Thoughts on the PROVIDENCE OF GOD

The providence of God is not spoken of much in these modern times. However, it is still as active as ever. The providence of God is the outworking of His sovereignty in which He overrules in the affairs of men. Grudem defines it as follows:

God’s is continually involved with all created things in such a way that he (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill his purposes.[1]

Providence works mostly behind the scenes. It is the unseen hand of God that is working out His purpose in history and individuals. He rules and overrules in successes and failures of men (Luke 1:52; 1 Samuel 2:6-8). He is in the accidental and insignificant things of life (Proverbs 16:33). He upholds, puts down, and overrules the destines of man, saved and unsaved (Palms 11:6). All men are in the hands of God's providence.

---

[1]  Wayne Grudem, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 315.

A STUDY OF PHILIPPIANS 3:8-10

4. Paul’s Present Values—Phil. 3:7-11 (Continued)

At this point, let me point out that verse 8 is part of one large sentence (verses 8-11). The sentence turns on the conjunction “so that” of verse 8. The conjunction hina (that) indicates purpose of counting things lost. From this point on Paul is indicating what gain entails. Hawthorne points out that this phrase points to the motives for counting everything as loss (3:8-10): “They are (1) that he might “gain Christ,” (2) “that he might be found in Christ,” and (3) “that he might know Christ and the power of his resurrection.”[1] Notice that these are progressive in nature.

The reason and purpose of his conversion is in order to gain Christ (Phil 3:8c). This is Christ Himself, not merely the favor of Christ.[2] On the road to Damascus he realized that Christ was the pearl of great price. He could gain the whole world but never find such value (cf. Matthew 16:26). Everything else is rubbish in relation to gaining Christ. Paul goes on to explain what it means to gain Christ. This is shown by the connector and (kai), which goes on to expand and explain what it means to gain Christ; it is to be found in Him (Phil. 3:9). It is in the aorist passive subjunctive, which indicates that by faith he is already found in Christ. It speaks of our position in Christ as well as our fulfilled expectation and reality in the future. “There is also in this construction the idea of the future, the sense that Paul has both gained Christ and is yet to gain Christ.”[3]

Being found in Him involves righteousness. Paul now contrasts two types of righteousness and their sources and the channel by which true righteousness comes. One is what I term negative righteousness, the other is positive righteousness. Verse 9 breaks down this way:

            Not having      

                 My 

                      Righteousness   

                        The one out of the law

                                  But the one through faith in Christ

                        The one out of God    

                       Righteousness

                   Upon faith[4]

The desire to be found in Him is followed by long phrases of contrast. It is a contrast between righteousness through the law and righteousness through faith. The first I call negative righteousness or righteousness because it has no real value. It is righteousness that comes out of the law. This type of righteousness has as its source the Law. Scripture makes clear: “Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20 cf. Galatians 3:11). In the book of Galatians, Paul makes clear what the Law cannot do:

·         The Law cannot justify (Gal. 2:16)

·         The Law cannot make righteous (Gal. 2:21)

·         The Law cannot give the Spirit (Gal. 3:2)

·         The Law cannot give an inheritance (Gal. 3:18)

·         The Law cannot impart life (Gal. 3:21)

·         The Law cannot give freedom (Gal. 5:1)

·         The Law cannot give grace (Gal. 5:4)

“Not having a righteousness of my own derived from the law” (Phil. 3:9). Yet, in verse 6 he declared “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” What gives here? There is righteousness in the Law, however it is not sufficient. It is righteousness of reformation; not redemption. All the Law can do is reform us; it cannot redeem us. That is why Paul counted it as loss. It is insufficient to make us righteous before God, for it has no power to change us. It is not an instrument of inward change, but of condemnation. The phrase “derived from the law” points to the Law as the source or origin of this type of righteousness. Works is the means of this righteousness. The grammar focus is on the quality of this righteousness, i.e. it is Paul’s own.[5] Eadie notes: “His own righteousness was out of the law, or originated by the law, and it was through his own effort that he obtained it.”[6]

“But” is a vital word in this text. It is a word of contrast. It reveals or leads us to the channel of positive righteousness in contrast to the negative righteousness of the law. This righteousness comes not out of the law, but “that which is through faith in Christ” (Phil 3:9b). It is in contrast to the righteousness that comes out of the Law. Righteousness in this text is two different types. These two are mutually exclusive. The first is that of moral righteousness achieved by Paul out of obedience to the Law. The second is “out of God,” which comes through the channel of “faith in Christ.” There is some debate as to how to understand this phrase. Is it the “faith of Christ” (KJV) or “faith in Christ.” The Greek phrase is ambiguous.[7] How the phrase pisteos Christou should be translated is one of “the most debated”[8] as to taking it as an objective or subjective genitive. Most take it as an objective genitive, making Christ the object of faith.[9] It is the faith of the believer in Christ. Others argue for it being a subjective genitive,[10] thereby making this reference to Christ’s faith or faithfulness. Wallace makes a worthwhile observation that should be pointed out: “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept…, but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for He Himself is faithful.”[11] However, the debate continues but because of the ambiguity of the phrase it may not be settled by grammar alone. Both views are grammatically are equally possible. At this point, my view is that it is best to uphold the objective genitive view. I agree with Silva that, “Ambiguous grammatical forms should be interpreted in the light of unambiguous ones, and the very repetition of Gal. 2:16 (‘faith in Christ’ twice; ‘we believe in Christ Jesus’ once) support the traditional understanding.”[12]

This kind of righteousness has a different origin (from God), basis (the basis of faith), and means of reception (though faith), than the righteousness that comes out of the Law. The “righteousness that comes from God” is the central driving force of the verse. It is a righteousness that God provides. It is an imputed righteousness because we are “made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). It is by God’s doing that we are “in Christ” who “has became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). The essence of verse 9 is that true righteousness comes not by our own effort but by exercising “faith in Christ.” Faith is not simply intellectual assent about Christ, but the act of personal trust alone in the person and work in Christ. This verse gives us the essence of justification by faith alone.

Verse 10 refers back to verse 8, and gives the next aim of Paul in his relation to Christ. In verses 8-9 his aim was to gain Christ and speaks of salvation. The Second aspect of his aim is to know or experience Christ. The emphasis is on the phrase “That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death” (Phil 3:10). Paul moves from the essence of justification (verse 9) to sanctification (verse 10). Tou gnonai (I may know) is an infinitive indicating purpose, which is to have a personal relationship, experiential knowledge. This is more than just knowing about someone or having an acquaintance; that knowledge is just factual. Paul is speaking of a knowledge that comes from a personal relationship. There are three elements to this:

• (1) To know Him. Gromacki states that “Paul knew that he had salvation; now he wanted to know the Savior.”[13] He is speaking of a deeper growing knowledge. Included in this deeper knowledge is further explained by the next two elements: the power of His resurrection and fellowship of His sufferings. O’Brien clearly indicates the apostle intends to explain what is meant by knowing Christ through resurrection power and fellowship of suffering. They are no suggestion of temporal distinction as to time or sequence.[14] Both are equally a part of knowing Christ better.
• (2) The power of His resurrection. This speaks of experiential power of the resurrection in the life of the believer. Paul continually shows it is an element of Christian living. In Ephesians 1:18-19 he tells that “the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe” is the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. The power of the resurrection is so we could “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4-5). Morris comments on Romans 6:5—“Paul is primarily concerned with the present moral life of the believer; this is part of his argument that we should not continue in sin so that grace may abound. He is emphasizing that the believer has already risen to new life.”[15]
• (3) The fellowship of His sufferings. To know Christ better involves not only being resurrected in newness of life, but sharing in the sufferings of Christ. Paul knew what it was to share Christ’s suffering (cf. Romans 8:17; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; 2 Cor.1:5). In Colossians Paul states: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part what which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church” (Colossians 1:24). By this, Paul does not mean that the suffering of Christ was insufficient nor that he could add to the merit of Christ’s suffering. But rather it is fellowship of suffering with and for Christ. The idea of fellowship is joint participation. “No believer can die for sins as Christ did, but he can suffer for the sake of righteousness as he permits Christ to live out His life through him” notes Gromacki. Peter notes that this suffering involves: [a] Suffering for doing well (1 Peter 2:20); [b] for righteousness (1 Peter 3:14); [c] for the name of Christ (1 Peter 4:16); [d] and is according to the will of God (1 Peter 4:19). As we grow in our knowledge of Christ and the power of His resurrection, so will the fellowship of His sufferings.

 “Being conformed to His death” (Phil. 3:10) modifies the fellowship of His sufferings. Eadie says, “This conformity to His death accompanies the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings.”[16] The present tense of the word conform indicates continuity of a process, which will not be completed until the final day of his life.[17] Conforming to His death is a process which suffering brings to the believer. The suffering and death of Christ was a continual process which was inseparable from the Cross. Some indicate that the conforming to death indicates martyrdom. However, that does not seem to be the case for two reasons: First, this is not indicated in the text. Second, that is hard to fit in with the present tense. O’Brien’s view of it being a metaphor of incorporation is a better view. It is a part of Paul teaching of our identification with Christ and our union with His death and resurrection. “Paul who was united with Christ in his death on the cross is continually being conformed to that death as he shares in Christ’s sufferings.”[18] The incorporation is clearly indicated in Romans 6:5-6. It’s putting into action our position (Romans 6:11). Silva observes: “The participation of believers in Christ’s death includes not only their definitive breach with sin, but also those sufferings they undergo by virtue of their union with Christ.”[19]

To be continued…

---

[1]  Hawthorne, WBC:PHILIPPIANS, 139.

[2]  Ibid, 139.

[3]  Ibid, 140.

[4]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS 185; O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 394.

[5]  O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 394.

[6]  Eadie, PHILIPPIANS, 3:9.

[7]  Loh and Nida, TRANSLATORS HANDBOOK: PHILIPPIANS, 102.

[8]  Wallace, BEYOND THE BASICS, 114. See his discussion on pages 114-116.

[9]  These include Lenski, Loh and Nida, Kent, Gromacki, Muller, and Hawthorne.

[10]  These include the Companion Bible; Wallace, Wuest, and O’Brien. O’Brien makes a case for this, see his discussion in WBC: PHILIPPIANS, 398-400.

[11]  Wallace, BEYOND THE BASICS, 116.

[12]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 187.

[13]  Gromacki, STAND UNITED, 150.

[14]  O’Brien, 403.

[15]  Leon Morris, PNTC: ROMANS, 250.

[16]  Eadie, PHILIPPIANS, 3:10.

[17]  O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 408.

[18]  Ibid, 410.

[19]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 191.

Happy Easter

DEATH OF THE APOSTLES

Tradition on how the Apostles died. All but one died through suffering.They knew experienced first hand the fellowship of suffering (Phil 3:10).

1.      Matthew  -- Suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

2.      Mark -- Died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by Horses through the streets until he was dead.

3.      Luke  -- Was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous Preaching to the lost. 

4.     John --  Faced martyrdom when he was boiled in huge Basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death.  John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison Island of Patmos.  He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully. 

5.     Peter -- He was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross.  According to church tradition it was because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die In the same way that Jesus Christ had died. 

6.     James  --  The leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club.  *This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation. 

7.     James the Great -- Son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus Called him to a lifetime of ministry.  As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem.  The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution.  Overcome by  conviction,  he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian. 

8.     Bartholomew -- Also known as Nathaniel was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed for our Lord in present day Turkey.  Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia where he was flayed to death by a whip.  

9.     Andrew -- Was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Petrus, Greece.  After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony.  His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour.  The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.'  He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired. 

10. Thomas -- Was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the Sub-continent.   

11.  Jude -- Was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.  

12. Matthias -- The apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded. 

13. Paul -- Was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67.  Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment, which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire.  

A STUDY OF 2 CORINTHIANS 1:3-7

THE COMFORT OF GOD

James R. Gray

God has not promised us a rose garden. Even if that were true, we must remember that roses come with thorns. Life is a battlefield and war has its victums, which at times we are one of them. People hurt including Christians. Stress and suffering is no respecter of person. One of the greatest needs today is real solid comfort.

In 2 Corinthians 1:3-11, the Apostle Paul deals with God’s comfort. Ten times in these verses the word comfort appears, and is a key word in this chapter. It also appears a number of times in this letter (5:20; 6:1; 7:4,6,7, 13; 9:5; 10:1; 12:8, 18; 13:11). The English word comfort comes from the Latin meaning to strengthen. The Greek word is parklesis, a compound word (Para—beside; kaleo—to call) meaning a calling to one’s side to help or strengthen by means of exhortation encouragement, or consolation. Comfort is not sympathy. Sympathy weakens; to be comforted is to draw strength from another.

THE SOURCE OF COMFORT (2 Corinthians 1:3-4a)

The source of all comfort is God the Father. He is the “God of all comfort.” In the title, “Father of mercy,” we see His tenderness; in the title “God of all comfort,” we have His effectiveness.

Because He is the “God of all comfort;” He comforts us. God reaches into the lives of men and brings them comfort, encouragement, and strength. God’s comfort is active in the lives of His people. The word “comfort” at the beginning of verse 4 is a present, active particle, denoting continual action. God continually comforts. Not wonder Peter tells us to cast all our anxiety and care upon Him, “because He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7). The word care is melei, third person singular, signifying that we are the object of His care, “especially the care of forethought and interest.”[1] God’s comfort comes from His personal interest in His children. He is the source of their comfort.

THE PLACE OF COMFORT (2 Corinthians 1:4b)

The place where God comforts is “in all our tribulations.” The preposition is epi denoting the basis upon which comfort comes. It is in tribulation. The word means pressure, stress, or anything which burdens the spirit, either spiritual or physical. The comfort of God does not necessarily remove the pressure or stress (although it is possible); rather it consists of helping one to bear the distress of pressure with failing or fainting. It is a part of God’s enabling grace that strengthens one to endurance. His grace is sufficient in all circumstances (2 Corinthians 12:9).

The channels of this enabling grace are clearly indicated in the Scripture. Included are Christ ( 2 Corinthians 3:5), the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; Acts 9:31), the Word (Romans 15:3), and other believers (2 Corinthians 3:6-7; Colossians 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 3:2). God’s comfort flows to us through these channels.

THE PURPOSE OF GOD’S COMFORT (2 Corinthians 1:4c)

God’s never-failing comfort has a purpose—“that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.” The purpose of receiving God’s comfort is never self-centered. Its purpose is not only for our benefit, but to benefit others as well. By receiving the comfort of God, we are to become channels of that comfort. It is given to be used by passing it on to others. Personal edification and comfort is to be communicated. God comforts us so we can comfort others. Receiving God’s comfort brings indebtedness of service, so we may give His comfort to others. God’s enabling grace is not only to endure; it is also to enabling service. He enables us to endure our circumstance so that we may serve by communicating God’s comfort to others.

THREE FACTS ABOUT THE COMFORT OF GOD (2 Corinthians 1:5-7).

After praising God for His comfort, Paul now turns to the application of that comfort in personal experience. In doing so, Paul gives us three facts about God’s comfort.

1. Comfort abounds in suffering (1:5)

Those who do not suffer do not comfort. It is in our suffering the “sufferings of Christ,” that we find the comfort of God. The suffering of Christ is not a reference to the suffering of our Lord upon the cross. That is a completed event and does not continue in the life of the believer (Romans 5:8-10; 6:10). Only Christ could suffer as a sinless substitute and die (1 Peter 2:21-25). Rather, the sufferings of Christ are those we suffering because of our identification with Christ. Warren Wiersbe says,

There are some sufferings that we endure simply because we are human and subject to pain, but there are other sufferings that come because we are God’s people and want to serve Him.[2]

It is when we suffer because we are God’s people that we enter into the sufferings of Christ.

As the suffering “abounds,” so does the comfort of God. The Greek word is perisseuo  meaning to exceed a measure, to be overflowing. The stress in this text is not in the abundance, but the quantity of the abundance. The suffering never outweighs the comfort or encouragement of God. The greater the suffering—the greater the comfort. Charles Hodge notes:

 This makes the great difference between the sorrows of believers and those of unbelievers. Alienation from Christ does not secure freedom from suffering, but it cuts off from the only source of consolation.[3]

2. Comfort is activated by endurance (1:6)

Comfort is “effective in the patient enduring of the same sufferings.” The Greek word for effective is energeo and is where we get the English word for energy. The preposition “in” (en) denotes the sphere of operation. Comfort operates in the sphere of endurance. Paul is not simply saying that comfort brings endurance, but that comfort is activated by endurance. Those who do not endure do not need comfort: they need forgiveness. To endure may bring suffering, but it also brings comfort. Endurance (hypomane) has the meaning of steadfastness in the face of unpleasant circumstances and pain (2 Corinthians 6:4; Romans 5:3; Colossians 1:11). As we endlure, we find comfort. God has abundant grace for our need, yet He does not bestow it in advance, but at the time of need (Hebrews 4:16). It is in endurance that we find comfort.

3. Comfort ministers in sharing (1:7)

Part of the price of ministry is exposure to, and sharing in the sufferings of others. Comfort is mutual, never exclusive. What was happening to Paul was for the Corinthians encouragement and welfare. Even as observers they become partakers of God’s comfort and encouragement. It made them mutual partakers of God’s enabling grace. It strengthened, comforted, and encouraged them.

What are your circumstances? Are you finding the comfort of God? If not, is it because you do not know the God of comfort? You can by an act of faith, receiving Christ in your life (cf. John 1:12, Ephesians 2:8-10). As a believer, this enabling grace in the time of need comes from the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16).

Reprinted from The Berean Advocate, June 1988.

---

[1]  W.E. Vine, EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY, (Revell; Old Tappan, NJ: 1981), 1:169.

[2]  Warren Wiersbe, BE ENCOURAGED, (Victor; Wheaton, IL: 1984), 15.

[3]  Charles Hodge, COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, (Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, n.d.) 7.

CONTEXT

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

By James R. Gray

I came across an article on the internet on words that are contronyms—words that are their own antonyms. Being somewhat of a writer it drew by attention. It starts with these words:

“Here’s an ambiguous sentence for you: “Because of the agency’s oversight, the corporation’s behavior was sanctioned.” Does that mean, 'Because the agency oversaw the company’s behavior, they imposed a penalty for some transgression' or does it mean, 'Because the agency was inattentive, they overlooked the misbehavior and gave it their approval by default'?” [1]

There are two antonyms in this sentence. Oversight, which can mean oversee which indicates supervision, or it can mean overlook, which is the opposite, indicating failing to see. Second is the word sanction, which can mean to give official permission or it can mean to impose a penalty. 

A word cannot mean two things at once. It must mean one or the other. By itself the sentence above could be taken either way. What is missing? It is context. Context will determine which meaning is correct. Context is vital to understanding correctly the written word. Rarely is a statement an island unto itself, that is, without a context. The correct understanding of a word or sentence is based not only on definition, but context as well. This is true of any written communication.

The Bible student must come to the Bible using the same concept. As an old professor has said: “The first three rules of Bible study are context, context, and context.”  Roy Zuck gives us three reasons why context is important:[2]

1. Words, phrases, and sentences can have conflicting or multiple meanings, which context will aid in the correct meaning.
2. Thoughts are expressed by a series of words or sentences, all of which are in relation with one another, not isolated from one another. That relationship is context. Context gives the intent and purpose of the writer.
3. Misunderstanding often arises from ignoring or not knowing the context. By not knowing or ignoring the context makes a statement ambiguous leading to distorting or misunderstanding the correct meaning, or simply getting the meaning wrong.

Context are the words, phrases, sentences or passages that throw light on the meaning of a word or sentence by the interrelation which exists or occurs by what surrounds the sentence or word. For the bible expositor it includes what is immediately before and after a passage, the dispensation in which is written, the message of the entire book, and the historical-cultural environment. Context is vital to correct understanding. To withdraw or isolate a statement from its context leads to misunderstanding, confusion, and even reverses the intended meaning. All of this must be considered by the Bible student.

---

[1] Judith B. Herman, “14 Words That Are Their Own Opposites,” www.Mentalfloss.com.

[2] Roy B. Zuck, BASIC BIBLE INTERPRETATION, (Victor Books, Wheaton IL), 106-107.

A Study of Philippians 3:7-8

4. Paul’s Present Values—Phil. 3:7-11

Now Paul draws a basic conclusion, what were seemingly advantages are in reality liabilities. He declares in Romans 8:3-4: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that, the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Because of what the Law could not do, God did in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Paul concludes: “But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted loss for the sake of Christ” (Phil. 3:7). Again we find the conjunction of contrast (but; alla). Paul now contrasts his past values with his present one. Those things refer to the seven points of Paul’s past that he took pride in (Phil. 3:5-6). They produced legalistic pride but little else. He realized it was what God did; not what he [Paul] did that truly counted. Thus, Paul expresses his total reorientation of his life two ways:

• His new evaluation of his life. He does so “employing accounting terminology and antithetic parallelism.”[1] He accentuates the reevaluation by the parallel phrases:

“But whatever things were gain to me”

“those things I have counted for loss”

The parallelism is obvious: “whatever things” is matched by “those things” both of which refers back to the things listed by Paul. Of which, he contrasts by three accounting terms: gain, accounted and loss. What he thought was gain, is now loss. There is a significant change of outlook and value. In this light, it should be pointed out a tendency in modern scholarship to downplay the element of conversion by Paul at the Damascus road and instead emphasize it as a new calling. On this Silva correctly notes:

“It is true of course that Paul understood his experience as a divine calling; and it is also true that he did not view his new commitment as an abandonment of the God of Israel. But Phil. 3:7-8 leaves no doubt that Paul’s submission to Christ constituted a conversion in its deepest sense.”[2]

Paul makes clear that the things of the past brought spiritual bankruptcy. They were worth nothing.

• The reason for the new evaluation is “for the sake of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:7). It has been pointed out that the three uses of for (dia) in verses 7-8 indicate “the reason for which he has counted his former benefits as nothing.”[3]

Paul goes on to expand these thoughts to reinforce what he just wrote: “More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ” (Phil. 4:8). The following should be observed about this verse:

• The word loss in these verses is the Greek word zemian. It is the same word used of the shipwreck in Acts 27:10, 21, 28, 41. The ship and cargo were lost. The cargo was thrown overboard, and the ship broke up. There is an element of damage inherent in the word. Nothing survived of the cargo and the ship. This is the idea of the term loss here. Gromacki observes: “At his conversion, Paul not only counted his religious gains to be loss, but he also ‘suffered the loss of all things.’ The verb tense (ezemiothen) looks back to a definite time in his past.”[4] It enhances the idea of damage.
• Notice the progressiveness of the loss. It goes from loss (zemia), to suffer the loss, or damage (zemioo), to rubbish, or dung (skybala). What Paul had regarded as “assets” were in reality “liabilities.”[5]
• The reason (dia) it was loss is “the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil 3:8). The gain outweighed the loss. Notice also the positive progress in relation to Christ. He moves from the “sake of Christ Jesus” (v7) to the “surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” The word translated surpassing value is the Greek word huperecho, a compound word, huper, over, echo to have; thus to have over.[6] It has the meaning of to hold above, to stand out above, to be over top, to surpass, excel or superior.[7] It is used three times in Philippians (2:3, 3:8, 4:7), but interestingly translated somewhat differently each time (KJV—better; excellence; passeth: NASV—more important; surpassing value; surpasses: NKJV—better; excellence; surpasses). I point this out to show the range of the meaning of this word. However, its main idea is that of superiority. What is of greater value? “Knowing Christ.” Homer Kent reminds us that, “the knowledge of Christ Jesus as his Lord meant the intimate communion with Christ that began at his conversion and had been his experience all the years since then.”[8] This knowledge comes from personal knowledge and relationship with Christ. Jesus prayed that his disciples “might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). Knowing Christ is superior and surpasses all other gains. It shows those other things as loss. There is a “radical antithesis between his former way of life and the new hope offered to him.”[9]

 …to be continued

---

[1]  O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 382.

[2]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 179.

[3]  Ibid, 182.

[4]  Gromacki, STAND UNITED, 145.

[5]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 180.

[6]  Vine, EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY, 2:55.

[7]  Perschbacher, LEXICON, 419.

[8]  Kent, EBC: PHILIPPIANS, 11:140-141.

[9]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 181.

Jesus in History

 Today I have been reading JESUS THE MESSIAH by Robert H. Stein. He makes the point that some things can be known about the life of Jesus from non-Christian writings or histories. He writes on page 49:

“The Non-Christian sources establish beyond reasonable doubt the following minimum: (1) Jesus was truly a historical person. This may seem silly to stress, but through the years some have denied that Jesus ever lived. The nonbiblical sources put such nonsense to rest. (2) Jesus lived in Palestine in the first century of our era. (3) The Jewish leadership was involved in the death of Jesus. (4) Jesus was crucified by the Romans under the governorship of Pontius Pilate. (5) Jesus’ ministry was associated with wonders/sorcery. Much more than this we cannot learn.”

PAUL: HIS MINISTRY AND OURS

Romans 1:5

Romans 1:5 is one that we tend to overlook: “through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake.” It is not as simple as it looks. It challenges the Bible student and reveals more than what is on the surface. It reveals the gifts, object, and motive of ministry in Paul.

The first challenge for the student is to determine the identification of “we.” To whom does it refer? Is it all believers, or certain believers, or the author himself? There are a few who hold that the “we” refers to believers or to his church. However, the majority of scholars hold that Paul is speaking of himself in the plural form.

What we have here, therefore, the plural of category, which the Greeks readily use when they wish to put the person out of view, and to present only the principle which he represents, or the work with which he is charged [F.L. Godet, ROMANS, 82].

Wuest says the “we” refers to Paul “since it is qualified by the sphere of his ministry, to the nations or the Gentiles” [ROMANS, 16]. Thus, what we have is a statement of summary concerning Paul’s ministry. This summary involves three distinct elements:

HIS GIFT OF MINISTRY

The first thing to notice about the gifts is their SOURCE. The Source is identified in the words “by whom.” They refer back to the Lord Jesus Christ (1:4).[1]  It is the Lord Jesus Christ “by whom” the gifts are given. It is through the mediation of the glorified Christ that the gifts were given (cf. Ephesians 4:7-13).

What were these gifts? The text identifies them as “grace and apostleship.” There are two views as to the exact IDENTIFICATION of “grace and apostleship.” The first view holds that it is two gifts. This can be supported by the text. The word “and” does appear. Godet identifies the two gifts as personal salvation and apostleship (p. 82). The second view holds that this is a hendiadys, meaning “one concept is expressed by two nouns connected by and” [Hendricksen, ROMANS, 44]. They identify this as one gift, the grace (or gift) of apostleship.

Both views are possible. However, the second view is the most likely because the stress of the verse is upon Paul’s apostleship. In Romans, grace is often used in connection with apostleship. Paul seems to speak of his apostleship in Romans 15:15-16 and Galatians 2:9. Also the reference to the Gentiles places the emphasis on his apostleship. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13). His apostleship was toward the Gentiles, while Peter and the eleven’s apostleship was to the circumcision, a fact recognized in Galatians 2:7-8. Nygreen correctly declares:

When the Lord revealed Himself on the Damascus road, Paul received his double call at one and the same time, by that one act and in that one revelation. The Lord had chosen him for a special mission. For the reason he received that extraordinary revelation, given only to him [ROMANS, 55].

HIS PURPOSE OF MINISTRY

The aim or purpose of Paul’ apostleship is “for obedience to the faith among all nations.” This phrase also has divided Bible students. The controversy is the meaning of the phrase. The Greek text simply reads eis hupakoen pisteos; literally translated “unto the obedience of faith.” There is no definite article before the word faith. The exact phrase is also found in Romans 16:26 where the KJV translated it “obedience of faith.” In both references it is used in the context of the purpose of Paul’s apostleship.

What was that purpose? Many views have been given concerning this, but they seem to settle into one of two categories:

• First, those who hold that the genitive is objective. These hold that the faith is a body of truth, or the gospel. Haldane takes this view, declaring that the obedience “signifies submission to the doctrine of the gospel” [ROMANS, 31]. However, this view seems to be held by a minority.
• Second, others take it as a subjective genitive. A.T. Robertson says this means, “the obedience which springs from faith [WORD PICTURES, 4:324]. In Romans the two are equivalent, as seen from 1:8 with 16:10, 10:16 and Romans 15:18 is equivalent to the phrase in Romans 1:5. Little doubt that this is the correct view. The word obedience if not commitment. But most importantly, obedience always is an act of faith.

Paul’s great purpose was DIRECTED toward the Gentiles to bring them unto obedience of faith. He was the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13). This does not mean that he forgot the Jews, for their salvation was dear to him (Romans 10:1). Yet in spite of this, he had to turn to the Gentiles because they judged themselves “unworthy of eternal life” (Acts 13:46) and because he was called by God to “open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may received forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18). According to his last words in this epistle, they came to faith because of “his gospel”—“the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of mystery” (Romans 16:25). The mystery is defined in Ephesians 3:6—Gentiles and Jews are equal participants in the Church, the Body of Christ.

HIS MOTIVE OF MINISTRY

Paul’s motive was not self, nor selfishness, but for the SAKE of Christ. Cranfield says:

…is better understood as meaning ‘for the sake of His Name” in the sense of ‘for the glory of His name’ (i.e. in order that He Himself may be know and glorified) than as meaning ‘in His name’ [ROMANS, 1:67].

Paul’s motive, that which drove him to labor night and day, was not for his own name or glory. It was for the person, dignity, authority, and glory of Christ that Paul ministered.

OUR MINISTRY

As one studies this much overlooked verse, there are some vital truths that every believer can draw from for our own ministry:

• First, to recognized that we are all ministers of reconciliation and ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 12:7, 11).
• Second, that each of us individually are given gifts of ministry for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7, 11).
• Third, was we minister in our own sphere of ministry, our aim is to bring all to the obedience of faith.
• Fourth, our motive of ministry is to bring glory to Christ alone.

May we all follow the model of ministry as Paul did, as he followed Christ (2 Thessalonians 3:9).

Sources:

C.E.B. Cranfield, ICC: THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, Vol. 1, T & T Clark, London, 1975.

F.L. Godet, COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Reprint 1956

Robert Haldane, AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS, Mac Donald Publishing, Grand Rapids, n.d.

William Hendricksen, NTC: ROMANS, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1986.

Anders Nygren, COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1949.

A.T. Robertson, WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, Vol 4, Broadman, Nashville, TN, 1931.

Kenneth S. Wuest, WUEST’S WORD STUDIES FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: ROMANS, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1955.

---

[1]  The phrase Jesus Christ in the Greek text is found at the end of verse 4, not at the beginning of verse 3 as in the KJV. Most modern texts place it at the end of verse 4. 

THE MAJESTY OF GOD

Sermon in a Nutshell: 

THE MAJESTY OF GOD

Psalm 139

God is the greatest of all mysteries, and the greatest of all realities. He is majestic.

(Psalm 93:1-2).

The Majesty of His Knowledge (Ominiscience) Psa. 139:1-6.

The Majesty of His Presence (Ominipresent) Psa. 139:7-12

The Majesty of His Power (Ominpotent) Psa. 139:13-16

While the majesty of God may not be completely comprehensible, but He is apprehendable. We apprehend His in the person of Jesus Christ. We have the Son…we have the majesty of God with us and within us.