Category Archives: Bible

Faithful and Just

Bible, Commentary, , , , , , , ,

You have probably heard someone quote 1 John 1:9, perhaps in its immediate context:

8If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
(1 John 1:8-10 ESV)

I’ve often thought of this as a “Jesus forgives” sandwich on “we sin” bread. That is, I saw verses 8 and 10 as saying basically the same thing, with the sole purpose of supporting v9. But I looked at it more closely recently, and I think John is saying something important here, that we don’t want to miss.

I think this point has to do with two basic human desires: to be right, and to be in relationship. Looking at verse 8, we might see the following structure:1John 1:8 mapThat is, we have a basic if/then structure (with an implied then). The if clause contains something we may say about ourselves: we have no sin. This is maybe not something we would say straight out like that, but I think a decent summary would be “I’m right”. Have you never said this? I have. “My condition/position does not contain flaws.” This is a statement about who I am, which is very important in these days of identity wars.

So what is the consequence of saying “I’m right”? In this verse they are twofold. First, we deceive ourselves. This is, I think, the most fundamental flaw with a worldview that states “I decide/declare who I am”; there is no way to handle self-deception (which is visible in the most basic understanding of human psychology).

The second consequence of saying “I’m right” is that the truth is not in us. Or, you could say we are wrong. In this way, a direct consequence of insisting I’m right is proving that I’m wrong. My insisting that my personal status is “correct” or “OK” makes my personal status “incorrect” and “Not OK”. So much for my desire to be right.

Verse 10, on the other hand, deals with actions and relationship:1John 1:10 mapAgain we have an if/then structure, and again the if clause has to do with something we say about ourselves. But this time the statement is not we have no sin, but we have not sinned (or perhaps “I have not done wrong”). While the difference may seem trivial, I think it interesting that the if clause in v10 is talking about what we say about our actions, whereas the if clause in v8 was talking about who we are, or our status. Yes, there is a sense in which if we do right/wrong, we are right/wrong, and vice versa, but they are not exactly the same thing.

So what are the consequences of saying ”I have not done wrong”? Again, they are twofold. First, we make him [out to be] a liar. (The words in brackets are present in other translations, and are correctly implied even in the ESV, I believe; the verse cannot mean we succeed in changing God’s status to “liar”.) Given that this verse is talking about our actions, what are the implications of this action? I cannot think of many people who would bear being called a liar when they are telling the truth. Claiming that you tell the truth, and that God lies, must have repercussions on your relationship with him.

The second consequence of saying “I have not done wrong” is that [God’s] word is not in us. That is, not only am I personally insulting my creator, but I’m also showing that I don’t speak for him when I speak —since his word contradicts mine. I think this point is aimed at people who want to be seen as doing right on their own terms, but also to identify with, speak for, or somehow represent God. But John says you cannot insult God and claim to speak for him in the same breath. When you say “I have not done wrong”, you represent yourself, not God.

So we have two kinds of misrepresentation here. The “I’m right” claim about my status, which shows that my status is in fact wrong, and the “I have not done wrong” claim about my relationship with God, which shows that I am in fact not representing God (but rather in rebellion to him and his word).

So how does John address these two misrepresentations? This is where we get to v9(a):1John 1:9a mapAgain we have an if/then clause, though here the then clause is not about ourselves, but about God. The if clause is we confess our sins, or we agree about our wrongs. This is incompatible with each of “I’m right” and “I have not done wrong”. What is interesting about confession/agreement here, is that God’s truthful position doesn’t change in these three verses. He knows and declares that we are sinners who sin. The only question is, will we agree with him, or will we insist on our own “truth”?

If we confess our sins, God is two things for us: faithful and just. These two attributes account for our failures as described in verses 8 and 10. That is, while v8 says our insistence on being right shows that we are wrong, God remains right/just. And while v10 says our insistence that we have not done wrong shows our rebellion against God, God remains faithful to us. So if we have two great desires, to be right and to be in relationship, we fail at each of them when we insist on our own terms. But agreeing with God about our sin results in God’s justice/rightness and faithfulness/relationship to be expressed to us.

So how is that justice and faithfulness expressed? Verse 9 continues:1John 1:9b mapThat is, God’s justice is not expressed only in his wrath against us (as Martin Luther thought before his conversion), and his faithfulness to us is not expressed in simply overlooking our sins (as many people seem to think today). The two things he does to express his justice and faithfulness in this verse are to forgive and to cleanse. Each of these is done to us. But again, we see the binary issue of status and relationship addressed. That is, God forgives our sins, addressing the things we have done. But he also cleanses us from all unrighteousness, addressing the question of our status.

So the justice and faithfulness of God come together to make us just and faithful to him, when we confess our sin. I think it is crucial in understanding this, that we accept the following:

  • Sin is real.
  • Sin is a problem.
  • Attaining a desire either to be right or to be in relationship requires solving that problem.
  • We cannot solve the problem by simply asserting that it is solved, nor by denying it.

The value of what God promises in v9, then, is that there is an answer to the problem of sin, which avoids denial and proclamation of self-godhood, and which provides for the desired rightness and relationship. That answer acknowledges sin, and it requires us to acknowledge sin, too (v9a: If we confess our sins). Furthermore, that answer addresses the problem of sin directly, by cleaning us from it, and by removing our “unrighteous” status.

So where do we go from here? Based on the above, the first step to fulfilling your desires is to confess your sin, and trust God to clean you off. See his promise of cleanliness as a good thing, and ask him to make you clean. Stop depending on your own efforts to feel good about yourself; admit your denial, self-worship, and rebellion, and ask God to make you right and in relationship with him, as only he can.

A bit of a post-script: as I think about this passage as applied to my life, I identify with the desire for right standing much more than with the desire for relationship. I find it natural and easy to sacrifice relationship in defense of a just standard. But I know many people who seem to most naturally operate in the opposite manner, sacrificing a just standard for relationship. You may be one of them. But the good news for each of us is that in Christ, we don’t have to pick either justice or relationship; we get both. I get the confidence that God cares about my natural bent, but also the correction that his will for me includes not just my natural bent, but much more.

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things will be added to you.
(Matt 6:33 ESV)

 

 

 

 

 

Romans 6:15-23

Romans, , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is my mindmap for Romans 6:15-23:

Here is the scrolls for this week, and here are some more questions of my own:

  1. What does the rhetorical question in v15 mean? And the answer?
  2. What is the relationship between slavery and obedience?
  3. Does the Gospel make us no longer slaves?
  4. Is it better to be a slave to sin, or to the law? Why?
  5. What is freedom in this passage?
  6. What is the result of working for (or slavery to) sin?
  7. What is the result of God’s gift? How is it different?
  8. Which do you want? How can you get it?
  9. Spend some time discussing the last verse, as a concise summary summary of the gospel in the first six chapters of Romans (and in Next Step Discipleship, pp40-41)

Romans 6:1-14

Romans, , , , , , , , , ,

Here is my mindmap for Romans 6:1-14:

Here is the scrolls for this week, and here are a few more questions of my own:

  1. What questions does Paul ask the reader?
  2. What are the answers?
  3. How is Baptism like death?
  4. What does it mean to be Baptized into Christ?
  5. How does baptism answer the questions of sin and grace?
  6. What is the connection between baptism and death?
  7. Where do we get newness of life?
  8. What are the costs/benefits of being united with Christ?
  9. Who is crucified/done away with in v.6?
  10. Why does Death no longer have power over Jesus?
  11. How does that affect our lives? Why?
  12. Why doesn’t sin dominate us?

Romans 5:21-21

Romans, , , , , , , , , ,

Here is my mindmap of Romans 5:12-21:

Here is the scrolls for this week, and this chart I’ve found helpful laying out this passage, to make it’s content and structure more accessible. And some more questions of my own:

  1. How are Adam and Jesus alike?
  2. How are they different?
  3. How did sin enter the world?
  4. Why do all men die?
  5. Did people die before the law?
  6. In what ways are the free gift, not like the trespass (vv15-16)?
  7. What are their results/reigns?
  8. How are the offense and obedience similar?
  9. how to sin and grace spread/reign?
  10. How does Paul address our character (v19), our legal status (v18), and our reign (v17)?
  11. Summarize a comparison of the lineages of Adam and Jesus.
  12. How does Jesus answer the problem of Adam, sin and death?

 

Romans 5:1-11

Romans, , , , , , , , ,

Here is my mindmap of Romans 5:1-11:

Here is the scrolls, and here are some more questions of my own:

  1. With what premise does Paul start this section?
  2. What is the conclusion based on that premise?
  3. What else do we have through Jesus? How? To what?
  4. What else do we do through Jesus (in hope)?
  5. What unexpected benefit of being in Christ does Paul mention?
  6. What are the links between tribulation and hope? Why?
  7. Why doesn’t hope disappoint?
  8. Why does that depend on Jesus?
  9. How do we have peace with God?
  10. What else do we have in Him?
  11. How do we respond to our sufferings?
  12. Why can we respond that way?
  13. What four ways does Paul describe us when Christ died for us?
  14. How does Jesus’ death address each of these?
  15. When did Christ die for us? (three descriptions)
  16. Who would one die for?
  17. How does God show us His love?
  18. How is Christ’s death described in this passage?
  19. What does Christ’s death do for us?
  20. What is the result of our reconciliation?
  21. Discuss the relationship between the moral, legal, and relational terms in this section.

Romans 4:13-25

Romans, , , ,

Here is my mind map of this passage:

Here are the scrolls for this week, and here are some more questions of my own:

  1. What two consequences of justification by Grace does Paul mention here?
  2. How do we know that the promise didn’t come through the law?
  3. How would the adherents of the law inheriting nullify faith/grace?
  4. Of whom is Abraham the father?
  5. How does he describe God?
  6. What kind of hope did Abraham have? In what? To what end?
  7. What kind of faith did Abraham have? In what? To what end?
  8. Why was Abraham’s story recorded?
  9. Who is ‘us’? Who is Jesus?

Romans 4:1-12

Romans, , , , ,

Here is my mind map of Romans 4:1-12:

mind map of Romans 4:1-12

Here is the scrolls for this week, and here are some more questions of my own:

  1. Where does Paul turn in this section? Why?
  2. Why is Abraham’s justification important?
  3. What evidence does Paul seek in the scriptures?
  4. What is the difference between works/grace?
  5. What concepts does Paul contrast in vv 4-5?
  6. What is the difference of being right with or without works?
  7. What does David say on the topic?
  8. Who was the blessing to?
  9. How does Paul argue this?
  10. How did the promise come?
  11. When did the Law come, in relation to the promise and Abraham’s faith?
  12. How is faith voided?
  13. When is there no sin?

 

What is the use of the Law?

Church, Romans, Thoughts, , , ,

Going through Romans 7, I find a lot of our discussions could use more background than we have. When talking about “the Law”, there are two questions I have found very helpful in finding my way through Biblical texts, as well as conversations about them with others. The first I talked about here, under the polysemy of the phrase “(the) law”. In short, this phrase can refer to different things, so the question I like to ask is What does “(the) law” mean here? That is, if you assume it refers to the mosaic law (as it often does), you will get mixed up if a particular use actually refers to natural (i.e., not codified) law, explicit laws given to others (before or after Moses), or to a general principles without any particular moral value —all of which I have found in scripture.

The second question that I find helps clarify texts on the law is What is/are the purpose(s) of the law? I was in a conversation lately where someone talked about an unintended consequence of the law, which sounded like God intended one thing, then had to go to plan B later. This problem is particularly relevant if you think that in the Old testament the purpose of the law was to make people righteous. Given that we know this is clearly not the case in Christ, it would seem to be a change, something of a Plan B for God. But does God have plan B’s? I don’t think so. So I think it helps to ask if it ever was the purpose of the law to make us righteous. Or to declare us righteous. Or to completely remove our sin, even after the fact. Rather, the scriptures tell us

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins..…And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. (Heb 10:1-4,11 ESV)

There are other passages, many in the epistle to the Hebrews, which deal with this question of the purpose or value of the law and sacrificial system it contains. But rather that try to summarize it all myself, I’ll include here a couple paragraphs from the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), in the Modern English Study Version (1993). I think it provides a great starting point to think about the purpose(s) of the law, whatever you think about what this confession says elsewhere. I got the text here, and the prooftexts here (plus a few of my own). This is the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Chapter 19, “The Law of God”:

6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works by which they are justified or condemned (Romans 6:14; 7:4; Galatians 2:16; 3:13; 4:4-5; Acts 13:38-39; Romans 8:1, 33; Heb 7:19,10:1-4,11), nevertheless the law is of great use to them as well as to others. By informing them —as a rule of life— both of the will of God and of their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly (Romans 7:12, 22, 25; Psalm 119:1-6; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:14-23). It also reveals to them the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives (Romans 7:7, 13; 3:20). Therefore, when they examine themselves in the light of the law, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred of their sin (James 1:23-25; Romans 7:9, 14, 24), together with a clearer view of their need of Christ and the perfection of his obedience (Galatians 3:24; Romans 7:24-25; 8:3-4). The law is also useful to the regenerate because, by forbidding sin, it restrains their corruptions (James 2:11-12; Psalm 119:101, 104, 128). By its threats it shows them what their sins deserve, and, although they are free from the curse threatened in the law, it shows the afflictions that they may expect because of them in this life (Ezra 9:13-14; Psalm 89:30-34; Galatians 3:13). The promises of the law likewise show to the regenerate God’s approval of obedience and the blessings they may expect as they obey the law (Exodus 19:5-6; Deuteronomy 5:33; Leviticus 18:5; Matthew 19:17; Leviticus 26:1-13; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 6:2-3; Psalm 19:11; 37:11; Matthew 5:5), although these blessings are not due to them by the law as a covenant of works (Galatians 2:16; Luke 17:10). Therefore, the fact that a man does good rather than evil because the law encourages good and discourages evil is no evidence that the man is under the law rather than under grace (Romans 6:12-15; 1 Peter 3:8-12 with Psalm 34:12-16; Hebrews 12:28-29).

7. These uses of the law do not conflict with the grace of the gospel, but are in complete harmony with it (Romans 3:31; Galatians 3:21; Titus 2:11-14); for it is the Spirit of Christ who subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires (Ezekiel 36:27; Hebrews 8:10 with Jeremiah 31:33; Psalm 119:35, 47; Romans 7:22).

The most important point, for me, is that there are a number of legitimate uses of the law, none of which is to make us right legally (i.e., justification) or in fact (i.e., sanctification). We can therefore conclude that legalism (attempting to accomplish either justification or sanctification through the law) is and has always been an abuse of the law.

Romans 3:1-8

Church, Romans, , , , ,

Here is my mindmap of this passage:

Rom 3:1-8 mindmap

Here are the scrolls.

Here are some more questions:

1. What question opens this chapter? How is it rephrased?
2. What is the answer to the question(s)?
3. What other answers could be expected?
4. How does Paul connect advantage/profit with belief in an unexpected way?
5. Whose fault is it when someone doesn’t believe? Why?
6. What does our unrighteousness do (v5)?
7. Why might God be called unjust (v5)?
8. Why is God NOT unjust?
9. How does ‘my lie’ affect God/my judgment?
10. How does Paul connect good and evil?
11. What do others say Paul says about good and evil? How does he respond?