WM 282: When the Majority Text is Not the Majority Text: Romans 13:9

 

JTR

Metzger quote on the "tenor" of Paul's theology

 

Image: Bruce Manning Metzger (1914-2007)

Shared this on a twitter thread @Riddle1689 today:

I cited this from Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on Rom 9:5 in my last podcast:

“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed forever” (522).

Let this sink in. The majority of scholars on the committee reconstructing the modern critical text of the Greek NT in the mid-20th century did not think it plausible that Paul would have referred to Jesus as God.

The Greek text of the NT reconstructed by this committee became the basis for all the modern translations of the NT based on the modern critical text, including those used in evangelical and Reformed churches today.

This deserves serious and sober consideration in conservative evangelical and Reformed circles.

It's time to go back to the Reformation text.

JTR

WM 249: The "new perspective" on Romans 9:5

 

What is the issue?

The issue here is not so much on the text but on how the text should be punctuated and translated.

We can pick up on the differences by examining how Romans 9:5 is punctuated/translated in the KJV and the RSV:

Romans 9:5 (KJV): Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 9:5 (RSV): to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever.^[a] Amen.

Footnote [a]: Or Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever

Here is the text without punctuation:

Romans 9:5 ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην

This is the same in W & H and in NA 28.

Here is the punctation in the TR and NA 28:

Romans 9:5 (TR): ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα, ο ων επι παντων, θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας. Αμην.

Romans 9:5 (NA 28): ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα, ο ων επι παντων, θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας, αμην.

There was, however, controversy from the late 19^th through the mid-20^th century over how the passage should be punctated/translated as a “new perspective” on the verse was introduced and promoted.

Metzger’s Textual Commentary (Corrected Ed., 1975) entry on Romans 9:5:

It begins with this partial segment:

σαρκα· ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας

The raised point (semi-colon) after sarka apparently appeared in the UBS third edition (1975). It was replaced by a comma in the UBS third corrected edition (1983).

In Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece (19^th edition, 1949), there is also a raised point along with a punctuation note suggesting three possibilities: comma, raised point, and a period.

Metzger begins by noting that “the syntax and meaning” of Romans 9:5 has been the cause of “much discussion.” A footnote cites a difference in interpretation between Ezra Abbot (1881, 1883) and Sanday & Headlam Romans commentary (1896) [the latter defending the traditional view].

He then offers three “chief interpretations”:

(a)  Comma after sarka. This would be the traditional view. It takes what follows as relating to ho christos.

(b)  Placing a point (either a colon or a full stop) after sarka, and taking what follows as an clause independent of ho christos.

(c)   Placing a comma after sarka and a point (either a colon or full stop) after pantōn.

He proceeds to note that the Church Fathers are unanimous in the traditional reading (a).

But he says this is of “minor significance,” because four uncials (A B C L) and at least 26 minuscules have a point after sarka, either by the first hand or by correctors.

Metzger does concede in a footnote that the presence of punctuation marks in early NT mss. Are “so sporadic and haphazard that one cannot infer with confidence the construction given by the punctuator of the passage” (521, n. 1).

Both the “patristic” and the “paleographical” evidence came after Paul’s original composition, so they are of “questionable authority” (521).

Metzger’s five reasons that a “minority” of the committee favored the traditional reading (a):

First: It fits “the structure of the sentence, whereas the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic [without a conjunction or coordination] doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural” (521).

Second: if the clause is an asyndetic doxology there would be no need for the participle ων.

Third: Pauline doxologies are never asyndetic.

Fourth: Asyndetic doxologies in the Bible and other semitic literature are constructed differently. They always have a verb or verbal adjective preceding the name of God.

Fifth: In light of context, he says, there is no “psychological explanation” for the appearance of a doxology here (522).

Metzger’s defense of the majority of the committee in favor of (b) or (c):

He says the five reasons noted above are not “decisive” “particularly since nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos as theos” (522).

Note: To reach this conclusion, Metzger must argue that Titus 2:13 (Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”) “is generally regarded as deutero-Pauline” (522, n. 6).

He also has to disregard Philippians 2:5-6’s statement that “Christ Jesus” (v. 5) did not consider it robbery to be “equal with God.”

He does not even bother to address 1 Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh.”

Nor does he bother to address the significance of the “Jesus is Lord” confession in Paul (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11).

Instead, Metzger makes this striking statement: “In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed forever” (522).

So, the primary reason that Metzger provides for the majority finding is that they did not think it plausible that Paul would have referred to Jesus Christ as God.

Comparing other translations:

The RSV reading was also picked up on in several translations from the 1960s:

TEV (Good News Bible, 1966): they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.

NLV (New Life Version, by Gleason and Kathryn Ledyard, NT, 1969): The early preachers came from this family. Christ Himself was born of flesh from this family and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever. Let it be so.

It seems that the popularity of the “new perspective” on Romans 9:5 began to wane by the late 20^th century.

The NA Greek NT, at least from the 26^th edition (1979), changed the semi-colon after sarka to a comma.

The UBS third corrected edition (1983) followed suit.

The NRSV (1989; Updated edition, 2021) changed the main text: to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.^[a] Amen.

With the marginal reading: Or Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever; or Messiah. May he who is God over all be blessed forever

And yet it also persists in several contemporary versions, even evangelical ones:

NIV (1984) main text: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!^[a] Amen.

But margin: Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!

(Note: This is also the reading in the 2011 revision, the only change being that “Christ” is translated as “Messiah”).

CEV (NT, 1991): They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of the Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen.

The NWT of the JWs embraces the “new perspective” on Romans 9:5!:

NWT: To them the forefathers belong, and from them the Christ descended according to the flesh. God, who is over all, be praised forever. Amen.

Conclusion:

The patristic and early translation tradition never had any confusion about Romans 9:5 affirming that Christ is God.

Only in the nineteenth century under the influence of unitarian impulses in modern criticism was the traditional rendering challenged. Metzger’s statement in his  commentary is striking:

“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed forever” (522).

One might look at the effort to alter the reading at Romans 9:5 as a failure given its decline in popularity, and yet it persists in some translations and their marginal readings.

A recent comment to my youtube channel began, “Why is it that some, if not most, of these textual variants deal with lowering or tampering with the majestic Person and Work of Christ?”

The answer it that textual criticism is not a-theological. It is not doctrinally neutral. Romans 9:5 is a great example of this.

If the text of the Bible is subject to the whims of the academy it will continue to be vulnerable to “new perspectives” such as that foisted upon Romans 9:5.

JTR

Romans 15: Paul's Missionary Prayer Letter

I preached Sunday on Romans 15:20-33 titling the message Paul's Missionary Prayer Letter.  Indeed, this part of the letter reads like a missionary report including ministry updates, itinerary notes, and prayer requests.  I gleaned four main points from the text:

1.  The importance of taking of the gospel to those places where Christ has not been named (vv. 20-22);

2.  The importance of supporting and encouraging missionary efforts (vv. 23-24);

3.  The importance of mercy ministry among the saints (vv. 25-29);

4.  The importance of prayer for the missionary advancement of the gospel (vv. 30-33).

JTR

Text Note: Doxology at the end of Romans 14:23?

The issue:

There is a major text critical issue with the ending of Romans that begins to rear its head at the close of Romans 14.  The question revolves around the proper place for the doxology (appearing at Romans 16:25-27 but inserted in some manuscripts, and most notably in the Majority Text tradition, after Romans 14:23).  The discussion also involves the integrity of Romans 16:24 (which I hope to discuss later when we reach chapter 16).

External Evidence:

In his Textual Commentary, Metzger notes six major text variations [Greek mss witnesses in brackets] (p. 534):

1.      1:1—16:23 plus doxology [p61 (vid), Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, D, 81, 1739]

2.     1:1—14:23 plus doxology plus 15:1—16:23 plus doxology [A, P, 5, 33, 104]

3.     1:1—14:23 plus doxology plus 15:1-16:24 [L, Psi, 0209 (vid), 181, 326, 330, 614, 1175, and the Byzantine (Majority) tradition]

4.     1:1—16:24 [F, G, 629]

5.     1:1—15:33 plus doxology plus 16:1-23 [p46]

6.     1:1—14:23 plus 16:24 plus doxology [a few Vulgate mss]

Here is a place where the Textus Receptus is closer to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (though the TR includes 16:24) rather than the Majority reading.  Both modern editions of the Greek Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont include the doxology after 14:23 and end Romans at 16:24).

Internal Evidence:

According to Origen’s Commentary on Romans, the early heretic Marcion eliminated chapters 15-16 from his edition of Romans (see Metzger, p. 533).  This early meddling with the text likely led to the confusing textual tradition.  The question in the widest tradition became not whether to include the doxology (16:25-27) but where to include it.  Some included it at the end of chapter 16, others at the end of chapter 14, some both at the end of chapter 14 and at the end of chapter 16, and one at the end of chapter 15.

This textual variation has also led to speculation among modern commentators as to the possibility that two version of Romans circulated in early Christianity, one that ended at chapter 15 (supposedly sent to Rome) and another that ended at chapter 16 (supposedly sent to Ephesus).

Conclusion:

This issue demonstrates how the text of Scripture was affected by theological conflict early in the Christian movement.  While affirming the modern critical text’s decision to include the doxology at Romans 16:25-27, Metzger explains, “Some of the other sequences may have arisen from the influence of the Marcionite text upon the dominant form(s) of the text of the epistle in orthodox circles” (p. 536).  In the ecclesiastical text tradition there is no question of whether Romans 16:24 and Romans 16:25-27 should be included in the legitimate text of Scripture.  The only question is where they should appear. The Textus Receptus demonstrates the text critical consensus of Reformation era interpreters both that Romans 16:24 should be included as part of the Word of God (more on this later, DV) and that the proper place for Romans 16:25-27 to appear is not at the end of Romans 14 but at the end of Romans 16. 

The sinful tendencies of the strong and the weak in Romans 14:3: "the smile of disdainful contempt" and "the frown of condemnatory judgment"

In preaching last Sunday on Romans 14:1-6, I was struck by Paul's exhortation to both "the strong" and "the weak" in v. 3:

"Let not him that eateth [the strong] despise him that eateth not [the weak]; and let not him which eateth not [the weak] judge him that eateth [the strong]...."

Paul points here to two different sinful tendencies for the strong and the weak:

First, the sinful tendency of the strong toward to weak is one of despising (exoutheneo: to treat with contempt or to look down upon). The strong tend to say or think about their weaker brethren: "Can you believe how uptight, narrow, or legalistic that weak brother is?"

Second, the sinful tendency of the weak toward the strong is one of judging (krino). The weak tend to say or think about their stronger brethren: "Can you believe how liberal, slack, lacking conviction that strong brother is?"

Murray notes: “Both are condemned with equal vigor.” He continues, “In actual practice these vices appear respectively in the smile of disdainful contempt and in the frown of condemnatory judgment" (Romans, Vol. 2, p. 175).

Does Romans 14:5 have to do with Christian Sabbath observance?

I preached yesterday on Avoiding Doubtful Disputations, beginning an extended exposition of Romans 14:1—15:13 on the subject of Christian liberty and conscience.

I noted that Paul begins with a thematic statement (v. 1), followed by two examples: eating meat (vv. 2-4) and esteeming days (vv. 5-6). One question of interpretation is what Paul means by esteeming days. Does this refer to particular aspects of observance of the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath? Or does it refer to the esteeming of other Jewish holy days, particularly by some Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 4:9-11; Col 2:16-17)?

In his exposition of Romans 14:5-6 titled “Holy Days or Holy People?” (Romans, Vol. 4, pp. 1739-45), James M. Boice rejects the Westminster Confession position on the fourth commandment, citing this passage to justify his stance. He notes that his position had brought him into conflict with others in his PCA denomination where, he says, “there are people who would like to get pastors like me excluded, because we think this is a nonessential matter on which the Westminster Confession of Faith simply has gone beyond what ought to be required of anyone” (p. 1741). Boice claims that his position is more in line with Calvin than the Puritans. He adds that “an emphasis on Sabbath-keeping leads easily to legalism” and concludes, “Even today, people who insist on a strict Sabbath tend to be legalistic in other matters also” (p. 1742). Nevertheless, he also admits that “observing the Lord’s Day freely can lead to libertinism” (p. 1743).

Sadly, Boice’s exposition of the passage is lacking in close exegesis of the verses. It is also noteworthy that in this section, Boice makes no reference to John Murray’s commentary, which in other sections he typically freely cites with approval. Boice clearly avoids Murray, because Murray’s careful exegesis upends Boice’s position.

Murray devotes an Appendix to the topic in his commentary titled “Romans 14:5 and the Weekly Sabbath” (Romans, Vol. 2, pp. 257-259). Here is Murray’s succinct conclusion:

“To place the Lord’s day and the weekly Sabbath in the same category [i.e., as the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution clearly abrogated in the NT] is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of Scripture. An interpretation that involves such contradiction cannot be adopted. Thus the abiding sanctity of each recurring seventh day as the memorial of God’s rest in creation and of Christ’s exaltation in his resurrection is not to be regarded as in any way impaired by Romans 14:5” (p. 259).

My exposition agreed with Murray.

JTR

The "charismata" of Romans 12:6-8

I preached last Sunday on Many Members in One Body (Romans 12:3-8).  I summarized the core meaning of the text as follows:  that it is necessary and central for a Christian to be rightly joined to a body of believers where spiritual gifts and spiritual offices are being exercised to the glory of God and to the blessing and benefit of man.

The most intriguing aspect of interpreting this text is understanding the seven "gifts" (charismata, v. 6) listed in vv. 6-8: prophecy, ministry, teaching , exhortation, giving, rule, and mercy.

In the introduction I noted:

This passage is one place (along with 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4) in Scripture where we find a listing of spiritual gifts (charismata, v. 6).  The modern tendency is to focus on such gift lists as potentially applying to all Christians generally.  We create spiritual gifts inventories and use them like evangelical Myers-Briggs personality assessment instruments (I’ve even used such myself a few times earlier in my ministry) to figure out which gifts we possess.  But as I read through our passage this week, I was struck by the fact, however, that this passage must be understood in the context of the Biblical church and its government.  As we shall see, when Paul lists these gifts I believe he was thinking primarily about spiritual qualities that the officers of the church were to possess and exercise with the body for its edification, rather than about the distribution of these gifts within the body at large.

I later added:

This list is one of those places where you see a divide in interpretation between modern commentaries and “old school” (Reformed Fathers, Puritan, or old path) commentaries. Modern interpreters tend to take this list and apply it to all believers. The old men, however, seem to be united in saying that Paul is speaking here about the particular gifts that are to be possessed and exercised by the officers of the church (namely the elders and deacons). 

In favor of the old school interpretation is the fact that in the other two places where there is an emphasis on spiritual gifts it is associated with church officers. Compare 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 and, especially, Ephesians 4:8-11 where the "gifts" (here domata) given by Jesus are the offices themselves (both extraordinary, like apostles, prophets, and evangelists [I take the office of evangelist to be extraordinary as it composed the apostolic associates including those who would write Gospels like Mark and Luke]) and ordinary (like pastors and teachers).

To confirm this distinction between modern and old school interpretations of this passage, just compare the comments on this passage in standard evangelical commentaries (like MacArthur's or the ESV) and then contrast it with the view taken by the old commentators like John Calvin, Matthew Poole, or Matthew Henry.

Here is how I summed up my exposition of the seven "gifts":

Having looked at these seven gifts more closely, we can see who each one of them corresponds to the special functions of the church officers:

The Elders, in particular, are to be engaged in prophesying (preaching), ministering (diakonia) the word, teaching (didasko), exhorting (parakaleo), and ruling (proistemi).

And the deacons in the ministry (diakonia) of the tables, in giving, and in mercy.

These offices are gifts that God has given to his church for their care and edification.

JTR

Carroll on Romans

B. H. Carroll (1843-1914) on the book of Romans (from An Interpretation of the Engish Bible, Vol. XIV, p. 79):

It is the most fundamental, vital, logical, profound, and systematic discussion of the whole plan of salvation in all the literature of the world.  It touches all men; it is universal in in application; its roots, not only in man's creation and fall, but also in the timeless purposes and decrees of God before the world was, and fruits in the eternity after this world's purgation.

Murray on Romans 11:33-36: A Response of Adoring Amazement

I completed a series through Romans chapters 9-11 on Sunday morning with a message on Paul's doxology (11:33-36).  Here is an insight from John Murray's Romans commentary on this passage:

If we are sensitive to the depths of the design here stated, we must sense the unfathomable, and we are constrained to say:  God’s way is in the sea and his paths in the great waters:  his footsteps are not known (cf. Psalm 77:19).  This was the reaction of Paul himself.  Hence the exclamations:  “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (vs. 33).  It is not the reaction of painful bewilderment but the response of adoring amazement, redolent of joy and praise.  When our faith and understanding peer to the horizons of revelation, it is then our hearts and minds are overwhelmed with the incomprehensible mystery of God’s works and ways (Romans, Vol. 2, p. 103).

Opinions on Romans 11:26a

I previously noted at least three options for interpreting Romans 11:26a (“And so all Israel shall be saved.”):

(1) all Israel refers to all ethnic Israelites who will be saved even apart from explicit faith in Christ;

(2) all Israel refers to the church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles;

(3) all Israel refers to all the elect in ethnic Israel who will eventually come to saving faith in Christ.

Here is a summary of how various Reformed scholars and pastors have interpreted Paul’s meaning:

Perhaps the most prominent advocate of option (2) above is John Calvin (1509-1564), who offers the following take in his Romans commentary:

“Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God…. This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians vi.16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from this faith.”

The Puritan Matthew Poole (1624-1679) advocates option (3) in his commentary on this verse:

“By Israel is not meant the whole church of God, consisting of Jews and Gentiles; so that word is used, Gal. vi.16, and elsewhere; for then, what he spake would have been no mystery at all: but by Israel here (as in the precedent verse) you must understand the nation and people of the Jews. And by all Israel is not meant every individual Israelite, but many, or (it may be) the greatest part of them. So all is to be taken in Scripture: see John 6.45; 1 Tim. 2.6, and elsewhere.”

John Gill (1697-1771), in his Exposition of the Bible, affirms option (3):

“Ver. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved,.... Meaning not the mystical spiritual Israel of God, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, who shall appear to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, when all God's elect among the latter are gathered in, which is the sense many give into; but the people of the Jews, the generality of them, the body of that nation, called "the fulness" of them, Ro 11:12, and relates to the latter day, when a nation of them shall be born again at once; when, their number being as the sand of the sea, they shall come up out of the lands where they are dispersed, and appoint them one head, Christ, and great shall be the day of Jezreel; when they as a body, even the far greater part of them that shall be in being, shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; shall acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah, and shall look to him, believe on him, and be saved by him from wrath to come….”

John Murray (1898-1975), likewise, affirms option (3) in his commentary on Romans:

“If we keep in mind the theme of this chapter and the sustained emphasis on the restoration of Israel, there is no other alternative than to conclude that the proposition “All Israel shall be saved”, is to be interpreted in terms of the fullness, the receiving, the ingrafting of Israel as a people, the restoration of Israel to gospel favour and blessing and the correlative turning of Israel from unbelief to repentance.”

JTR

What did Paul mean by "And so all Israel shall be saved." (Romans 11:26)?

I preached last Sunday (9/25) on All Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:25-32).  This is a passage with more than one difficult verse to interpret.  At the head of the list is what Paul meant when he wrote, "And so all Israel shall be saved" (v. 26).  Here are the three options for interpretations I presented, opting for the third as the right division of the text:

Now, we come to v. 26 and this central declaration, “And so all Israel shall be saved.” What did Paul mean?

Again, we have at least three options:

1. Did he mean all ethnic Israelites will eventually be saved regardless of their response to Christ?

Are there two plans of salvation? One by virtue of explicit faith in Christ and one by virtue simply of being part of the physical seed of Abraham? This is a view put forward by some dispensationalists, but it fails the test of interpreting Scripture by Scripture.

First, the Bible teaches that there is no salvation apart from explicit faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9; John 14:6).

Second, in context, we clearly see that Paul did not expect all of his kinsmen according to the flesh to be converted. Instead, he strove to see “some” come to faith (see Romans 11:14; cf. 1 Cor 9:20-22).

2. By “all Israel” did Paul mean the all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, who are as Paul calls them in Galatians 6:16 “the Israel of God”?

In favor of this interpretation is the fact that Paul does say in Romans that not all those who are ethnic Israelites are part of spiritual Israel (cf. Romans 2:28-29; 9:6). This was, in fact, the interpretation favored by John Calvin in his commentary on this text. All of spiritual Israel shall be saved.

We would find this interpretation wanting, however, for at least two reasons.

First, in the immediate context it is clear that Paul is speaking of “ethnic” Israel and not “spiritual” Israel (see v. 25 which contrasts the blindness of Israel and the fullness of the Gentiles).

Second, as Murray points out in his commentary this would mean Paul would only be stating the obvious. It essentially makes the verse mean, “All the saved will be saved.” Or “All the redeemed shall be redeemed.”

This leave us in need of a third option:

3. By “And so all Israel shall be saved” Paul was again offering the hopeful affirmation that God had not cast away the physical seed of Abraham.

Though now only a few have been saved, one day many more will be added to that number. The full number of God’s elect among the ethnic Israelites shall be saved! Paul offers this to encourage his fellow Jewish believers and to challenge and humble the Gentile believers.

JTR

The olive tree

Note:  I preached Sunday morning on The Goodness and Severity of God from Romans 11:16-24.  Here is part of the introduction in which I reflected on Paul's illustration of the olive tree. 

In our passage today, Paul is going to introduce one central and vivid illustration or image and it is that of an olive tree. In Biblical times—as it still is today in the Mediterranean world—the olive was, as one Bible dictionary puts it, “the fruit par excellance; either the fresh fruit or its oil found a place at every meal” (see Harper’s Bible Dictionary, p. 727). This same dictionary notes that the olive tree has a “characteristic gnarled trunk,” and it “thrives in the Mediterranean climate of hot, dry summers and cool, damp winters.” This tree is especially known for its heartiness and longevity. The article adds, “It can survive for a thousand years; some specimens are said to date from the Roman period.” It was used for food (Num 11:8), as fuel for lamps, as medicine (Isaiah 1:6), as anointing oil (1 Sam 10:1), in sacrifice (Gen 28:18; Lev 2:4), and its wood was used for furniture in the temple (1 Kings 6:23).

In Deuteronomy 8:8 the Promised Land itself is described as “a land of olive oil and honey” (NKJV). No doubt olive trees were ubiquitous in the Mediterranean. So, this illustration would have been very familiar and accessible to Paul’s first hearers.

The olive tree was also a symbol of fertility and blessing. In Psalm 128, David describes the household where the wife is like a fruitful vine with children popping up like olive plants around the table. And, as we shall see, there are also some places in the OT where Israel is symbolized as being like an olive tree that God is tending.

Indeed, in Paul’s illustration we are to assume that the God of the Bible himself is the Grand Gardener. As Jesus said in John 15:1: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman (vinedresser).” Now, in Paul’s analogy, ethnic Israel, the physical seed of Abraham, is going to be depicted as like a natural or pure olive tree. But due to Israel’s unfaithfulness, God, the husbandman of the olive plant, will choose to break off some of the diseased and dead branches. Paul, no doubt, is drawing upon some images from the OT. Compare:

KJV Jeremiah 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken. 17 For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.

In Jeremiah the context is an announcement of temporal judgment against Israel. Because of idolatry, God will allow Israel to be humbled among the nations, defeated by her enemies, her temple and holy city to be burned, and many branches to be killed or broken off.

Compare also this image in Hosea:

KJV Hosea 14:4 I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him. 5 I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. 6 His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon. 7 They that dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive as the corn, and grow as the vine: the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon.

Jeremiah writes of what will happen to Israel, before her exile. Hosea writes of what will happen to Israel after her exile. He will heal their backsliding. He will allow the branches to grow and spread and be beautiful “as the olive tree.”  Jeremiah shows us the severity of God and Hosea the goodness (kindness).

Now, Paul is going to take this everyday image and this rich Biblical image, and he is going to add a unique and inspired interpretation that expands on this image. Not only has God been pleased to break off many dead branches but he has now also been pleased to graft into this pure olive tree a number of wild and uncultivated olive branches. By this, no doubt, Paul is providing a vivid picture of the Lord’s sovereign purpose according to election to include Gentiles among the one people of God. The analogy, however, does not even end there, but Paul also indicates that the Lord may also be pleased at some future time to graft again into the olive tree some of the natural branches like those that had been cut off.

JTR

Murray on Reprobation in Romans 9:22

I've been continuing to preach through Romans 9.  In the last two messages (The Inscrutible Mercy of God [Romans 9:14-18]; The Impertinency of Man [Romans 9:19-26]), we've rubbed up against the perennial questions of double predestination and equal ultimacy.

In last Sunday's message I spent some time reflecting on Paul's statement in v. 22 that "the vessels of wrath" were "fitted for destruction."  This declaration is parallel to Paul's statement in v. 23 that "the vessels of mercy ... he had afore prepared unto glory."

I found John Murray's comments on v. 22 to be interesting (see Romans, Vol. 2, p. 36).  He begins:  "The vessels of wrath are 'fitted for destruction.'  The question disputed is whether they are represented as fitted or prepared by God for destruction or whether they are viewed as fitting themselves for destruction."

He continues with this very nuanced statement (especially the second sentence here):  "It may be that he purposely refrained from making God the subject.  However, we may not insist that God is not viewed as fitting them for destruction."

He adds, "For these reasons there is nothing contrary to the teaching of the context if we regard God as the agent in fitting for destruction.  At the same time we may not dogmatize that the apostle intended to convey this notion in this case."

So, Murray's conclusion is that Paul describes the Lord as actively fitting the reprobate for destruction, but the evidence is not so clear as to lead one to a a dogmatic affirmation of equal ultimacy in Paul.

JTR

Textual Note: Romans 8:1

The tendency of modern critical text supporters is to minimize the degree to which this text differs from the traditional text. The variations are not limited to the pericope adulterae (John 7:53—8:11) and the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) but are found throughout the NT text.

The issue:

The variation at Romans 8:1 is an example. The issue here is the final clause: “who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit [me kata sarka peripatousin, alla kata pneuma].” Translations based on the traditional text (Geneva, KJV, NKJV) include the phrase. Those based on the modern critical text (NIV, RSV/ESV, NASB) do not. Example (emphasis added):

KJV Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

NIV Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

External Evidence:

Why do modern texts omit the final phrase? It is omitted, in whole or in part, in several ancient manuscripts, including those most favored by modern textual critics.

Full omission: the original hand of Sinaiticus, B (Vaticanus), the original hand of Codex D (Claromontanus)

Partial omission: Includes the phrase “who walk not after the flesh [me kata sarka peripatousin]” but omits “but after the Spirit [alla kata pneuma]”: Alexandrinus, the first corrector of D, Psi (Athous Laurae).

Full inclusion: the second corrector of Sinaiticus, the second corrector of D, the vast Majority of all other texts.

Internal Evidence:

As reflected in Metzger’s Textual Commentary, modern critics see the disputed phrase as introducing “an interpolation from v. 4 in two stages.” Indeed, the phrase appears verbatim in Romans 8:4: “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

According to its canons the modern text prefers the shorter reading. The more unanswered question is why such an interpolation would have been introduced. These are not side by side verses, so technical errors, like parablepsis, are harder to explain. It also seems possible that a scribe might have tried to “correct” the repetition of the phrase in vv. 1 and 4 to smooth out the reading. One should also take under consideration that later scribes were keen to correct texts that omitted the phrase (i. e., Sinaiticus, D). NB: This correction occurs in both the so-called Alexandrian and Western text types, indicating widespread geographical presence of the traditional text as the norming norm.

Conclusion:

There is no overwhelmingly compelling reason to depart from the reading of the traditional text of Romans 8:1.

Murray on Foreknowledge: “Whence proceeds this faith which God foresees?”

I had the privilege of preaching on “The Golden Chain of Redemption” (Romans 8:29-30) last Sunday morning in our Romans 7-8 Series. It has also been a blessing to read John Murray’s commentary on Romans, passage by passage, as a study companion in this preaching series. Sunday, I cited Murray’s rebuttal of the typical Arminian interpretation of “foreknowledge” as merely “God’s foresight of faith.” Murray notes that this interpretation “is considered to obviate the doctrine of unconditional election, and so dogmatic interest is often apparent in those who espouse it” (p. 316). He then offers this rebuttal:

It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that “foreknew” means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question then would simply be: whence proceeds this faith that God foresees? And the only Biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44, 45; Eph 2:8; Phil 1:29; 2 Peter 1:2) [p. 316].

JTR

Romans 8:28 and Gilpin's Broken Leg

Image:  Bernard Gilpin (1517-1583)

Last Sunday morning, I had the privilege to preach on "A verse that has blessed many" (Romans 8:28).  Here is one of the applications from the message which included an illustration from the life of Bernard Gilpin. 

We should remember this verse when we face unpleasant and difficult circumstances.

Sometimes we might need to write it on a card and keep it in our wallet or our pocket and read it over and over throughout our day. We need to memorize it, hide it in our hearts that we might not sin against God.

This verse tells us that God orchestrates all things for the good of his saints. Even things that might be painful and initially appear to be only evil, God is pleased to use for our good.

Recently in our family devotions we read the story of Bernard Gilpin (in the children's book, How God Used A Snowdrift). Gilpin was a faithful minister who lived during the time that the gospel was being rediscovered in England. The Catholic Queen Mary was on the throne, and she and her officials were persecuting the men and women who had come to embrace the gospel. One day Gilpin received a summons to go to London to be tried by court officials who were burning Protestants at the stake. When he left home his friends thought they would never see him alive again.

On the way to London, however, Gilpin fell in an accident and broke his leg. In those days this was a serious injury. Gilpin had to stay where he was and wait for several months for the leg to heal before he could travel to London to stand trial. At that time someone asked, “Do you think this is all for the best?” And Gilpin replied, “I have no doubt of it.”

Sure enough, while he was waiting for the leg to heal, Mary died, and her sister Elizabeth, a Protestant, came to the throne, and the persecution of ministers stopped. Rather than going to London to his death, when his leg healed, Gilpin returned home in safety.

Perhaps there have been painful things that have happened in your life. Things far worse than a broken leg. Things you do not undertand. But God’s Word promises us today that our Father works all things together for our good.

Matthew Poole states that the "for good" in Romans 8:28 means it is “sometimes for our temporal good,” but, even when we do not see the temporal good, it is “always for spiritual and eternal good, which is best of all. All occurrences of providence shall serve to bring [the saints] nearer to God here, and to heaven hereafter.”

JTR

The Creation's Groaning

I was back in Romans yesterday at CRBC.  The message was "The Creation's Groaning" (Romans 8:18-23).  Along the way I reflected on the fact that the creation "was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (v. 20) through man's sin.  I was also able to cite two Puritans who offer interesting reflections, drawn from this passage, on what the perspective of the creation might be toward sinful man.  Here's an excerpt from the message:

Did you ever consider the fact that the creation has a legitimate reason to hold a grudge against you and it may even now be welling up with hatred toward you not merely for what you have done to it but for the way you continue to act toward your Lord?

The old Puritans sometimes wrote about this. A few years back I read an abridgement of Joseph Alleine's book An Alarm to the Unconverted titled Wake Up and Live! One section of the book is titled “The whole world is against you.” Alleine tells his readers:

It is a solemn thought to think that you are a burden to creation. If inanimate creatures could speak, the food on your plate would cry out to God, ‘Lord, must I nourish this person and give him strength to dishonor you? If you would only give me permission I would choke him!’ The very air that you breathe would say, ‘Lord, must I give this woman breath so that she can blaspheme your name, insult your people, and engage in corrupt speech? Just give the word and I will make sure she never breathes again.’ Even your regular means of transport would complain, ‘Lord, must I help him on his way to commit yet more sins against you?’ If you do not belong to Jesus Christ, the earth groans under you and hell groans for you until death shall satisfy both. While the Lord remains against you, you can be sure that all his creatures—in heaven and on earth—are against you. You cannot be at peace with what God has made if you have not found peace with God himself (p. 63; see this post).

Thomas Boston in Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, likewise, warns:

Your meat, drink, and clothes, grudge being serviceable to the wretch that has lost God and abuses them to His dishonor. The earth groans under you: yea ‘the whole earth groaneth, and travaileth in pain together,’ because of you and such as you are (Rom 8:22) (p. 175).

Why don’t men think this way today? Because we have taken the wound of our sin lightly. The secular environmentalist wants to hug trees. The Christian considers that the trees probably would like to bash in our brains with their branches.

JTR

John Owen as a Companion for Romans 8

I have found the reading of John Owen to be a tremendous spiritual companion and complement to preaching through Romans 8.

Sunday before last I preached on Romans 8:5-11 (Spiritually Minded) and last week I did some reading in Spiritual-Mindedness, the R. J. K. Law abridgement of Owen’s “The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded” (1681) in the Banner of Truth Puritan paperbacks series. The book is an extended meditation on Romans 8:6: “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.”

The opening line, “In these words [Romans 8:6], we have two states. One leads to eternal blessedness and the other to eternal ruin.”

He later adds, “Every one of us lives in one of these two states. There is no middle state.”

And, “Spiritual-mindedness cannot flourish and grow if the heart is immersed in the evil swamps of worldliness.”

Last Sunday I preached on Romans 12-17 (Joint-Heirs with Christ) and also started re-reading Richard Rushing’s Puritan Paperback abridgement of Owen’s “The Mortification of Sin” (1656). This classic work is a meditation on Romans 8:13: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye though the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Owen defines his thesis:

“The choicest of believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, should also make it their business all of their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin.”

He asks, “Do you mortify? Do you make it your daily work? You must always be at it while you live; do not take a day off from this work; always be killing sin or it will be killing you.” Elsewhere he adds, “When sin let us alone, we may let sin alone….” And, “We will not be making progress in holiness without walking over the bellies of our lusts” (p. 10).

JTR