Jonathan Edwards on Religious Affections

Gracious affections soften the heart, and are attended and followed with a Christian tenderness of spirit.

False affections, however persons may seem to be melted by them while they are new, yet have a tendency in the end to harden the heart. A disposition to some kind of passions may be established; such as imply self-seeking, self-exaltation, and opposition to others. But false affections, with the delusion that attends them, finally tend to stupify the mind, and shut it up against those affections wherein tenderness of heart consists: and the effect of them at last is, that persons in the settled frame of their minds, become less affected with their present and past sins, and less conscientious with respect to future sins, less moved with the warnings and cautions of God’s word, or God’s chastisements in his providence, more careless of the frame of their hearts, and the manner and tendency of their behavior, less quicksighted to discern what is sinful, less afraid of the appearance of evil, than they were while they were under legal awakenings and fears of hell. Now they have been the subjects of such and such impressions and affections, and have a high opinion of themselves, and look on their state to be safe; they can be much more easy than before, in living in the neglect of duties that are troublesome and inconvenient; and are much more slow and partial in complying with difficult commands; are in no measure so alarmed at the appearance of their own defects and transgressions; are emboldened to favor themselves more, with respect to the labor, and painful care and exactness in their walk, and more easily yield to temptations, and the solicitations of their lusts; and have far less care of their behavior, when they come into the holy presence of God, in the time of public or private worship. Formerly it may be, under legal convictions, they took much pains in religion, and denied themselves in many things: but now they think themselves out of danger of hell, they very much put off the burden of the cross, and save themselves the trouble of difficult duties, and allow themselves more in the enjoyment of their ease and their lusts.

Such persons as these, instead of embracing Christ as their Savior from sin, trust in him as the Savior of their sins; instead of flying to him as their refuge from their spiritual enemies they make use of him as the defense of their spiritual enemies, from God, and to strengthen them against him. They make Christ the minister of sin, and great officer and vicegerent of the devil, to strengthen his interest, and make him above all things in the world strong against Jehovah; so that they may sin against him with good courage, and without any fear, being effectually secured from restraints, by his most solemn warnings and most awful threatenings. They trust in Christ to preserve to them the quiet enjoyment of their sins, and to be their shield to defend them from God’s displeasure; while they come close to him, even to his bosom, the place of his children, to fight against him, with their mortal weapons, hid under their skirts. However, some of these, at the same time, make a great profession of love to God, and assurance of his favor, and great joy in tasting the sweetness of his love.

After this manner they trusted in Christ, that the Apostle Jude speaks of, who crept in among the saints unknown; but were really ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, Jude 4. These are they that trust in their being righteous; and because God has promised that the righteous shall surely live, or certainly be saved, are therefore emboldened to commit iniquity, whom God threatens in Ezek. 33:13: “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity; all his righteousness shall not be remembered, but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.”

Gracious affections are of a quite contrary tendency; they turn a heart of stone more and more into a heart of flesh. A holy love and hope are principles that are vastly more efficacious upon the heart, to make it tender, and to fill it with a dread of sin, or whatever might displease and offend God, and to engage it to watchfulness, and care, and strictness, than a slavish fear of hell. Gracious affections, as was observed before, flow out of a contrite heart, or (as the word signifies) a bruised heart, bruised and broken with godly sorrow; which makes the heart tender, as bruised flesh is tender, and easily hurt. Godly sorrow has much greater influence to make the heart tender, than mere legal sorrow from selfish principles.

The tenderness of the heart of a true Christian, is elegantly signified by our Savior, in his comparing such a one to a little child. The flesh of a little child is very tender; so is the heart of one that is new born. This is represented in what we are told of Naaman’s cure of his leprosy, by his washing in Jordan; which was undoubtedly a type of the renewing of the soul, by washing in the laver of regeneration. We are told, 2 Kings 5:14, “That he went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child.” Not only is the flesh of a little child tender, but his mind is tender. A little child has his heart easily moved, wrought upon and bowed: so is a Christian in spiritual things. A little child is apt to be affected with sympathy, to weep with them that weep, and cannot well bear to see others in distress: so it is with a Christian, John 11:25, Rom. 12:15, 1 Cor. 12:26. A little child is easily won by kindness: so is a Christian. A little child is easily affected with grief at temporal evils, and has his heart melted, and falls a weeping: thus tender is the heart of a Christian, with regard to the evil of sin. A little child is easily affrighted at the appearance of outward evils, or anything that threatens its hurt: so is a Christian apt to be alarmed at the appearance of moral evil, and anything that threatens the hurt of the soul. A little child, when it meets enemies, or fierce beasts, is not apt to trust its own strength, but flies to its parents for refuge: so a saint is not self-confident in engaging spiritual enemies, but flies to Christ. A little child is apt to be suspicious of evil in places of danger, afraid in the dark, afraid when left alone, or far from home: so is a saint apt to be sensible of his spiritual dangers, jealous of himself, full of fear when he cannot see his way plain before him, afraid to be left alone, and to be at a distance from God: Prov. 28:14, “Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.” A little child is apt to be afraid of superiors, and to dread their anger, and tremble at their frowns and threatenings: so is a true saint with respect to God: Psal. 119:120, “My flesh trembleth for fear of thee, and I am afraid of thy judgments.” Isa. 66:2, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and trembleth at my word.” ver. 5, “Hear ye the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word.” Ezra. 9:4, “Then were assembled unto me everyone that trembled at the words of the God of Israel.” Chap. 10:3; “According to the counsel of my Lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God.” A little child approaches superiors with awe: so do the saints approach God with holy awe and reverence: Job 13:2, “Shall not his excellency make you afraid? And his dread fall upon you?” Holy fear is so much the nature of true godliness, that it is called in Scripture by no other name more frequently, than the fear of God.^[1]

---

^[1] Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections : In Three Parts ... (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Triablogue and Natural Theology

Worldly Wisdom in Modern Christian Apologetics and I Corinthians 1-3

Recently, Triablogue reviewed Blackwell’s Companion to Natural Theology, giving it a positive nod. I usually agree with the views expressed by the men at Triablogue. However, in this case, I happen to have a completely different perspective on the subject of natural theology and its usefulness in presenting the gospel. What is the best approach from a biblical perspective? What does the Bible teach concerning how Christians should share their faith? Are we free to select whatever method suits our personal style and tastes?

The question of natural theology is more than just an epistemological question. To be sure, it has epistemological implications and these implications are expansive. However, the question of natural theology is a theological question, and all theological questions are questions that necessarily involve divine revelation. When the Church relocates theological questions such as this to the field of philosophy, she unwittingly leaves behind her only source for discovering truthful answers to the questions she asks. Yes, she gains academic respect in the scholarly community, who would otherwise accuse her of being anti-intellectual. However, the cost of academic respectability of godless scholars is far greater than the Church should be willing to pay.

“Natural theology deals with what can be known about the existence (see Cosmological Argument; Kalam Cosmological Argument) and nature of God by natural reason (see Revelation, General), apart from any supernatural revelation (see Revelation, Special). According to classical Christian theists (see Theism), such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), all of the essential metaphysical attributes of God can be known by natural reason. This includes God’s aseity, simplicity, immutability, eternality, simplicity, unity, infinity, and morality.”^[1]

In other words, unaided natural reason can, without any special grace from God, accurately know and understand God. Hence, if we know how to command the use of human reason in just the right way, we may be able to bring unregenerate men to a place where they actually hold to the same knowledge of God as believers do in many respects. Using this proposition about human reason, Christian leaders have invented sophisticated philosophical arguments in an attempt to persuade unbelievers of the truthfulness of God’s existence. As time has progressed, these arguments have become multifarious and highly intricate. The target of these arguments is the intellectual, the atheist, the scientist, the philosopher, usually, the highly educated. By highly educated, I mean they have devoted serious time to the materials, the arguments, and to formulating a more formal and structured position around theism and they can usually articulate that position very well.

Here is the excerpt from Steve Hayes at Triablogue that reflects, in my opinion, a fundamental flaw in how we think about Christian apologetics: However, I think it would often be a mistake for a Christian to imagine that this equips him to go on the offensive and pick fights or do battle with unbelievers. In debate, a specialist usually has an advantage over a nonspecialist. He can argue circles around the nonspecialist. Even though the specialist may be dead wrong, he can do a snow job on the nonspecialist. An atheist who’s a clever young philosophy major has a lot of strategies at his disposal to deflect a popularized version of the AFR. If Joe Six-pack Christian gets into an argument with an unbeliever like that, he may well lose the argument, not because he’s wrong, but because he lacks the sophistication to field the counterarguments. And that experience could disillusion him. That might shake his faith. Leave him worse off than before. So we need to make sure the nonspecialist has reasonable expectations about what a popularized theistic proof can accomplish.

It seems clear that Steve is endorsing a method of apologetics that embraces natural theology along with the idea that we can and should explore various ways to reason with unbelievers in order to persuade them to accept Christianity. I say Christianity over Theism because we are not charged with proving the existence of a god, which is theism. We are tasked with preaching the gospel to an unbelieving world. One could legitimately ask if we are even tasked with the duty to debate the existence of God with skeptics and atheists. What does Scripture have to say about unregenerate human reason? There are two texts that I think we should look at briefly. You, on the other hand, if you are interested in apologetics and methods, should spend a great deal of time in Romans 1-3 and 1 Corinthians 1-3. Read them over and over until you understand Paul’s thoughts around unregenerate human reasoning and its limitations.

First and foremost, human reason is not ethically neutral. That is to say, human reason did not escape the curse. Like every other part of the human, the curse of sin has devastated the human intellect. The ethical component of sin reaches all the way to the intellect, the emotions, and the will. Nothing was protected from the curse of the fall. Paul informs us in Romans 8:7-8 that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Space prohibits a more detailed treatment of these verses, but take them at face value for there is nothing in the text that would give us cause to take them any other way. The idea that human reason is somehow unaffected by the curse of sin is anchored in humanistic philosophy, not biblical theology. Unregenerate thinking has a proclivity to do violence to the truth of God, to God Himself by distorting His image into one that is tolerable, acceptable, or by completely vanishing Him from existence. This condition of the intellect persists so long as the intellect remains unregenerate.

The second issue is how Paul frames this up in Romans 1. The first issue is that men do possess the truth. God has given it to them. However, these unregenerate receptors of truth engage in a twisting, perversion, and suppression of that truth. In other words, the unregenerate intellect does something strange to the truth about God that it receives. It distorts it. It puts the CD into the stereo and then turns the music up so loud that what is on the CD is not what is coming out of the speakers, sort of. It is the same band, the same notes, but the message has been changed by the receptor. The receptor knows there is a band playing instruments. The receptor knows that “something” must have went into the project to produce this music. But because the receptor is a sworn enemy of the band, it intentionally distorts the music. This analogy doesn’t carry us far enough in the theological discussion because not only is the act of perverting natural revelation an act of the will, it is an unavoidable one. The will does what the mind thinks is best (Edwards). And the mind is hostile. Hence the will is held hostage to the mind, always. Therefore, it is unable to do those things because the mind is in a state of war against God. The only way to change the will is to change the mind. Repentance is changing the mind, not in the sense of swapping out ideas. It is a new mind altogether. That is how we change our mind about Christ, about God, about divine truth. We require a new mind! Scripture calls it a new heart!

In Romans 1, Paul says, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He says, that which is known about God is evident within them. He says, God made it (the knowledge of God) evident to them. Paul says that God’s attributes have been clearly seen (not clearly expressed). Paul said God’s attributes have been understood through what has been made. Paul says that even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God. Rather, they have become futile in their speculations.

Now, this seems like more than enough to me to conclude that human reason is not neutral. From this text we can deduce that all men have received the truth and that they have and do suppress it. We can say that the truth about God is known by unregenerate men and that it is clearly and easily known. They already know some truth about God. The language does not say that God’s creation clearly expresses His attributes so that men should know which is what one commenter says at Triablogue. Paul uses the passive voice, telling us they are seen and understood. This fact, Paul tells us, leaves them without excuse. They are culpable.

Now, I want to play a game. I want to assume that Paul isn’t telling us that men know, but that they have enough evidence in creation and conscience that they should know. The AFR approach would say that men are just reasoning wrongly and if we help them spot the flaws in how they are thinking, we will win them over. In order to hold that view, they must interpret Romans 1 as I have presumed in this paragraph. Or, at a minimum, they cannot interpret it as I do which is expressed above. Even if Romans one is not saying that all men know and see, and understand the truth about God, it does not follow that we should spend our time constructing these sophisticated philosophical arguments. Why not? Well, at a minimum Paul is saying that what they have already, without any additional material, without any additional evidence, without any additional arguments, is sufficient. It is enough! Creation and conscience is enough to produce culpability. I do not interpret Paul in this way, but even for those who do, they still cannot overcome the obstacle before them. God says He has given them enough in creation and conscience. Therefore, to respond to every intellectual obstacle an unbeliever can think up for why they don’t want to believe in God is, in my opinion, not the best way for Christians and especially Christian leaders to spend their time.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, at least the one we have in the canon, Paul deals with worldly wisdom and the gospel a lot. He says something very interesting in 1:17, essentially, Paul says that God did not send him to proclaim, present, or preach the gospel with cleverness of speech so that the cross would not be voided. In other words, repurposing how we present the message could void the cross! How else can we account for the hina clause that follows? This text should scream out to us that not only is what we proclaim significant, but how we proclaim the message is serious business. The possibility of voiding the cross by using clever (sohia) words is portentous to say the least. Only  sinful human arrogance would treat it otherwise.

Next Paul informs us that the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The gospel is moronic to unbelievers. The Greek word for foolishness is where we get our English word moron. To one who is lost, the gospel, the true gospel is absolutely foolish. This begs the question of whether or not we are aiming rightly when we aim to employ tactics like AFR in order to interact with unbelievers. The NT seems to know absolutely nothing of it. All throughout the NT, we witness presentations and are instructed to present Jesus, present the good news, present the gospel, to proclaim the truth of the resurrected Savior. Paul goes on to tell us that God warns us that he will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever. So much for philosophy! God has promised to destroy the cognoscente. He has set them aside, preferring instead a foolish message, delivered with a foolish method, mostly to foolish people, the simple, the common.

Paul asks the Corinthians: where is the philosopher, where is the lawyer, where is the rhetorician? Look around! God has made the wise to be foolish. He has shamed that which men prized, honored and exalted. And this absolutely drives us insane, even in the Church. One commenter, in my quote of 1 Cor. 1:18 accused me of being an anti-intellectual. Of course I went to “goodreads” where he says he writes a lot of book reviews to see what “kind” of books he reads and reviews. I noticed there was not a single solitary book on godly living, sanctification, love, service, or anything else related to Christian praxis. They were predominantly philosophical, theological and with some logic. The point is that we can turn the intellect into an idol. And with many of these apologetic methods in Christianity, that is all too often the attraction. It was for me until God slowly had to pound that out of me with one trial after another, forcing me to run to the text time and again until my thick-head and prideful heart started to get it.

Paul says this world did not come to God through its wisdom. That seems entirely contrary to natural theology’s view that they can. Paul says God was pleased to save the world through the foolishness of the message preached. God intentionally has not elected many philosophers, lawyers, or rhetoricians. We need to let that sink in. He chose mostly the base, the simple, and the foolish with a few of the others sprinkled in for purposes known only to Himself. Look at Athens. Such a large city in Paul’s day, yet, not a single letter addressing a church there.

Paul says the gospel is a scandal for the Jew and moronic to the Gentile. Why then does AFR think that the gospel can be turned into a message of intellectual respectability from skeptics, philosophers, and academicians the world over? Paul apparently did not think this of the gospel. He readily admitted that what he presented would be considered laughable to the unbeliever. He goes on again to point out that God has deliberately not chosen many philosophers, nor many politicians, nor many of the well-breed so to speak. Paul says that God has deliberately not chosen many philosophers, politicians, or wealthy to be among His ranks. Perhaps it is no accident that most of the skeptics, critics, cynics and those aggressively seeking to destroy theism come from these very ranks. Have we ever given this much thought? Perhaps we can do a better job at connecting these dots.

God chose the foolish things to shame these wise men, and the weak and poor to shame the powerful and the rich and He did it on purpose. Paul tells us that his preaching does not rest in human reasoning, in philosophical acumen, but rather in the power of God. Notice how Paul contrasts worldly philosophy with the genuine gospel, the presentation of the good news? This helps us avoid a misplaced faith. Faith in human reason, in our ability to defend the truths of Christianity from the standpoint of human reason and worldly philosophies is indeed a dangerous thing. It is very harmful to Christians to imply that they need these sophisticated complex and often convoluted arguments in order to be able to be a good representative of Christ and His Church. When they fail, because their faith is in human reason and philosophy, they are tempted to think the message may not be true after all.

Jesus Himself gave us instructions of how to deal with those who reject our message and mock us and our Savior. To the disciples He said they were to shake the dust off their feet if the city rejected the message. Paul, after being rejected city after city by the Jews, turned to the Gentiles. Even for those within the Christian community, we are not to wrangle with them without end. There is a clear end to the corrections. Paul issues numerous warnings in the pastorals about this. One such warning to Timothy is found in 2 Tim. 2:14. “The content of the warning includes an appeal to avoid “quarreling about words.” This wrong emphasis can lead to aimless word splitting. “In the end disputing about words seeks not the victory of truth but the victory of the speaker.”²  This word splitting involved useless verbal quibbling, but it did not focus on the aims of Christianity.”^[2]

I recognize the legitimacy of contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. We have a duty to propagate Christian truth in the public square and with as many individuals as we can. Paul was equipped to preach the gospel to the Jews. He debated with them often. But his approach was not open for a variety of methods. An occasional quote of a pagan writer should not be construed as wholesale acceptance of ungodly philosophical methods. To argue to the contrary does more to reveal bias than it does anything else. There is simply no exegetical basis upon which to make that case.

What then should we do in terms of equipping individual Christians to share the gospel with unbelievers and handle objections? We start with setting expectations. A solid theological foundation should serve to help folks understand that unbelievers are going to reject the message and perhaps argue to the contrary. Their authority is autonomous human reason, science, philosophy, etc. The Christian’s authority is Scripture. For them, knowledge comes through experience mostly, while for the Christian all knowledge is revelational.

Christians must be trained to articulate a succinct presentation of the gospel. God saves His elect through the foolishness of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, not complex philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Moreover, what we are interested in is the gospel. We desire to see men saved. And if that is true, and all that is needed is the gospel, why would we dedicate an abhorrent amount of time to an area that does not produce salvation. That approach is more about winning an argument, a debate, a verbal battle, intellectual pugilism, than it is about simple gospel truth.

I was basically accused of being an anti-intellectual because I was silly enough to say that preaching the gospel was enough. Either Scripture is sufficient for evangelism and soul-winning or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. All I ask is that you be man enough to say what you mean, rather than wrangle over words. Either we believe the gospel saves those whom God has chosen, or we believe there is more to winning souls than living and preaching Christ!

The entire first two chapters of 1 Corinthians speaks to this issue. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ. ^[3]

 What I am not saying is that 'reason' is useless in preaching the gospel. God is a rational being and He created us to be rational beings. I am also not saying that every part of Scripture and Theology are equally simple. I can attest that Hebrew and Greek exegesis involve issues like textual criticism, syntax, morphology, literary devices, a theology of hermeneutics (interpretive paradigm) and much more. These things can be difficult and complex. However, the basic manner in which God saves souls and propagates the gospel is not complex and Scripture testifies to this in more than one place. Scripture was not written for the philosopher, the lawyer, or the debater, or even the academician in order to provide fodder for debate. It was written for the Christian community so that it could work to transform us into the image of Christ. If we miss that, well then, we are missing everything and in our attempt to attain a most impressive intellectual prowess, I would suggest that we have become fools.

 

 

 

 

---

^[1] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 282.

^[2] Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, vol. 34, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 214.

^[3] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 1 Co 2:14–16.

Interpreting Scripture: How to Avoid Spiritual Cancer

σπούδασον σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ, ἐργάτην ἀνεπαίσχυντον, ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15, NA28 and NASB)

Not since the dark ages have we witnessed such poor handling of sacred Scripture. However, even during those dark years, there remained a high reverence for the sacred stature of the Word of God. They say that familiarity breeds contempt. One might be tempted to say that this is what has happened to the modern Christian’s mindset toward the Bible. However, one could hardly accuse modern Christians of being remotely familiar with Scripture, let alone familiar enough with it to view it so casually as if it were just any other book there for my reading pleasure. And when we find it convenient and we have the luxury of time, perhaps we will open its pages to see what is there, or better yet, how it can serve me in executing on my life’s personal agenda.

“Everything must be done in proper sequence, appropriate proportion, and with the purpose of producing an end product that pleases the one who commissioned the work. Background information, word meanings, the context of a given passage, and many other factors must be judiciously assessed if a valid interpretation is to be attained.” [KÖstenberger, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 60]

“The most personal of Paul’s letters is clearly 2 Timothy.” [KÖstenberger, The Cradle, The Cross, and The Crown, 647] Paul is in prison and his death is imminent. He writes what he knows will be his very last piece of communication to his closest companion and most faithful disciple, Timothy. One would expect that this great apostle, this ambassador of God would speak of those matters for which he had the highest regard. One would expect these subjects in this communication to this all-important leader in the ancient Church would be the ones that should really land on our radar. That is to say, if we are going to start with the really big theological rocks in the biblical stream so to speak, starting in 2 Timothy would not be an unreasonable decision.

“Are the meanings of texts “constructed” by readers, or are meanings “given” through texts by authors? This is a complex question of hermeneutical theory, but on this depends how we seek to answer a basic practical question: Can the Bible mean anything we want it to mean? How can we agree about norms or criteria for the responsible or valid interpretation of Scriptures?” [Thiselton, Hermeneutics, An Introduction, 1-2] In a culture where autonomy and independence reign supreme, modern American Christians seem to believe that no one has the “right” to question their personal understanding of Scripture. In addition, most Christians sitting in the seats on Sunday morning feel that they have some God-given inherent “right” to interpret the Scriptures as if they were on an island without the slightest sense of obligation to “get it right” or any sense at all of the impact their views may have on the Christian community at large. In fact, most Christians have no sense of duty or obligation to the Christian community whatever. Many could care less how their views and even their behavior affect the manner in which those inside and especially outside the community view them and the community as a result of their foolishness. I honestly do not know how hermeneutics can be rescued so long as such apathy is allowed to exist within the Christian community. The world needs to see the community excommunicating people who reject the loving admonition to repent of certain beliefs and unruly living. The world needs to see that the Church has a standard that she takes seriously because God is the source of that standard. Nowhere is it more important for the Church to take action than in the area of Scripture. Most ungodly behavior in the Church begins with the problem of how one views and interprets the Sacred text. Taken seriously, Scripture will produce godly lives growing together in godly communities where the love and fear of God consumes the group. Taken less than seriously, one ends up with a diversity of beliefs and behaviors that don’t even come close to cohering around a unified standard of belief and praxis. This latter statement reflects where we have lived now for decades and decades.

The initial sentence of our text jumps right off the page at you. Paul says, σπούδασον σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ. Literally, “make every effort to present yourself approved to God.” In the name of battling against legalism, we have all but eliminated the idea of striving and fighting to live holy lifestyles in the Church. We give holy living a wink and a nob and then go on about our sinning because, well, after all, we all sin every day. Paul’s command to Timothy really is quite foreign to that kind of thinking. The word σπουδάζω is used 11 times in the NT. Fundamentally it means to hurry or to hasten. It means to make every effort, to be eager, to be diligent. Paul uses it in Galatians 2:10 where he says he was eager to remember the poor. In Eph. 4:3 Paul tells the believers to be diligent in preserving the unity of the Spirit. Peter uses it to command his audience to be all the more diligent to make of His calling and choosing you. (II Peter 1:10) Louw-Nida says it means, “to do something with intense effort and motivation—‘to work hard, to do one’s best, to endeavor.’” In the LXX, it is translated horror in Job 21:6, terrifies in 22:10, dismayed in 22:16. In Isaiah 21:3 it is translated terrified. The Hebrew word that is most often translated σπουδάζω is בהל and it appears some 41 times in the Hebrew Text. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Archer/Waltke/Harris) says be disturbed, disturb, alarm, terrify; to hurry. There is no doubt a great deal of emotional energy bound up in the etymology of this word and this seems to remain over hundreds of years of diachronic shifts. When Paul tells Timothy to “be diligent,” after looking at the usage of this word over hundreds of years, we begin to appreciate the force of what Paul is saying. Suffice it to say, this is far more forceful than the modern idiom, “do your best,” even though that may be as close as we can get to the richness of Paul’s meaning. At the very least, the use of this word should serve to capture our attention now for what is to follow.

“Do your best” to present yourself to God approved! What? This imperative intensifies the command expressed by the infinitive clause that it governs.”^[1]

Hence, presenting oneself to God as one who is examined, not by man, but by God and approved by Him is that for which Timothy is to strive. The question in the context of this pericope centers around how young Timothy is supposed to achieve such a lofty goal. What does this look like in the specific context in which Paul is speaking? This question moves us to the subject of hermeneutics, which is the subject of my post, and the subject of Paul’s central concern with Timothy, so to speak.

Before we get to the point, I would be remiss not to discuss one more rich theological nugget from this text. Paul follows these words by contrasting his positive command with the negative connotation of shame. He uses the phrase, “as a workman who does not need to be ashamed.” This comes from the root αισχρος. The word simply means to feel shame, to be ashamed. However, there is more to the idea of shame in the Mediterranean world of Greco-Roman times than might meet the modern western reader’s eye. “In both the past and present Mediterranean societies, however, honor and shame have played a dominant role in public life.” [Moxnes, Honor and Shame in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 19] Even in America, a few years ago, the family name meant something. You did not want to do anything the reflected poorly on the family name, the family’s honor. Today, younger generations don’t even think about such a concept as they go about conducting their lives before the public. If you use this tactic as a parent in modern America, the response you are likely to get is, “all you care about is your family name, your family honor, what about ME?” The point here is that in order for us to appreciate the NT Text, we must journey back in time and attempt to understand the values of the people in that society. “Honor is the value of a person in his or her own eyes (that is, one’s claim to worth) plus that person’s value in the eyes of his or her social group. Honor is a claim to worth along with the social acknowledgement of worth.” [Malina, The New Testament World, 30] Not only is it important for the private person to live according to the societal code to maintain honor in their own mind, but they are equally concerned with maintaining this honor and avoiding public shame that would result from public failures. This concept served the NT Church very well in her formation and Jesus and His apostles invoked the honor-shame value system throughout the NT. Jesus’ teaching on excommunication is a perfect example of collective shame for those who reject the group’s corrective actions. Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 5. Peter deals with it in his commanded to His audience to be ready to stand up to the antagonists. When Paul uses this language with Timothy, young Timothy has a much richer understanding of what Paul is saying that we do, unless that is, we bother to do our homework on such issues and “do our best” to handle the text appropriately.

What is involved in this “unashamed workman” status that Paul is speaking about? The phrase ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας offers a clue. The material that this worker is to handle correctly is “the word of truth” (τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας). Only when he handles it correctly will he be unashamed (ἀνεπαίσχυντον). The rendering given in several of the modern translations, using a combination of the verb “handle” and some adverb such as “accurately” (NASB), “rightly” (RSV), or “correctly” (NIV), for the compound verb ὀρθοτομοῦντα with the phrase “the word of truth” as the direct object captures this relationship quite well.^[2]

The idea is that the Word of God, the Word of Truth is a tool in the hands of a workman. The workman can perform quality work and show himself approved of the one who hired him or he can perform work of inferior quality and when that work is inspected, he will lose honor and be ashamed for his work will prove to be poor.

Immediately preceding this statement, Paul instructs Timothy to instruct those under his charge not to wrangle about words. In v. 2 of this same chapter, Paul instructs Timothy to entrust these teachings to faithful men. In 1:13 he tells Timothy to “retain the standard of sound words.” Obviously, the immediate and expanded context of our text deals with the matter of hermeneutics. Moreover, that Paul uses words like standard, entrust, diligence, approved, and ashamed indicate the seriousness with which we are to handle the text.

In v. 16 Paul commands Timothy to avoid ‘worldly’ and ‘empty chatter.’ Since failure to avoid these things leads to greater impiety, or greater ungodliness, it is in the best interest of Christians to understand what these things are. What is it to engage in “worldly and empty chatter?” The Greek text actually says, τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστασο, which translates, “but avoid the worthless chatter.” Paul uses the simile of gangrene to describe unrestrained false doctrine. γάγγραινα is disease involving severe inflammation and possibly a cancerous spread of ulcers which eat away the flesh and bones.^[3]

This disease, if left untreated, will spread, which is its nature, to other parts of the body and hence destroy the body. The simile of false doctrine and cancer should arrest the attention of any sober Christian immediately. Moreover, scholars, theologians and pastors are in a most perilous place because it is their occupation to touch the sacred text almost daily for the purpose of interpretation and propagation.

Paul does not leave us hanging. He informs us that two individuals, Hymenaeus and Philetus, have engaged in teaching a view that the resurrection has already passed. In I Tim. 1:20 he says he has turned the former over to Satan. In other words, he has been publicly excommunicated. This is how we treat spiritual cancer. In fact, this is the Chief Physician’s prescription for treating spiritual cancer.

Paul tells Timothy that the Word of God is a tool in his hand like the tool of a workman. He informs Timothy that he must handle that tool skillfully, accurately, cutting the path straight. In the end, the Master for whom he works will inspect the manner in which he employed the tool by reviewing his completed work. With this in mind, Timothy is told to conduct himself like a workman of whom his Master would approve, skillfully using the tool of the Word of God  which has been entrusted to him.

“The desire to keep God’s commandments, the determination to do God’s will – this is the great prerequisite for true biblical understanding.” [Silva, Who Needs Hermeneutics Anyway? In Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 26.] When I think about much of the work that is done in the area of philosophical hermeneutics, linguistics, historical analyses, textual criticism, and a host of other areas, I wonder what the core motivation is of many of the men involved in the work. If it is not to know Scripture so that they may truly know and love God, then one has to wonder just what it is they are doing and why.

What are the implications for hermeneutics that we can derive from II Timothy 2:15? First, deconstructionism, if valid, would make II Timothy 2:15 nonsensical and irrelevant. Therefore, from the very start deconstructionism would be classed among the βεβήλους κενοφωνίας that Paul commands Timothy to shun or avoid. Second, a low view of Scripture would make absolutely no sense in this context since Paul uses the extremely authoritative language and invokes severe consequences for those who refuse to go along with his instructions. Third, that there is a meaning in the text rules out meanings that are not that meaning. In other words, there aren’t multiple accurate meanings in the text, otherwise Paul would have indicated such to Timothy. Accuracy of the tool was foremost in Paul’s mind. Accuracy indicates a normative standard in place for the right handling of the text. That Paul emphasized the importance of this behavior cannot be reasonably denied. Hence, those who ignore this principle do so to their own detriment. In fact, Paul says their teachings will spread like a spiritual cancer which will eventually destroy the entire body. Paul says not to ignore them, but to intentionally shun and avoid them. In other words, put them out from among you. Do not allow them to go unrestrained. The word for shun in the active voice means to stand around someone or to circle, but here, in the middle voice, it means to “turn oneself about” to avoid, “shun.” [Mouton & Millian, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament] To shun someone in the Christian community is to remove them from the community. To think that to avoid someone is just simply to avoid them in the modern sense would be anachronistic. When the Mediterranean mind heard this, they fully understood Paul's sense to be to cut them off from the community. Walk around them, if you will. BDAG says it means to go around so as to avoid. The example is the excommunication of Hymenaeus in I Tim. 1:20. Men who insist on holding to a low view of Scripture, or preferring science over the text, or expanding orthodoxy to the point that it is indistinguishable from heterodoxy have to be examined, corrected, discipled, and brought back from their godless views. Otherwise, they must be shunned, excommunicated because their teachings will spread like spiritual cancer and destroy the body of Christ.

Jesus did not command His apostles to merely go out and preach. He did not command them even to go preach and baptize. No, Jesus commanded His apostles to go make disciples! Disciples are students, but they are more than that. Disciples are students whose entire enterprise now is to learn and understand the teachings of their Master so that they may become just as He is. Implicit in this command to make disciples is the idea of hermeneutics. Teaching, understanding, learning, and student all require communication, interpretation, understanding, and even appropriation and application.

“The Christian interpretation of reality is a function of its interpretation of Scripture, those books set aside as authoritative testimony to the gospel – call it a philosophy of “canonical sense.” It is the sum total of the biblical books, the various parts in their interrelatedness, that communicates the wisdom of the Christian way, which is to say, the wisdom of Christ and the wisdom of the cross.” [Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics, 347]

You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32) Is it any wonder that so many professing Christians live in bondage to sin, to darkness, and to biblical ignorance? The cure is not therapy. The cure is to know the truth, the Son of the Living God! To what shall we turn? He has the very words of eternal life. All that is required of us is that we read them with a passion to understand so that we may please Him in all we do.

 

---

^[1] George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 411.

^[2] George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 412.

^[3] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 271.

The Relationship of Faith and Hermeneutics

A core presupposition of this specific post is that the most important literary project ever produced is the Bible. To be more specific, The Christian Scriptures are the single most important literary work ever to exist in human history. Another presupposition I hold is that genuine Christians receive Scripture for what it is, the very word of God and humbly submit to it. That is to say, true believers do not pick and choose which parts of God’s word they will receive while rejecting the rest. My goal in this post is not to demonstrate the truthfulness of this statement. It is to ask the question, “What does faith have to do with hermeneutics?” Is there a place for faith in the interpretive process of biblical literature? Moreover, if there is a habitation for faith in the interpretive process, what exactly is that place?

There was a time when the Word of God, the Word from God was scarce. Christians could not go down to the bookstore and purchase a Bible alongside a plethora of other books. Most of what people had of the Word from God came from oral tradition and from the elder on Sundays. When someone did possess a copy of Scripture, it was indeed a very special thing. In Modern culture, and especially in the West, and I would imagine in any culture where copies of Scripture are plentiful, there is a casual attitude about ‘the book.’ In the name of bibliolatry, the Bible has been downgraded in many churches to the point that it has become, for all practical purposes, just one more book. It cannot be disputed that ‘the book’ no longer holds the place of prominence it once held, at least in modern American churches. Many of the leaders in the “Emergent Church” in fact, have reduced the Bible to a collection of traditions created and passed down by ancient men who were anti-gay, oppressive to women, and interested only in a god who would keep them prosperous and powerful.

Suffice it to say, the disposition one has toward the Bible will have a serious impact on how they interpret it. Moreover, the faith position of a person will serve as the basis of their disposition toward the Bible. Hence, as I will show, there is an indisputable relationship between faith and hermeneutics.

“While a given interpreter may indeed be devoid of faith and the Holy Spirit and still understand some of the words in Scripture, he will lack the spiritual framework, motivation, and understanding to grasp a given passage in its whole-Bible context.” [KÖstenberger, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 65]

 There are a number of criticisms leveled against Scripture in modern times, even in the Church, that serve to detract from the conviction necessary to have Scripture do the work in our lives that God Himself intends. For instance, there are criticisms against the miracle claims of Scripture, the teachings about women, the husband-wife relationship, an eternal hell, and the gay lifestyle. I have not even mentioned higher critical views that seek to dethrone Scripture at just about every turn. There are those who argue that the canon is an innovation of the church. Then there are the textual critics that claim that the various manuscripts contain so many variants we could never know with any degree of certainty that what we have now is what the first century church had then. Moreover, the deconstructionist argument against the metaphysics of meaning seek to all but destroy any hope of meaningful communication, not just in the text of Scripture, but any text whatever. In the text written to the ancient church in Thessalonica, the apostle Paul wrote these words, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. This phrase translates, “Which also works in you who believe.” What works in them? Here is the entire verse in English: “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” (I Thess. 2:13)

Here is the main point: God’s word is supposed to be working in us. Scripture was given by God, through human authors with perlocutionary intent. That is to say, God gave us revelation-by-proposition in order to change us. God gave Scripture in order to produce something in us and that something was not simply to increase knowledge.

 

We have looked again at the risk-taking nature of knowledge, this time in our understanding of faith and hermeneutics. Polanyi has shown that all knowledge is about personal commitment and risk, Barth that any statement of one’s exegetical conclusions will involve a risk-taking affirmation. All, including postmodernists, take a risk in holding their presuppositions, authorities and methods dear. So to adopt the authority of the church is no less academically respectable or philosophically rigorous than espousing any other authority. In terms of gospel interpretation, consistency and maintaining the appropriate relationship between text and community—with all the consequences and ramifications discussed—would point towards a distinct preference for ‘theological’ presuppositions not a necessity to apologise for them.^[1]

 KÖstenberger writes, “Rather than adopting a critical stance toward Scripture, we should rather submit to it as our final authority in all areas of life. An essential quality required of the biblical interpreter is therefore humility.” [KÖstenberger, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 63] One of the essential views of Scripture pertains to its nature. It is the Word of God. It is of divine origin through human vessels. If one fails to take into consideration the nature of Scripture, they are sure to fail in their endeavor to attain a sufficient understanding of its content. You may ask, “How does one know when they have arrived at a sufficient understanding of a particular text?” I think the Pauline text quoted above in his project to the ancient Thessalonians offers a clue. A sufficient understanding is one that produces the specific performance that God intended Scripture to have on the Christian heart. We all know that when it happens. While I am cautious about uncritical approaches to the text and especially in the area of exegesis, I am far more concerned with methods that approach Scripture from a purely rationalistic and radically skeptical perspective.

All too often in the Christian community, we fail to strike a balanced approach to hermeneutics. Christians are either reading the Scripture discursively and retaining absolutely nothing about it, or they are busy reading their own culture back into the text, or they have unwittingly adopted radically critical approaches that treat the Word of God like it has to pass their lofty standards in order to be received for truth. In many cases, Christians simply don’t read the Bible because pastors have been telling them for years now that doctrine doesn’t really matter. In other cases, professing Christians are ashamed to admit they believe the Bible, that they actually have faith in its content. In American culture, one of the most foolish things a person can say today is that they believe something because it is in the Bible. You don’t have to look any further than the young earth or the homosexual issue to recognize that the Biblical teachings on these issues has long since been regarded as, well, incredibly naïve if not down-right silly. It seems to me then, that when we talk about hermeneutics outside the context of faith, outside the context of the deep conviction that the text before us is sacred, is true, is actually the revelation of God Himself to His elect, we journey outside the bounds necessary to be successful at the very endeavor for which we strive: a right understanding of the Sacred Text.

So where are we? We know that hermeneutics encompasses matters such as, the nature of Scripture, the structure and formation of the canon, the process of determining or identifying the text itself (textual criticism), and a theology (philosophy?) of hermeneutics. Without a theology or philosophy of hermeneutics, the entire enterprise is an exercise in futility. When we begin a journey, we begin by pointing ourselves in the right direction. If we initiate our journey pointed ever so slightly in the wrong direction by even a fraction of an inch, then the longer our journey, the more off course we shall be. Beginning the journey of biblical interpretation without faith is one way in which to initiate that journey by pointing in the wrong direction.

I think about the critics of how the Sacred Canon came to its final form. I read the skepticism that pervades much of academia and recognize that most of what passes for scholarship is cleverly disguised philosophical bias, godless worldviews dressed up in Christian garb. These academicians are nothing more than educated-skeptics, reading each other’s books, writing and grading one another’s exams, and marking each other’s papers. I cannot help but ask why Jesus and His apostles were confronted with the same complexities we are with regard to their canon, yet they  preached, taught, and wrote with amazing confidence and passionate conviction about the revelation of God that was and is the Old Testament Scripture. I read the hype and sensational views of one Bart Ehrmann on the difficulty and even impossibility of locating the actual text of either of the testaments, especially the new. Once again, I am amazed that Jesus and His apostles had the very same textual difficulties we do and yet with amazing faith in what they called the Holy Scriptures, they thundered away, preaching and teaching about the things written in the Law, the Prophets, and the writings, as if they knew what the text was. Moreover, they did so with seemingly great certainty. If we did what Jesus and His apostles did, the skeptics club, which includes some supposed evangelical theologians, would accuse us of being the epitome of arrogance. The skeptics club has a great deal of faith in human reason, in rationalism, in well, the power of skepticism as a legitimate epistemological frame for understanding not only the world, but even the text of the world beyond.

You see then that the relationship between faith and hermeneutics is unbreakable. Faith is involved in every endeavor to interpret the text we call the Bible. Either you have faith in God, the One who gave us the text, who aided the believing community in their quest to recognize it and distinguish it from foreign substitutes, the One who made certain that what we have today is what He gave them yesterday. Or, you have faith in unaided human reason and your skills as an interpreter to be able, on your own steam to grasp the text like a wrestler his opponent and to grapple it into submission. To be sure, submission is a key component of hermeneutics. But are we to submit Scripture to our prior understandings and worldview, or will Scripture submit and subdue our godless worldview, performing its work in us as Paul commanded the ancient church of Thessalonica?

“For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” (I Thess. 2:13)

---

^[1] Rosalind M. Selby, Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 163.

The Christian's Reasonable Service: Exegetical Treatment of Romans 12:1

That the book of Romans was written to a mixed audience of Gentiles and Jews is beyond any reasonable dispute. Scholars are not agreed on which group held the majority in Rome, but most agree that both groups had significant enough numbers within the community to make it necessary to address the church with some degree of balance. The letter begins with Paul's authority as an apostle and quickly moves toward his main subject, the righteousness of God (which is by faith in Christ). He contends that God's righteousness has been revealed in Christ, that God has shut both Jew and Gentile up under sin, and that both groups must come through Christ in order to obtain a right-standing before God. Moreover, this coming to Christ is an act of faith, of entirely trusting that Jesus is the promised Messiah, that God spoke through Him finally, that God's revelation has terminated in the person and work of Christ. Of course, this work would be recorded under the supervision and inspiration of the Holy Spirit as He presided over the record of the NT Text.

After addressing issues touching both groups, Paul spends a great deal of time devoted to the fidelity of God in His covenant dealings with the nation of Israel in Romans 9-11. Many scholars believe that Paul was concerned to elevate the covenant and fidelity of God while also giving the Gentiles some perspective on Israel's place in God's program of salvation so as to guard or address potential anti-semitism as well. It is immediately after three chapters of discussion regarding this latter subject that Paul moves into the subject text of this blog.

As we examine the final words in Romans 11, we discover that vss. 33-36 are a doxology or song by Paul given in thanks to God. This raises the question of connection between the Greek word οὖν which stands at the beginning of chapter 12 and the thought with which it should be related either in chapter 11 or someplace previous to chapter 12. Cranfield asks the same question. He agrees that οὖν "is here better understood not as a mere transition particle, but as having full force and indicating that what is going to be said follows from what has already been said." [Cranfield, ICC, Romans, v. II p. 595] Whether Paul is connecting οὖν (therefore) to the entire epistle (Cranfield) or to 9-11 (most scholars) is difficult to say. I see an immediate connection located in the final summary of Paul in 11:32: "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." This seems to be a central theme of the epistle, if not the central theme. Righteousness comes by faith alone in Christ alone as a result of God's grace alone...THEREFORE! 

Paul moves from theology to praxis in short order in the text of Romans 12:1. Regardless of what some incompetent men may say in modern times, theology is the sine qua non of Christian praxis. This false dichotomy of practical versus doctrinal Christianity is demonic deception in its optimum form. Paul, after pointing back to the deep theological truths of God revealed in Christ, points us forward. Because "this" is true, therefore I "Παρακαλῶ" (Parakalo) you! I urge you. Rogers says the word means to exhort, to encourage someone to do something. He says it was used of exhorting troops who were about to go into battle. [Rogers & Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p.338] The Lemma is used 109 times in the Greek NT. It is used in 8:5 when the Capernaum Centurion "implored" Christ to heal his servant. In Luke 8, the demons "implored" Christ not to send them into the abyss. It is used again by Luke in Acts 21:12 when they were begging Paul not to go to Jerusalem for fear he could be killed. The emotional content of the word seems clear enough. Paul is urging the Roman Christians, imploring them, begging them to do something in this text that is apparently quite important.

Next, Paul employs the use of the NT vocative case to address the Roman Christians. Based on morphology and syntax, we know that ἀδελφοί, brothers, is vocative plural. The "brothers" are the subject of address. In this construction, it is a case of simple address. However, the use of the vocative, even in this context, would have served to get the attention of the Romans. It would have had the effect of someone telling their audience in modern times, "now, pay close attention to what I am about to say." This technique is designed to recapture an audience that may be on the verge of wondering off. Paul wants the Romans to listen, because what he is about to say is very important.

The phrase διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, which translates "by the mercies (mercy) of God" serves either as Paul's basis for his appeal or as the means by which this offering, this living sacrifice can and must be made. "What he is appealing to as the basis of his exhortation is the compassion of God revealed in God's dealing with men through Jesus Christ." [Cranfield, ICC, Romans, V. II p. 596] "But this exhortation teaches us, that until men really apprehend how much they owe to the mercy of God, they will never with a right feeling worship him, nor be effectually stimulated to fear and obey him." [Calvin, Romans, p. 450] Paul here is pointing us up to the great mercy and compassion in God as the basis for why we should do as he is about to command. In light of such gracious and merciful acts and gifts on the part of God, what does a reasonable response look like? Here is one example of a "patron-client contract." This relationship predominated in Greco-Roman culture. The contract tied two individuals of different social standings together. The patron would provide a gift to the client who in return would respond in an honorable manner. While the response was not a legal part of the contract, it was the only way a person in that culture could preserve their honor. Perserving honor in Greco-Roman culture was of the utmost importance. It was, after all, a predominatly honor-shame based culture. Few things were worse than public shame in Greco-Roman times. Paul uses this kind of thinking to urge the Romans to respond to God's gracious acts of mercy which may be seen as the kind benevolence of a patron toward undeserving patrons. The greater the gift or kindness extended by the patron, the more profound the response for the client.

παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, translated is "to present your bodies." παραστῆσαι is an aorist infinitive. When we think of verbs, we think of type and time of action. Johnny hit the ball. The type of action here is active. Johnny "hit" the ball. The subject acted on the object, he HIT the ball. We also think in terms of time. When did this action take place? Was it past, present or future. In Greek, verbs also have aspect. In fact, recent studies indicate that it is possible that aspect concerned the writer more than the time of the action. By aspect we mean the kind of action. This refers to the writers perspective of the kind of action he is writing about. The aorist tense used by Paul looks at the action in its entirety. This tense expresses the entire act of hitting the ball. It does not emphasize the when or express the how, and it does not focus on the act as completed or even the consequences as a result of hitting the ball. Paul is concerned that the Romans respond to God in a way that not only reflects honor, but that reflects honor as the Christian ethic would define honor from beginning to end as a completed whole. The aorist infinitive, is controlled by the main verb of this text, which is
Παρακαλῶ. Paul is strong urging or exhorting the Roman Christians. But what is he exhorting them to do? The Aorist infinitive παραστῆσαι tells us that Paul is exhorting the Roman Christians "to present." Dan Wallace uses the analogy, "I told you to do the dishes." I told" is the controlling verb and "to do" is the infinitive which is the main verb of the clause "to do the dishes."

"It is much more likely that παραστῆσαι is here used as a technical term of religious ritual with the meaning "to offer." Paul's use here reminds us of his use just a few pages back where in 6:19 he contrasts presenting our members as slaves to unrighteousness with that of presenting them as slaves to righteousness. Again, in 6:16 he points out that when a person presents themself as a slave for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey. And again in 6:13 he commands, "do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as intruments of unrighteousness." Now, here is 12:1, the Romans are commanded to present their bodies, not part of their bodies, not some of their bodies, but their bodies en toto. The Christian is to offer to God himself entire - himself in the whole of his concrete life." [Cranfield, ICC, Romans, p. 599] In order to inform our minds of what Paul means here, I think it prudent for the Christian to harken back to Romans 6 where Paul uses similar language to describe the Christians relationship to sin and to righteous living. It is here that we see the lines of the painting filled in with the glorious colories of Paul's thoughts. It is in Romans 6 that Romans 12:1 finds its concreteness.

Thus far, Paul has strongly exhorted the Roman Christians to present their bodies. But what and how are they to present their bodies? Moreover, to what or whom are they to present their bodies? This brings us to our next few words, θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον. This series of words appearing in the Greek text of Romans are not without some difficulty. However, the context in which they appear affords a great deal of help in understanding what Paul is getting at. As Cranfield notes, "So we take  θυσίαν to mean 'as a sacrifice' in the sense of the material of the sacrifice, the victim." The audience would have been intimately familiar with the cultic idea of sacrifice. Greco-Roman culture along with its Judaism were both immersed in the idea. "But the centrality of sacrifice in ancient religion made it a natural and inevitable vehicle for the early Christians to express their own religious convictions. At the same time, the NT use of the cultic language has an important salvation-historical and polemical function, claiming for Christianity the fulfillment of those institutions so central to the OT and to Judaism." [Moo, NICNT, Romans, p. 750]

The adjective ζῶσαν contrasts the typical results of animal sacrifies which is death. This adjective modifies θυσίαν and hence indicates that even though a sacrifice has been made, this sacrifice is a living one. It is not a presentation of living bodies, but a presentation of our entire bodies as a living sacrifice. "The sacrifice of which Paul writes demands not the destruction but the full energy of life." [Morris, PNCT, Romans, p. 434] At the same time, we cannot, we must not lose sight of death in discipleship. Christ spoke of losing one's life to find it and Paul also mentions that he is crucified with Christ. The language of dying and death serve throughout the NT as a metophor of this living sacrifice and of what it means to exit the secular group and cross over into the Christian group, the Jesus sect. The contrast of life in the world and life in the Christian community could not be more obvious.

Finally, this offering is holy and acceptable to God. The phrase is ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ. This act is holy and pleasing to God. That is to say, it is set apart from the profane and especially devoted to serve the true and living God. The idea of this last phrase is threefold: 1) it is living, 2) it is holy, 3) it is pleasing to God. [Cranfield]

Finally, we come to τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν. Paul says that such an act on our part is our reasonable or rational service or worship. But is this idea anachronistic? Are we reading our idea of 'reasonable' back into Paul's use of this word? "This self-offering is our "reasonable" or "logical" worship (cf. 1 Pet. 2:2, 5). Here the Jerusalem Bible is helpful with its paraphrase: "worship worthy of thinking beings." Worship, that is, reflective of what we know and recognize to be true of God and what God has done. Humans are capable of being rational and recognizing that God is worthy of worship. Paul here is again perhaps drawing on a connection with thought that would be familiar to his Roman audience. Epictetus 1.16.20–21 says: "If I were a nightingale, I should be singing as a nightingale; if a swan as a swan. But as it is I am a rational (logikos) being, therefore I must be singing hymns of praise to God." Paul is also in some respects close here to Philo, who says "The soul … ought to honor God not irrationally nor ignorantly, but with knowledge and reason" (Special Laws 1.209)." [Witherington III, Ben. Paul's Letters to the Romans, p. 285]

Paul's transition from theology to praxis could not be more sacrosanct. Hence, the connection between rich theology and passionate Christian living could not be more solidified that it is in this text. Christians, on the basis of God's mercy, compasion, love, and grace are to respond to the divine Patron like an honorable client. The presentation of Christ as the gift of God to the undeserving demands a response commensurate with the quality and nature of gift that it represents. So often we are told in Scripture to live in a manner worthy of our calling. Every time I read these texts, I am left feeling like such a state is far beyond my grasp. Yet, the measure of that living is not found in the end results themselves, but in the energy required to even put forth the attempt. And that is what matters. We know we will fall short and we will do so repeatedly. But the energy we spend getting back up, acknowledging our sinfulness, and re-engaging in the effort to shake the profane thing from our lives this time is really where this living matters. In the end, we recognize that humans could never offer a response commensuate with such a gift no matter the energy and effort spent on the endeavor. And we rest, on the hand, on the resolve to do our best, and on the other hand, on the knowledge of the fact that here too, as in every other area, we fall short and are reminded that grace is pouring out upon us even as we fail to respond as we desire. (Romans 7 is a good place to see this in Paul)