know that we don’t measure up. And if we ever do label a thought, an act, or attitude as sin, we know that we will be guilty of it. We will be sinners. But sinners are not what we are. Sinners are the really nasty people out there somewhere. Sinner cannot be what I find in me. Why else would we be so antagonistic against sin language? If it was just old and out of date, then it would just be silly. But it’s not silly; it’s offensive.

C.J Mahaney on Phelps

As many of you know Michael Phelps was spotted smoking a bong last week. Here are Mahaney's (a former drug enthusiast) helpful thoughts on the matter.

Teamwork

I know their corny, but they still crack me up.

Romans 3:1-8

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”

5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. (Romans 3:1-8)

I think it is best if I just try to reword Paul’s line of argument. Paul writes as if he is in a debate with someone. It is helpful to note that the thought underlying all of these objections to Paul’s gospel is that God ultimate salvation plan is dependent upon Jewish faithfulness to their covenant with God.

So first the objection: “If being a part of God’s people is something that happens inwardly and not physically, if it is not circumcision of the flesh that matters but a circumcision of the heart, then what good does it do to be a Jew? And what value is their in maintaining the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham by having our male children circumcised on the eighth day? It seems God wasted his time with Jews if there is no advantage in being one.” Paul answers the objection, “There are many advantages to being a Jew. For starters, God has given us the revelation of his promises and salvation plan. Simply to say that Jews may be just as wicked and under God’s wrath as any Gentile is not to negate that.”

And then comes this between the lines objection: “God promised that he would restore Israel and that divine blessing would go through Israel. If the Jews are every bit as lost as the Gentiles, then God’s promised is nullified.” “Wrong,” says Paul. “God’s promises are not dependent upon anyone, Jews included. Everyman can be a liar (and is incidentally), but that does not nullify God’s faithfulness. It says this very thing in Psalm 51. It says not only can God be righteous in the face of human evil, but the evil itself demonstrates his righteousness.” Then again the objecting response, “If our unrighteousness makes God look good, then how can it be just for God to judge us for making him look good.” The answer: “If this objection were true, then God could not judge anyone, Jew or Gentile. It is beyond dispute that all, in some form or other, disobey God, and that such a dark backdrop only enhances God’s purity and justice. But if God cannot judge people on these grounds, then he would cease to be just, for all evil would go unpunished (e.g. God couldn’t punish a murderer because it makes him look better as a life giver).”

The objection now becomes more honed in. “But if God should please himself to enhance the display of his glory through my sin, that is if it is God’s will that I should sin in order that he would look better, then why does God condemn me for being a sinner? My sin is a part of his plan. Perhaps, at least according to this theology, God should thank me for making him look so good.” Paul simply calls this objection slander and calls for judgment for all those who make it. He, however, does answer their objection. In fact, that is what the rest of the chapter is about. But more on that later.

Google Books

Some of you may be well aware of this but google has been putting many, many books online. I have found this to be an incredible resource. Many of the books have only "limited previews," which generally means that you can read all but a few random pages. If you are thinking about purchasing a book, but want to get a feel of it first, this is a great place to go. Or if you are looking for some good resource material (like commentaries), it's a great place to look. Plus, you have the option of creating your own personal library. You can check out more here.

Narnia Revived

Disney backed out of Narnia due to a less than stellar (not terrible mind you, just less than stellar) performance of the first two movies in the series. Thankfully, Fox has taken up the task, and Ross Douthat believes that is a very good thing. Douthat gives us Narnia fans some hope for a brighter future for Lewis' classic series. Read his article here.

Driscoll on Nightline

ABC Nightline ran a story on Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. Check out the video here.

The Pro-Life Argument of President Barak Obama

Let us pray that our new president will realize the compelling argument of his own life for life.

Romans 2:17-29

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:17-29)

Who are God’s people? To many first century Jews what gave them the edge over their Gentile counterparts were three things: 1) physical descent from Abraham, 2) possession of the truth and law of God, and 3) no foreskins. Paul takes one look at the list and wonders whether a Jew, knowledgeable of the law, and of course foreskinless is still in good with God if he lives in the lies, though knowing the truth, is a thief, adulterer, and idolater, though having the law, and is an embarrassment to God, though physically carrying the mark of God’s gracious covenant with Abraham. Suddenly the list seems to be missing something. Paul, a Jew, is not engaging in anti-Semitic vitriol; he is merely pointing out a rather obvious point. True participation in God’s grace is an internal, and not simply external, act. Beauty may only be skin deep, but salvation is not.

Paul points out what is the default thought pattern of all people in basically every religion in the world. It is so much easier to make a list than to be inwardly transformed. We hardly need to stop at religions, non-religious philosophies work just as well. Everyone makes a list of what marks them off as special and better than others. I am compassionate for the poor, says one. Yes, you love the poor, but do you love that filthy, rank drug addict that just lifted your wallet to have money for his next score. It’s easy to love the poor until you meet them. I despise bigotry, says another. Do you also despise bigots? And if you do, is that not bigotry? On and on we could go. It matters little that you have a list. If Paul is right in Romans 2:12-16, and we all have a God-wrought consciousness of morality, than all of us will have lists, and many of them will be quite similar. The real question is whether you keep your list. And if you do not, then why do you not?

Death By Love Thoughts

Read another chapter of Driscoll's Death By Love(see below). Driscoll wrote the chapter to a guy who molested a girl and plead guilty. The horror of his act and the life long shame it brings (his name is on the known sex offenders list) has brought him into suicidal depression. Driscoll starts off the letter: "Dear John, you are a despicable human being." Okay, that is not at all where most people would start, but that is where the gospel starts. Later in the chapter Driscoll comments on the fact that sin is so real. Honestly, I think on some level we, and certainly guys like John, are grateful when we call it like it is. There is something wholly disingenuous about the self-esteem culture that tries to paint everything pretty. How do you paint rape up pretty? "You just molested a little girl and probably messed her and her family up for the rest of their lives. But don't feel too bad, you're really a good person." I don't know, something about that just doesn't ring true. So long as you don't do something atrocious, there is hope for you. But for guys like John, who's acts are so beyond redemption the message is quite despairing.

Of course, Driscoll doesn't stay at "your despicable." He goes on to point out that in Christ there is no sex-offender list. He took the punishment and disgrace and has exchanged his purity and righteousness. Due to the cross, John doesn't have to be seen by God as a pedophile but as a righteous, pure, holy, and perfect son. Sin is real, but so is this love. I think that is what I appreciate most about this book. As you delve into the darkest corners of human depravity, corners that make sin so real, and you see blood atonement provide the solution, you cannot help but see how real is the power of the cross.

Serious Cold

For those of us whining about the cold, here is a reminder of how good we have it.

Death By Love

I have been reading this book by Mark Driscoll. It's turned out to be one of those books I don't like putting down. It is a powerful reminder of the power of the cross.

Romans 2:12-16

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:12-16)

I have decided not to answer the second question posted below. I know, you are all very disappointed. The reason for my decision is that to explain how “doing good” results in eternal life and yet how that is not earning salvation with good works would be to explain the next six or so chapters. I hope the answer will soon become very clear.

So on to the rest of chapter 2. Paul is on a mission to explode a smug assumption of self-righteousness. He does this by pointing two terribly important aspects to the law. The first point is that law is internal as well as external. We all know what a law is. Even those ignorant of it nevertheless still have it. His evidence of this fairly bold asseration is our natural accusing or excusing thoughts. Mistakes and failures simply do not disappear from memory. Often they don’t even fade away with time. They keep accusing us, sometimes to an unbearable degree. Perhaps, you may object that this is only because of the oppressive moral standards ingrained in us since birth. But remember it is not just accusing thoughts but also excusing thoughts that prove Paul’s point. What produces guilt as well as what produces license reveals the law. The adulterer reasons that the inattention of their spouse excuses their behavior. But the excuse that justifies the breaking of the law is itself a tribute to the law’s power. There is a standard that we all assume. In one case it may keep us moral; in another it may provide license for immorality. For most of us this all very complex. Our inner life is made up of a complicated web of accusing and excusing thoughts. But the thoughts are universal, and give evidence of the nature of God’s law.

This is an important point, for it demonstrates that God’s law is not merely a moral code invented for a specific group of people at a specific point in time. No, his law is a reflection of his nature, an unchanging nature. Therefore, it is possible, at least in principle, to keep and to break the law whether or not you have possession of it. What God revealed in his law is already what our accusing and excusing thoughts tell us. The implication of this thought is pretty disconcerting. You cannot escape God’s law. It haunts you no matter how far you fly from it. Whether you spend your days in despair over your failures or in partying while excusing your behavior, the law speaks to you. And when it speaks, what do you say? One day, as Paul points out, not only the law but the Law-giver will speak, and when he does what then will you say?

God Followers

This is a great little summary of the martyrdoms of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully, and Pete Flemming, the five brave missionaries who sought to reach a brutal tribe in the jungles of Ecuador, and the great harvest that was reaped due to their sacrifice. I've heard the story many times, but there is something about seeing the faces.

Romans 2:6-11: First Question

Being that the responses to my last post on this passage were so overwhelming . . . eh hem . . . I thought I’d go ahead and post some attempts at answering my own questions.

1) Being self-seeking leads to God’s wrath, but isn’t doing good to gain glory, honor, and immortality self-seeking? Maybe we can best answer this question with another question. Is it selfish of me to seek for a happy marriage? The philosopher Kant would say yes, and that such motives are not truly altruistic. Only when you have absolutely no self interest are you acting morally. Thankfully, the Bible emphatically does not take us in this direction. It says things like “He who loves his wife loves himself”(Ephesians 5:28). This is an obvious appeal to the “self” as motivation for loving another, my wife. Even when Scripture declares “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others”(Philippians 2:4) notice that self-interest is assumed but not condemned. Don’t get me wrong. This is certainly no modern self-esteem message: “Before you love others, you must first love yourself.” Self-interest is not promoted; it is assumed. But it is assumed as natural and proper. The first command given to man doesn’t say, “Do not eat of the tree in the middle of the garden just because I said so," but “Do not eat . . . or you will surely die.”

Clearly, then, biblical self-denial is not to have no thought of the self. This is good news, for Kant’s ethics are abysmally depressing. Telling my wife that I will love her because it’s the right thing to do may sound moral, but I can tell you she sure isn’t going to like it. Nor should she. Biblical self-denial is not the rejection of personal pleasure; it is the choosing of greater pleasures over lesser ones. That is ultimately what is at the heart of love. To love someone is to delight in them, or at least the two are so intimately linked that they can’t possibly be separated.

So back to Romans. I hope I’ve shown that to work for the greater pleasures of glory, honor, peace, and immortality is not necessarily selfish. It could be, of course. Kind of like working for a really big paycheck. My boss may like my good work ethic, but it is hardly altruistic. So I suppose we have to define what exactly “glory, honor, peace, and immortality” truly are. They aren’t quite like my paycheck. We don’t have to read very far to get some hints as to what Paul is talking about. In Romans 5:1, Paul says through Christ we get “peace with God,” and then in 5:2 he speaks of the “hope of the glory of God.” We could go more in depth, but I don’t think we need to at this point. All you have to see is that “glory, honor, etc.” are derivative. That is, they come from God. Or more precisely, they are found in God. Therefore, to seek for glory in Paul’s mind is to seek for God as God. Those thirsting for God are those who seek for glory, honor, peace, and immortality, which I think Paul sums up as “eternal life.”

For clarity sake, I will repeat the point. Acting for personal benefit is not necessarily selfish. The door, then, is open to a selfless search for personal benefits. Sounds radical, I know, but I don’t think it is quite as radical as you might think. We are, to use some imagery I got from C.S. Lewis, created to be leeches on a host, namely God. All glory, honor, joy, life, peace, etc. is found in him. Therefore, we are most human and most righteousness living like leeches upon his grace. “Doing good” then should not be seen as a payment for some eternal prize, but as joyfully sucking down the fluids of grace provided by our host. Maybe I can say that a bit more tastefully. We pursue good works not to barter a better deal, but to participate in the real life found in God.

That’s all for now. I’ll deal with the second question later.