.jpg)
The runner was really committed to the race. He trained hard, worked hard. The other runners were grateful for his commitment. He commits himself daily to the exercise routine, and promises that he will commit as much time as possible. He won many rewards and earned high honors. One day he hoped to make it to the runner hall of fame. He had some vices — now and then he would go out and get drunk with the buddies. Sometimes before a race, he would consent to a few illegal stimulants offered by other players. But he was committed to the race. Nothing would stop him.
One day, after committing himself to a short run, he became exhausted. The other runners asked what's wrong. "Come on" they said. You committed to finish the run. He said, "I can't, I feel weak"; Later the runner became upset over his lack of commitment. He went out and got drunk, and popped a few pills he shouldn't have. He didn't run as well the next day. He had to really concentrate to keep on course. He felt weak minded. This went on for a year and a day. He wasn't winning anymore. But his reputation for commitment kept him in high esteem until the day he couldn't tie his racing shoes. The race officials did an investigation and found out about the drugs and bad habits, and his strange ability to pretend to be committed and fool others about his commitment.
The officials came to the conclusion that the runner really lacked commitment. They knew he needed to be committed. When they confronted the runner, he runner was eager to commit himself. They agreed, but found out later that the runner did not really commit himself. They said, since you cannot commit yourself, we have signed the papers guaranteeing your commitment. You agreed to commit, indeed, we have committed you, and are committing you to a correctional institution for people like you without commitment because you committed. There is also a penal aspect. You will not be allowed to race again.
To be committed or not to be committed. That is the question. We committed. God committed us. He committed us because we committed. But now a commitment is revealed unlike our commitment, a commitment of God, the commitment of Yeshua, who was committed for us. Even we commit to Messiah so, who was committed* for us – "Even we to Messiah Yeshua commit so that justice might be done for us by the commitment of Messiah" (Gal. 2:16).
* The English word "commit" illustrates how a language can have an internal and external ambiguity in the passive form of the same word; to be committed can mean to be committed to a cause in oneself or to be committed to an institution by a judge. There is no form of justified in English that exactly matches the ambiguity of the Greek word dikaioo , so we have to use other words to explains its various uses, like satisfy, meet justice . Perhaps in a few millennia people will forget that commit means to send someone to an institution. Then other words will have to be used to explain it. I rather doubt that people will say that the committed criminal was "declared righteous" because he was committed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hi Dan great post.
I'm going to start posting some questions in reference to the 'Righteousness and Justice of God" if you don't mind.
Marc
Dan I understand that Christ is not the 'norm' so to speak. Jesus is the exception to the 'norm' of the Torah.
What I'm having trouble with is connecting the dots on how sanctification(keeping the commandments) plays.
Shabbot Shalom!
Marc
Hi Mark,
I discuss sanctification on pages 19-28 of the book. I believe you alreay have a good understanding of the commandments and sanctification.
One must obey the commandments in order to be righteous (Deut. 6:25). If anyone wants to be more righteous then one must find out he or she can better follow them.
Unbelievers, who are subject to the norm of justice have no hope of salvation. Yeshua placed himself under God's norm of justice so that we would not have to pay the penalty justice required (Gal. 4:4-5).
Now that we are delievered from the norm of justice, God fills us with His Holy Spirit. The Spirit helps us grow in righteousness so that as believers we are able to rise above the norm that unbelievers can acheive in the power of the flesh.
Paul's statement in Romans 10:4, "Messiah is the end of the norm for justice/righteousness for everyone who firmly trusts" can be legitimately understood to refer to two things: first, Messiah is the end of the judicial norm. He -paid the penalty for us, so that an exception is made -- we do not have to pay it. This exception is taught in the Torah through sacrificial atonement.
Second, having put our trust in him, and walking the path of repentance, through the Spirit, He also ends the norm of 'righteousness,' i.e. that status quo of "I'm a good person' that the world aspires to. The Spirit enables us to rise above that and to truly worship God in Spirit and truth by being sanctified by the commandments.
It is a good thing you asked. The main thrust of the book is not to exposit on sanctification as I am trying to get people to understand the Gospel. However, it is true that a correct understanding of the Gospel feeds naturally into sanctification, since that understanding uphold's the Torah which is our guide to sanctification.
Shabbat Shalom Maurren!
The picture you requested in on the blog. I hope you like it. I had to bypass lots of unflattering pictures.
I did not really intend the parable to be totally clear; it is only meant to illustrate how a word can be misunderstood
when taken out of context -- in this case "justified" which does not just mean to be shown righteous. The other
meaning which the Christian world has forgotten about is "to have justice done" for or to someone. Like commit
that meaning is quite different than the other meaning. Justice was done for us by Yeshua. By "justified"
Paul did not mean that God views us as righteous --- any more than the word 'commit' in the sentence of a judge
means that the crimial has commitment. It is sometimes easier to show by linguistic example in one's own
language an ambiguity. I hope this helps us to percevie the legitimacy of the same sort of ambiguity in the
original Greek 2000 years ago. Of course, the Lexicons give us both meanings, but it is always good to show
by example rather than lexical authority what language can do.
in this case "justified" which does not just mean to be shown righteous,
OK Dan so maybe other readers can get a better understanding and myself as well....
The common Christian belief is that being declared righteous means we are not guilty before God. That God sees us as 100% 'good'.
I hope I'm not making circles here asking the same question....
When Abraham firmly trusted, in God, God reckoned Abraham righteous.
The way I see this is that firmly trusting in God, God see's this as righteousness but firmly trusting in Him doesn't make you 100% perfect in His eyes.
Can you elaborate more.
Thanks,
Marc
I like the picture, Dan. Thanks. You look much younger and nicer than I imagined. So much for the "mad scientist" imagery. : )
I will try to post here more often than emailing you so that the discussions can benefit others.
Let the understanding begin!
Shabbat Shalom,
Maureen
I still think that "mad scientist" is appropriate. Who ever said that "mad scientist" was unattractive or old?
:-)
Hi Marc,
Yes, the technical term for this in Protestantism is “forensic righteousness”. The term forensic means in law or legal righteousness. For them as far as God’s legal procedure is concerned, the verdict is not guilty. I was just reading several web pages of material trying to explain that “justified” meant “acquitted”.
I would think that any circles of repetition are probably worth repeating as this doctrine is so astonishingly unbiblical that the Apostle Paul would roll over in his grave. I discovered an addendum in the 1968 supplement to Liddell, Scott, and Jones for DIKAIOO. , “brought to justice”; This goes right along with the other senses, of “to have justice done” in an external sense. It does not mean we are internally just or righteous or that God sees us that way. It means an external justice was done to us in Yeshua, and therefore God counts his justice as satisfied by the fact that Messiah’s sacrifice paid the penalty.
So what is being reckoned is satisfaction of the penalty.
Now, of course, Paul does not just leave the matter their. When we repent and actually start to be faithful to God, we are being righteous, and so God is counting our faithfulness as righteousness, just as with Abraham’s faithfulness --- the beginning of which is “firm trust”; that in itself is righteousness, and God took note of it. The Hebrew term is HASHAV (verb) for to consider to take note of. I think that the Christian theologians have tried to turn this into a legal accounting term a bit too much in the service of the acquittal doctrine. What it means with Abraham is simply this. God noted his faith as righteousness. The biblical narrator lets us in on this so that we know that Abraham is the friend of God. Never, however, should we imagine that it means Abraham was perfect in God’s sight. That is a concept foreign to the whole context, and indeed the very story of Abraham’s life.
It is unnecessary for God to see a sinner as righteous in order to forgive sin. God only has to have the penalty such as he required satisfied, or at least a promise of its satisfaction. And that is what we see in the binding of Isaac – a promise that God will provide HIMSELF as the lamb.
Now righteousness is imputed. A correct understanding of when this happens, however, is in accord with our obeying God’s commandments and conformity to his righteousness, which climaxes when Yeshua returns to perform the final cleansing.
God gives us this righteousness, but it is not the basis of forgiveness. And after he is done giving it all to us, it will still remain true that we were unrighteous in the previous age.
Paul transists from the considering of justice done in Messiah to the considering (noticing, HASHAV) of our righteous response in trust in Romans 4; I have the solution in hand, but have not published it yet.
Hi Peter,
There is a conspiracy --- if you examine the photo with the right software, you will discover evidence of some tampering -- namely cut I got on my forehead a month ago has been doctored out of the photo -- amazing what technology can do these days!
Hello Dan, Marc, Peter, and whoever else is here reading this blog...
I just reviewed audio 6 and it really started bothering me again about "pronouncing those guilty as not guilty" (acquittal). The nuance is very significant. As you emphasize, Dan, pardon (forgiveness) is NOT acquittal (being declared not guilty). It is MORE than a nuance or slight difference in terminology.
Yeshua took our sins upon Himself so that we would not have to pay the penalty for our transgressions. We should be eternally grateful for forgiveness of our sins, for pardon, for not being cast into the Lake of Fire. But we should not imagine ourselves declared "not guilty" of offending God with our sins! We were TOTALLY guilty! And we continue to be capable of sinning and offending God. We are not perfectly righteous yet. The importance of this is that the Calvinist may not take seriously sins he commits....and seek forgiveness and restoration (i.e, keeping short accounts with God, as I've heard it stated before.)
If we think we are 'declared righteous" and pardoned for sins past, present, and future and can never be lost no matter what (OSAS or the P in TULIP)....we could just go on in our self-deception and lack of fellowship with the LORD due to our CURRENT sins before God that are not dealt with!
Soul searching and repentance should characterize the every day life of the regenerate child of God. The Scriptures are a mirror to our soul. Read and heed daily for best results.
Abraham was known as "the friend of God" because of firmly trusting in Him and being obedient. Was he perfect? No, but he was correctable. He did not stubbornly go on in his error, oblivious to correction. He had a relationship with God. Same with King David. Not perfect...but teachable...and willing to repent of sinning against God.
Do I have a correct understanding of this much, Dan?
Hi Maureen that's the way I understand it. Justice has been applied to Yeshua!!!!
Dan said it best: You are angry with your son because he was disobedient. Instead of hitting your son you hit the wall instead.
Dan I have a question related... Yeshua is the end of the norm for justice how does this relate to David and the hero's of faith in Hebrews 11? How were they saved?
Marc
Hi Tandi,
Yes you got it! The acquittal doctrine is typically taught alongside the gospel by the Church. The only place that it isn’t taught is to children. To them the message is simply Yeshua died for your sins --- or died in our place and took our penalty.
I would not say that everyone who teaches it does not also understand the gospel. Many preachers just go through the motions even though they really believe in a pardon at heart. Even though our Pastor understands this issue, I still catch him saying things like “right standing with God”;
The doctrine might be innocuous except that it typically gets dusted off to foil anyone who would say that it is necessary to obey God as illustrated in the Torah (cf. Deut. 6:25) in order to actually be righteous. I remember a FFOZ discipleship book that said that one could not become more righteous by obeying the Torah (HaYesod). I wish I still had it. Tim Hegg was in on the lecture series for that book and so was Michael Boaz --- the reason given? It was that we had “right standing” with God, a typical understanding of “justified by faith”, and out the door goes any incentive for being righteous in life. The only disciples that are not going to be hurt by it are those who do not take the teaching to its logical end: lawlessness.
The acquittal doctrine shows a lack of appreciation for the horribleness of sin. At its basic philosophical level it claims that all the consequences of sin can be undone as if they never happened. The only way this can truly happen of course is to rewind history so that sin never happened. Clearly, God isn’t rewinding history --- yet we know that God’s standard of acquittal would require the sinner to undo everything they did wrong before they can have their case discharged with such a favorable verdict. It must also be recognized, that since God isn’t doing a rewind, that not even the righteousness of God is set to undo everything that happened wrong in the past. Indeed, Yeshua’s righteousness is not being transfused into history to erase the fact that our sins in the past will not have eternal consequences.
Therefore, since acquittal is impossible, God reveals another justice in the Scripture apart from the acquittal norm --- a justice of God in which the sinner admits his guilt, God assigns a lesser penalty, which is paid by the commitment (faithfulness) of Yeshua to the cross.
I say lesser penalty because Yeshua’s death is not compensatory justice. Rather it pays the penalty of God’s punitive justice that he required for us. Compensatory justice is quite different --- it treats the matter as if God is 100% compensated for his loss. The cross is not 100% compensation because it is impossible to undo all the consequences of sin. Rather, it satisfies the penalty that God requires of us, brings our pride down in seeking an acquittal, and shows us the depth and horribleness of sin.
Did I say that I expanded the introduction for the second edition? I’ll be posting it before I leave for California.
--- compensatory justice: e.g. if you damage someone else’s property by accident, and they totally fix the damage, then you have provided compensatory justice.
Hi Marc!
The short answer is that they were saved the same way we are, by trusting in God, repenting of sin, and believing that God would forgive their sins. The sacrificial system showed them how this was done at least for sins of ignorance or ‘circumstance’; For serious sins (transgressions and iniquities) they had to trust that God would find a way to forgive these, without knowing the full details. And indeed, on Yom kippur they were “put out of the way” so to speak when the second goat carried them into the wilderness (Romans 3:25ff).
Every Israelite, who heard or read the Torah, though, knew that they could not go on committing transgressions. Indeed Numbers 15 tells us that one who wants to continue in rebellion is to be taken even from the altar.
God did find a way, predicted in Isaiah 53 and explained in the Gospels. Luke writes:
“And from all which you could not by the Law of Moses be brought to justice*, by this one, everyone firmly trusting is brought to justice*” (Acts 13:39-40).
or “satisfy justice”, “have justice done”
Our “Transgressions” were not brought to justice on Yom Kippur. They were only sent away – to be dealt with later in Yeshua. He pays the penalty, including the penalty of David’s adultery and all the sins of the other faithful saints. Therefore, the due justice is applied through the sacrifice of Messiah. This justice is not the norm though. The norm is that the sinner must pay the penalty directly, but God reveals the exception in Messiah through his prophets in the Torah.
Dan
Hello Dan,
Re:
"The only place that it isn’t taught is to children. To them the message is simply Yeshua died for your sins --- or died in our place and took our penalty."
Sometimes it seems that the best theology is found in the simple messages to children. Even the kids' Bible songs are better than a Seminary education.
With computer pornography, etc. rampant, and many pastors and Christian leaders falling victim to this addiction, the best advice for those tempted comes from the kiddie song....
Be careful little eyes what you see
Be careful little eyes what you see
For the Father up above
Is looking down in love
So be careful little eyes what you see.....
This hits close to home this morning as the principal was fired at my grandkids' Christian school.
Prayers for all concerned.
Hi Dan,
Was talking to Maureen about the Gospel in the Galatians book.
First I have to say that God has really blessed you. How do you get any sleep?
First if I may suggest starting a new topic on Galatians.
Second from my understanding the Gospel in Galatians the main contextual text is:
Galatians 2:16-17
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
So maybe we should start there and let the Lord lead us to other texts as He sees fit? Because that seems to be the context of the whole epistle? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks!
Marc
Hi Marc,
Yes, Gal. 2:16 is Paul’s thesis statement. Everything up to that point has just been his greeting and historical remarks.
Right now the translation stands as:
16 †But we know that God's justice° is not satisfied for people by °some °customary† deeds, °except by the °faithfulness† of Jesus Christ. Even we in Christ Jesus °firmly trust, so that justice° might be done for us by the °faithfulness of Christ and not by °some °customary deeds, because by °some °customary deeds justice° will not be satisfied for any person.
17 Now if we look for justice° to be done by Christ, and we are truly found† to be guilty, then is Christ a °lawyer for sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I bring up° again those defenses† which I withdrew°, I just contradict° myself and prove that I am really guilty.
I have studied long and hard how to reproduce the ambiguity of the Greek into normal English. I came up with “satisfy justice” because it lends itself to both external justice being done and to one being transformed to satisfy justice inwardly. Because I bothered to read the 1968 supplement for LS, “brought to justice,” I and thinking of putting it this way in the second edition:
16 †But we know that a man is not brought to justice by °some °customary† deeds, °except by the °faithfulness† of Jesus Christ. Even we in Christ Jesus °firmly trust, so that we might be brought to justice by the °faithfulness of Christ and not by °some °customary deeds, because by °some °customary deeds justice° will not be satisfied for any person.
17 Now if we to be brought to justice by Christ, and we are truly found† to be guilty, then is Christ a °lawyer for sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I bring up° again those defenses† which I withdrew°, I just contradict° myself and prove that I am really guilty.
Now, “brought to justice” and “satisfy justice” are practically synonymous, however I have discovered that satisfy justice leans hard on the judicial understanding, and that if one were to think “satisfy righteousness” then one might think of righteousness as their own uprightness in a completed sense --- clearly what Paul did not intend.
However, “brought to justice” has two advantages. It is actually cited in the lexicon. At the same time, it can be understood as “brought to righteousness” where righteousness is God’s justice, but also, it can mean we are being brought into God’s righteousness by degrees as we learn to keep his laws.
Here is the outline:
BROUGHT TO JUSTICE:
1. We are brought to justice by Yeshua’s death in our place. He paid the penalty for us. This is complete.
2. We are brought to justice (righteousness) because He sends his Spirit to sanctify us, which sanctification is not yet complete.
Because of the DIKAIOO root, it is best to translate “justice” instead of righteousness --- and to explain that “justice” in Greek/Hebrew includes the notion of moral uprightness as will as just treatment --- Paul was not just trying to say that judicial justice is satisfied. He also wants to say “we firmly trust in Messiah Yeshua so that we might be brought to righteousness of/from the faithfulness of Messiah”; Notice that the tense is subjunctive – “might be” and hence future in the final aspect.
This is indeed a text that can be mined deep until all the gems come out. I will post the working definitions --- although this is not complete yet.
Post a Comment