.jpg)
.
— even a justice of God through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah unto all those faithfully trusting. For there is no difference. For all sin and are falling short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:22-23).
Faithfulness means commitment. The first definition in the dictionary is “faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment” (pg. 818, def. 1a, BDAG, 3rd edition). So commitment is right up there beside faithfulness. What sort of commitment are we talking about?
Firstly, Yeshua was committed to the cross. He was faithful to the Father to die for our sins to satisfy God’s justice. This justice is the extraordinary justice of God apart from the norm for the guilty. It is His righteousness to do his judicial righteousness to us by substituting Yeshua in our place of punishment. This is the “justice of God through a commitment of Yeshua” (Rom 3:22). He was committed to the cross.
Secondly, “the righteousness of God through a commitment of Yeshua” means that God has committed himself in Messiah to make us righteous. He will instill his righteousness in us from the well of his infinite justice. When this project is completed in the end of days, we will be presented before him holy and righteous. We can enter into this covenant with the Father by faithfully trusting in Yeshua, who is God manifesting himself in human form.
So if we commit to God, and put our loyal trust in Him, then he will commit to us to atone for our sins and to transform us into the kind of people He wants us to be. If we faithfully trust in God, then we will listen to the conviction of the Holy Spirit of God, and turn away from our transgressions. We will believe his promises and expect Him to answer our prayers to make us better.
The reason why God must commit himself to atone for our sin through the faithfulness of Messiah and to make us righteous through Messiah’s righteousness is that we are sinners that fall short of God’s glory. We could not be otherwise delivered from sin if He did not pay the penalty and commit to make us righteous.
But we should not imagine that this is an acquittal. It is a pardon. What is the difference? With an acquittal you depart from court declared innocent of the charges. With a pardon, you are found guilty of the charges, but you can leave the court a free person, because a way has been found to free you. God found a way to pardon us. Yeshua paid the penalty. That is how we were pardoned. Now normally, one is not allowed to pay the penalty of another, but for the repentant sinner, God allows Himself in Yeshua to pay the penalty. For He is the one who was offended by the sinner. God is not just the judge. He is the party who was ultimately wronged by our sin.
God is committed to make us righteous. But this righteousness is to be used justly. Never does God intend us to offer this righteousness back to him as a basis for acquittal. God will not retry the case after we are righteous in his sight (in the age to come) and say that we are acquitted of the sins we committed back in the age of evil. This would be like Cain offering his good agricultural productions on the altar to appease God by compensation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Hello Dan,
This is very lucid and easy to understand. I especially like the word "loyalty" to express commitment.
The concept of pardon vs acquittal is now crystal clear.
Edit alert: The last sentence needs finishing.
This is reminding me of a song I made up years ago that I used to sing as I was milking the goats....
According to His Word I'll live
It's the only gift I have to give
To the One who redeemed me
When it seemed to me
I didn't have a reason to live
But now I have a reason to live
To please Him is the reason I live....
According to His Word I know
That [fill in the blank] is sin, and so
I will obey, 'cause this is the way
To show my LORD I love Him today
I love to love my Saviour this way.
There is nothing we can do to earn our salvation or to pay Him back for it. Yet it pleases Him if we would live by His laws, which He gave for our own good. The redeemed enjoy pleasing God because His righteousness dwells within us. We show loyalty by obedience to His Word and His ways.
The concept of pardon vs acquittal is now crystal clear.
Yes it is now crystal clear.
Yet it pleases Him if we would live by His laws, which He gave for our own good
Maureen I believe this is called righteousness.
Dan even referenced those that were righteous; Noah, Job among a few.
Marc
Hi all,
I got a letter this week from a member of the Riverside, CA Seventh Day Baptist Church. Valerie (my wife) read it to me over the phone. This lady wanted a second copy of the "Righteousness And Justice of God" -- with an autograph. The girls and I are invited to Sabbath dinner at their house next Shabbat.
I spoke to Dean at Church and gave him a copy of the book as well. He understands the concepts. Guess what book the Sabbath school class is going to do next week or next next week?
Galatians! And if the teacher does not want to do it, then the other choice is prophecy, but the teacher does not want to do prophecy!
Either way I'll be there. And even if they do neither subject, I'll be there.
Great news, Dan. Thanks for the update.
We should look into Lighthouse Trails as a possible publisher of your works.
http://www.lighthousetrails.com/index.html
And yes, I want an autograph too! You are a maverick and slightly ahead of your time...or maybe right on time...the non-lemming scholar in the midst of a generation that still clings to the vestiges of Babylon and Roman Catholicism...when the Word of the LORD is..."Come out of her My people."
May the purity of the true Gospel shine forth!
[I will go ahead and edit the last word of your post, and if I guess wrong, you can fix it. We can edit there, but not on the comments page.]
Hi Dan,
I have a question about how Paul writes to Gentile believers...
OK Jew would know Torah. If Paul said "it is written...." or referred to the Torah Jews would know what he was talking about.
In reference to Gentile believers it appears Paul doesn't use Torah language but in essence he is referring and talking about the Torah.
Paul seems to use a 'language' that is universal so those that don't know the Torah can understand.
Would this be a correct assessment?
Marx
Hi Marc,
Paul was writing to dispersion Jews and Gentiles who primarily used the LXX or Greek Septuagint as their Bible. They all knew, “It is written” referred to the Scripture. The LXX was introduced to the Greek world ca. 250 B.C.
Paul uses Koine Greek, but he sometimes attaches Hebrew concepts or meanings to Greek words that would not otherwise be known in Greek. A good example is the word for ‘sin’ (hattat, amartia) which in Hebrew means a “sin offering” or “penalty of sin” as well as “sin”; The LXX uses “amartia” where the Hebrew uses ‘hattat” without any qualifying word like “offering”. One can see this issue come up in English translations of the NT. For example, Romans 8:3, “and for sin” (KJV), or “a sin offering” (NIV). Clearly, Paul means “a sin offering” yet English employs the word “sin” most of the time. So also the Greek. This can lead to misunderstandings, especially in 1Cor. 5:21, “KJV 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
Consider, “made him to be sin”; This means “a sin offering” (hattat), yet I have heard preachers go off on how God made Christ to be ‘sinful’ or that God regarded him as ‘legally’ sinful – taking the imputed righteousness thing the other way – sort of like the yang to the yin of imputed righteousness. One of the other meanings of “sin” (hattat) is the “penalty of sin” – that is what it means to lay sin of the offering. It does not mean to make it sinful, yet I have heard – I believe it is Copeland or associates say just that!
I suspect that Gentile readers of the LXX had similar problems with it when Greek words were used to render Hebrew concepts.
Koine Greek was the “Universal” trade language, or a world language. There was no world language after it until English. But there is a fundamental difference between Koine Greek and English. Mass Media has preserved the technical dichotomizing nature of English. The average high school student knows 12,000 words. The average college student 30,0000. The average koine Greek speaker used only about 7,000-10,000 words covering the same number of concepts as 12,000 words in English. This is just a back of the Envelope Calculation. Modern Hebrew has also been massively expanded over Biblical Hebrew. This is the printing press and mass media factor.
The Koine speaker or ancient Hebrew speaker, therefore, were more likely to rely on context, and stories illustrating the meaning of a word than the Modern person. For example, the LXX reader might remember that ‘amartia’ was used for a sacrifice, and apply the additional meaning to Paul. This understanding is impossible in English though, because in the Torah English always renders “sin offering” the same word in the NT is rendered ‘sin’. The common reader, therefore, can never connect the two concepts. That is why we need lexicons and dictionaries – where the connection is made in the definitions.
Paul was speaking in Plain Greek. I believe he wrote in
Greek. I believe in the possibility of an Hebrew or Aramaic original for other parts of the NT, however, his usage of ‘nomos’ is clearly Greek, and not LXX. This is where his readership needed to have knowledge of Greek, something widespread in Galilee or the dispersion, but not Judea.
So, in a certain sense, Paul uses the universal trade language to explain torah concepts in a way that those trying to use the LXX as their dictionary might not succeed in understanding him. We have this problem in English as Well. If you were to try to use the English bible as your linguistic source for a dictionary of Hebrew, you would come up with, “Torah = Law”, but if you use a proper Lexicon you come up with “Torah = direction, instruction, law” and “law” is listed last for a good reason.
We should always be careful not to overgeneralize --- it is always best to include one or two specific examples with the generalization.
I posted this at Peter's blog.
Peter,
You said:
"There are no examples of Jewish writings in Greek that demonstrate a non-legal use of “nomos.”"
KJV Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
RSV Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve
the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Please explain how the phrase, "law of sin" is a legal use of 'nomos';
Paul merely means that which is the 'norm of sin' using defintion 1, BDAG, 3rd edition. BDAG also lists "ethos" as a synonym of "nomos" -- meaning that "which is habitual or customary";
It would only be honest to use the primary definiton of 'nomos' where it fits in the context. It would only be honest to respect the scholars who put the premier Lexicon together by following their advice, "A special semantic problem for modern readers encountering the term nomos is the general tendency to confine the usage of the term 'law' to codified statutes. Such limitation has led to much fruitless debate in the history of NT interpretation" (pg. 677).
And then you should read Martin Ostwald, "Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy '69" who explains 'nomos' flexible and wide range of applications -- also reference at the beginning of the entry for 'nomos' in BDAG. I discovered Ostwald in the University of California Library long before He made it into the BDAG Lexicon (3rd edition).
Furthermore, your logic is faulty because Paul often uses 'nomos' as the norm in the vast majority of cases with a legal connection to Torah. He means the legal norm of Torah --- the norm for justice vs. the exception for justice the forgiveness of sin through repentance and sacrifice.
Therefore, to say that nomos cannot mean 'norm' because Paul always uses it with a legal connection is based on the assumption that nomos as 'norm' does not have a legal connection. Clearly it does, so your conclusion is wrong.
Comment: I only came here because Tandi directed me here. I did a search on 'nomos' and picked just the one faulty statement you made. I have not read any of the other comments or surrounding contexts. Nor need I. A false statement is a false statement with or without the padding around it. And that is what you made. A false statement.
Dan if you don't mind and correct me if I'm wrong... I like to say that norm means normal. Like what is the normal legal justice of the Torah.
Marc
Hi Marc,
No problem. You are correct. What you are doing is using an adjective instead of the noun:
norm --> normal
custom --> customary
law --> legal
Daniel B. Wallace, "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics" explains how with a genitive construction: A of B that it is customary to transform the second element "B" into an adjective hence: A of B --> B(adj) A.
See page 86-87. This transform has a name: Attributive Genitive or Hebrew Genitive or Genitive of Quality.
Wallace's examples:
body of sin = sinful body
judge of unrighteousness =
unrighteous judge
body of his flesh = his fleshly body
My application:
works of norm = normal works
/ works of custom = customary works.
One of the scholars in the New Persepctive books (I think Sanders books) translates works of law as "legal works" using the transform. All we are doing is using the first definition, "norm" or "custom".
Paul clearly means the normal legal justice does not apply to us because he writes in Romans 10:4, "Messiah is the end of the norm for justice to everyone faithfully trusting"; You can paraphrase, "Messiah is the end of the normal application of justice for everyone faithfully trusting" and you have the same meaning.
The problem with most scholars is that they still view 'nomos' as refering to codified statues (see BDAG, lead def. and warning about this). This causes them to think that Messiah is ending some codified statute. Not at all. What is ended is the dynamic application of one codified statute to the situation (the norm) to be replaced by another codified statute (the exception) to the situation. In otherwords, our judgment fall under the laws for sacrifice and atonement and not for the unrepentant and rebellious.
Hi Dan,
How's it going in California? Getting that project done?
Marc
"Messiah is the end of the normal application of justice for everyone faithfully trusting."
I like this paraphrase, Dan. I think it makes it very clear to express it this way.
Can I post some of this at TR and see what kind of reaction we get? There is a thread that brought up Romans (Law) and how that is to be understood. I would like to use this statement:
What is ended is the dynamic application of one codified statute to the situation (the norm) to be replaced by another codified statute (the exception) to the situation. In other words, our judgment falls under the laws for sacrifice and atonement and not for the unrepentant and rebellious.
Hi Tandi,
Yes, go right ahead, and if you need to then you can add: "Edited By [Your Name]" at the end of the lead post. Then you can post a link with the quotation!
I ordered the Book Iustitita Dei by McGrath after I found a paperback edition for $30 from Amazon. The hardcover was $71 -- too expensive!
Dan
Hi Marc,
The bathroom is 8'x8'. I've got the underground pluming done, the rough in supply plumbing. The framing is done. The shower is in place. The vent fan is in place. Next is to install the new exterior door and interior door, and replace the narrow window in the outerwall with glass block. This morning, we will go to Lowe's for the doors and the block.
I must say that traffic in Lowe's is much less than last year at this time! Same with Home Depot.
Did you know that my mother was a famous cook? (www.suegregg.com) She had my daughter Shoshanna make Chocolate Lamonge for dessert last night -- I ate it.
Hi Dan was having a conversation with an Jewish ant-missionary about what we have been discussing. I asked:
So you are saying that after one repents and is able to pay one is acquitted in God's court room?
Their answer was yes see Ezekial 33:10-20.
Any thoughts?
Marc
It appears that anti-missionaries like to use the Eze 33:10-20 speaks of total 100% reconciliation with God while in exile without any blood sacrifice or Jesus belief required
Marc
Hi Marc,
Unless the anti missionary wants to change Torah, he is quite mistaken about no atonement being required. The case of theft or unlawfully retaining a pledge is covered in Leviticus 6:1-7. It requires compensation of the party defrauded and a guilt offering for the LORD.
Ezek 33:10 asks the question, "How then can we live?" Then God says he does not desire death (vs. 11) but wants Israel to repent.
Vs. 12 reminds us that the righteous are not acquitted by their past righteousness if they sin. This is because they are now wicked in God's court. He will not acquit the wicked (Ex. 23:7;
Deut. 25:1).
Vs. 12 then says the wickedness of the wicked will not cause him to "fall" (when he repents) [BDB: stumble, totter, stagger]. This does not mean that God does not find the wicked guilty. He does. Vs. 20 says "I will judge each of you according to his own ways." What it means is that the end result for the wicked who repents will not be his death.
Our anti-missionary probably wants to interpret "fall" to mean that God did not find the wicked person guilty after he repented. That is an assumption on the meaning of 'fall' that is contrary to the context of Scripture. The context interprets itself. "Fall" is a synonym for the death sentence or the death result of sin, which is separate from the sin itself. Stealing does not kill the thief. In fact, stealing makes life easier for the thief until God finds him guilty and passsed the death sentence.
We need to whole context of Scripture to learn how God can be just and get the repentant wicked out of the death sentence. Isaiah 53:8-10 reveals that in the absence of other sacrifice (i.e. in the Exile or because of the severity of the sin) that the LORD makes the suffering servant (Yeshua) the guilt offering for our sins (Is. 53:10) -- just as it is revealed in the binding of Isaac, "The LORD will provide himself for an offering"
Just remember that the anti-missionaries case for acquittal depends on interpreting "fall" or "stumble" as guiltlessness. It is true that "none of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him"; This is the end result in the age to come after we become perfectly righteous. It is a prophecy. We will surely live in the age to come. It is true that repentance is a link in the chain of causation to forgiveness, but we have to consider that Yeshua's atonement is the legal reason for the forgiveness and not the repentance.
The anti missionary is making his objection in the light of the full revelation of Yeshua -- something Ezekiel's contemporaries did not have.
Again I would say that the anti-missionary is equating guilt with the effect of the death sentence. When atonement is provided, there is a disconnect betwteen the guilt and the death sentence. The norm for guilt is intercepted by the substitute. For this to properly opperate, God must be just and find the sinner guilty. But to be merciful, he provides the substitute.
Hello Dan! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud, I am 23 years and I am from Sweden.
By practising Torah non-selectively we make the world a better place to live in!
To realize that one can follow two polar-opposite masters — the authentic, historical, PRO-Torah 1st-century Ribi from Nazareth – the Messiah - and the 4th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesis ANTI-Torah apostasy developed by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to kill Ribi Yәhoshua, displaced his original followers (the Netzarim) and redacted the NT); is a step in that direction!
So who then was the historical Jesus? His name was Ribi Yehoshua.
The research of world-recognized authorities (for example Barrie Wilson; www.barriewilson.com) in this area implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - who according to 4Q MMT (a Scroll found in the Qumran-caves) practised both written and oral Torah (oral Torah in an unbroken chain since Mosheh (Moses); commanded by Mosheh in Torah; oral Torah is recorded Beit-Din (Jewish Court)-decisions of how Torah shall be applied).. As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (www.netzarim.co.il) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yehoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students.
For words that you don’t understand; se www.netzarim.co.il ; the link to Glossaries at the first page.
Ribi Yehoshua warned for false prophets who don’t produce good fruit = defined as don’t practise the commandments in Torah according to Halakhah (oral Torah; see the above definition). See Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-6.
The research of Scholars in leading universities which implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee necessarily implies that if you want to follow him you need to practise his Torah-teachings.
So you need to start follow the historical Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – by practising Torah (including oral Torah)!
Finding the historical Jew, who was a Pharisee Ribi and following him brings you into Torah, which gives you a rich and meaningful life here on earth and great rewards in life after death (“heaven”)!
From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who is followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Post a Comment