On Romans 10:17: Faith Comes By Hearing?

Romans 10:17 NKJV
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

This is a popular text in Charismatic circles, especially the Word of Faith variants. In these settings, this text is generally understood as a divinely revealed secret of receiving and/or maintaining faith. If anyone lacked faith, an antidote would be to listen to the “word of God” continuously. There are two practical ways the “word of God” has been construed. In the days before audio Bibles became prevalent, the word of God was generally understood as a preacher’s sermon or his recorded reading of Bible passages. Nowadays, however, people are just encouraged to listen to audio Bibles and sermons. I do not want to invalidate this Charismatic practice, even though I have seen it abused. After all, motivational speakers have convinced us all that there is value in attending to positive speaking. However, I am convinced that this text is not about what some Charismatics have turned it into – a pretext for telling the people to return to hear a preacher’s sermon continually.

We should begin by pointing out some known problems with this text. First, some manuscripts say “the word of Christ” instead of “the word of God.” This, however, is arguably a trivial matter, since many New Testament texts slot Jesus into God’s place. It may serve as further evidence of how early Christians saw Jesus as God. Second, Romans 9-11 are probably the most hotly contested parts of the letter, with various interpretations on offer. In this piece, I shall argue that it is best to see Romans 10:17 as a conclusion of the idea begun in Romans 10:14 and that Romans 10:14-17 is itself a unit within the argument Paul crafts in 10:14-11:6.

We should inquire what Paul meant by “faith comes by hearing.” What sort of faith did he have in mind, and did he mean to say that faith unfailingly accompanies hearing the gospel message? It is unlikely that he meant to say faith always follows after hearing the gospel for two reasons. First, Paul was present when Stephen gave the longest and most comprehensive gospel sermon. Paul heard the message about Jesus, yet did not obtain faith. On the contrary, he walked away angry and approved of the death of the preacher. In fact, it was a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on the road to Damascus that led Paul to faith. Charismatics are generally reluctant to allow experience to play a corrective role in a believer’s theology, and this is not utterly unreasonable. However, it must be said that a robust and comprehensive sermon did not save Saul of Tarsus; an experience of the divine did. When he finally did, as a trained Pharisee with deep knowledge of Scripture, he did not delay in boldly proclaiming that Jesus is the Lord. This is why Paul says he did not receive the gospel from any human, as we explored elsewhere. Second, Paul also discusses the thorny issue of many Israelites in his day not believing the gospel (10:16). This strongly suggests that the “faith” Paul had in mind is saving faith; the faith that turns unbelievers to believers. Paul says his fellow Israelites heard the message:

Continue Reading

The Gospel without Torah is a Non-archored Half-Truth: An Example from Matthew 12

I recently learnt that the church did not pay attention to the Gospel of Mark for centuries because it assumed that Mark was merely an abbreviated version of Matthew. This caused my mind to entertain several thoughts. Could it be, for instance, that after over 2000 years, we still may be deficient in our understanding of the faith? Consider the following passage:

Matthew 12:1-8 ESV
[1] At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. [2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” [3] He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: [4] how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? [5] Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? [6] I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. [7] And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. [8] For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Continue Reading

An Exegetical Proposal for Understanding Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5

Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV
[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Earlier, I wrote on some matters arising from the way we have often described the fivefold ministry gifts. A central argument of that piece is that the Bible’s uses of these terms – apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher – are not as rigid as many modern church sermons suggest. On the contrary, these gifts seemed to be mutable roles God empowered believers to perform. In this piece, my focus is slightly different, although it remains on the ministry gifts.

As I have written in a few blog entries, Paul, our chief source on the ministry gifts, connects Jesus’ giving of the gifts to the conquest of Bashan and Hades, long-term foes of Yahweh, through his death, resurrection, and ascension. It was in that context that Paul says ministry gifts were given:

Ephesians 4:11-14 NRSV
[11] The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. [14] We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.

Continue Reading

On the Gender of God: Is God Male?

I first became aware of this matter in an undergraduate Hebrew Bible Writings class. The ethnically Jewish, non-religious professor made a comment that set off the rabbit hole: “The name ‘Yahweh’ in Hebrew is as grammatically masculine as ‘Richard’ is in America.” I had not listened closely enough to realize that grammatical and biological genders are separate. My mind immediately went down a long rabbit hole. It seemed to me that whatever it meant to say God was masculine could not exactly mean how we ordinarily use the term for humans. The reason seemed simple: God is a spirit. To be a spirit is to be unembodied. I had to admit, on the other hand, that God is consistently called a Father and Jesus was a male human for 33 years. I managed to get out of the hole by pushing the issue aside so I could focus on the lecture. Now is the time to carefully unpack this crucial matter. Is God male? It may be helpful to ask the same question differently: Are men more like God than women are? Obviously, how one answers this question is enormously important. Several downstream ideas in a person’s economy of beliefs rest on the answer.

Language Matters: What Does it Mean to be Male?

Many of us today use the terms “male/man” and “female/woman” synonymously – and this is more or less the practice I’ll uphold in this entry. However, it is beneficial to be aware of and learn from advancements in Psychology and Gender Studies. In the ancient world and many parts of our world today, biology is assumed to determine one’s gender. In the Greco-Roman world, for instance, women were thought to be irrational, unsuitable for ruling, needing male guidance, and emotional. Amy Peeler notes that because women were generally smaller in body, they were also thought to be smaller in mind and spirit (90). In other words, to be female meant manifesting the attributes above. The problem begins when we observe that not all women fit into that box, and some men check some of the boxes. This observation motivated some scholars to separate biology from sociology and sex from gender. Biology determines sex, but social factors determine gender. This move raises an obvious question: what does being male (or female) mean?

Continue Reading

Surprising Quran-Bible Agreement: God as Father

Much of the Quran is devoted to a single idea: Islamic monotheism. While Christianity and Judaism also affirm the doctrine of monotheism, Islam is different. The Quran spells out this idea in clear terms in Surah 6. There are no deities besides Allah alone that govern the entire cosmic order. Hence, Allah sovereignly determines who he guides on the right path and who he leads into error (6:39, 125). Also, if Allah afflicts a person, no one else can remedy it (6:17). For every prophet Allah appointed, he also appointed human and spirit enemies for the prophet (6:112). These ideas convey that Allah alone governs the universe as He sees fit. Indeed, verse 102 explicitly puts it like this:


Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 102:
ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ فَاعْبُدُوهُ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَكِيلٌ

That is Allah, your Lord, there is no god but He; the Creator of all things, therefore serve Him, and He has charge of all things.

Continue Reading

The Gospel and the “Sons of God” of Genesis 6

The Easter Story Retold: How It All Started

According to the Christian calendar, Holy Week commemorates the most important week in the cosmos’ billion-year history. It is the week of Easter, or, to be more inclusive, the week leading to Resurrection Sunday. The idea that one week can be more significant than all others may offend a thinking mind at first. After all, we have repeatedly heard the argument that our Earth is only a speck in the big picture. It is an argument asserting that size matters. Ordinarily, I would agree with the argument, but there are exceptions. People do not usually conclude, for instance, that the butt is more important than the brain due to size. Similarly, a speck of uranium may be considered more important than the mountain of trash standing over it.

For generations, churchgoers have been taught to believe that a Messiah became necessary because of Adam and Eve’s sin, but that is an incomplete story that accounts for only one-third of the data. To be sure, the story arc resulting in the Messiah’s coming began with Adam and Eve, but there is more.

So, how did we get here? As far as we can tell, an uncreated creative mind wanted to get to work. Evidently, it was not his first attempt at creating. He had already created a myriad of essentially immaterial beings, “eons,” before the “moment” he decided on another project. Undoubtedly, there were innumerable ways the project could have taken shape. But just as he had to narrow down the options with his other creative projects, he must do the same here. God decided to make a class of beings constructed of molecules for unrevealed reasons – a terrifyingly complicated undertaking.

How do you build a being from molecules? Easy — you start with, well, molecules! The problem is that molecules did not exist yet. So, the ultimate project must wait as God began by creating the Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur, and other isotopes needed to make the molecules from which his end product would be constructed. But how long would the construction project have to wait? It is not very long – only about 30 million years, which apparently equals about a few days in God’s reference scale. Once the material universe was in place, with its arrays of stars coming into and out of existence, and all the requisite atoms were available, God could initiate the formation of functional molecules.

It soon became clear that God did not want wild humans. Hence, though he had caused vegetation to spring up everywhere on the blue globe, he yet proceeded to carve out a garden for the creature he was about to construct. The human was going to be cultured. After arrangements for human flourishing were in place, God finally built his project after waiting a few million years, a dating that excludes moments “before” the cosmos came to be. The human God created was neither male nor female. It was a genderless composite. In time, it became apparent that the human would not optimally flourish in its composite state. It must be split equally into two complementary forms. Hence, God formed the woman from a rib of the human he had made. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew term for “rib” is a construction term often used to describe a temple’s side. Here, then, is how we finally got the gendered male and female humans. She was in no way inferior to the man. Yes, she was a suitable “help” for the man, but “help” often describes how God is a “help” to humans. If “help” suggests any asymmetry, it is probably in the other direction.

I wish they lived happily ever after, but there would not be a worthwhile story if they did. Some of God’s earlier creations were not down with God’s new hairy creatures. It is not immediately clear whether it is the hair or something else, but those older immaterial beings were ticked off. Soon enough, they figured out how to mess up God’s project. They would corrupt the young creatures before they have exercised their spiritual muscles unto maturity. Obviously, this implies that the hairy creatures were not incorruptible. If they became corrupted, it was because they could be corrupted. They were not perfect, only good. Very good, actually. Sinister forces succeeded and corrupted the humans.

Continue Reading

Atonement Requires More than the Death of Jesus

I understand that this can become a charged issue for many Christians and that various Christian traditions over the ages have taught that Jesus’s death by itself was sufficient for atonement. Indeed, I believed similarly until I came across a scholarly work by David Moffitt. When we interact with various biblical data points, we will see that the Bible says something different about our topic. The belief that Jesus’ death was all needed for atonement has much biblical data for it. Here are a few:

John 1:29 ESV
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The idea here is that of the sacrificial lamb in Jewish temple rituals. Of course, John would further clarify that this lamb was slain in Revelation 5:6. Together, the verses imply that the slaying of the Lamb equals the taking away of sins.

Continue Reading

The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus is NOT the Gospel Per Se

What’s the Gospel?

The Gospel of Jesus is like the proverbial elephant in the room. Àjànàkú sì kọjáa mo rí ǹkan fìrí. Generations of severing the gospel from Jesus’s Jewish roots have generated much misunderstanding among believers today. We need to reappraise the elephant for what it is. So, what exactly is the euangelion, the Gospel?

Part of the challenge for us is that we are often completely removed from the first-century world that had a profound influence on the New Testament. New Testament authors did not invent the term “gospel.” Indeed, every adult in the Roman Empire was familiar with a gospel long before Jesus was born. The term “Gospel” was often associated with Roman rule and the ascension of a new emperor. It was a gospel maintained with brutal force that crushed opposition triumphantly. In fact, ironically, it was for reasons of upholding the imperial gospel, the Pax Romana, that Jesus was crucified. The crucifixion of Jesus was not a unique event. Rome impaled thousands more before and after.

Continue Reading

On John 3:5: Understanding Being Born of Water and Spirit

The Synoptics and John

The Gospel of John is different. It is so different that it is often not considered along with the other three canonical Gospels. In scholarly circles, the term “Synoptic Gospels” excludes John, but not without good reasons. John is believed to be the last written Gospel account. Given the evidence of material dependence among the other Gospels, we may assume that John had access to the other Gospels. Yet John did not produce a work similar to that of the authors of the other Gospels. Indeed, John did not seem to care as much about chronology as he did about theology. Hence, he would often move pieces of stories around as he saw fit for his purposes. For instance, whereas the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) focus on Jesus’ ministry near Galilee with one recorded trip to Jerusalem towards the end of his earthly ministry, John records Jesus’ multiple trips to Jerusalem. Indeed, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus clearing the Jerusalem temple towards the end of his ministry, whereas John brings the event forward in his telling of Jesus’ story. Besides, John omits many of the parables, instances of exorcism, and even the famous Sermon on the Mount, while including unique material, such as the raising of Lazarus, in his account. So, if the authors of the Synoptics were interested in historical writings, John was interested in theological writing instead.

Continue Reading

On 1 Peter 3:1-6: Navigating Ancient Norms with Christ-Centered Wisdom

Background

We previously discussed the Household Code passages found in Colossians and Ephesians. These passages outline how Greco-Roman Christian households were expected to behave in a manner that honors Christ. We argued that these texts do not prescribe a uniform way for all Christian homes throughout history to operate. If they did, it might imply that every Christian household must own slaves. Instead, these passages illustrate Paul’s efforts to engage with a Gentile issue that even Jesus did not confront in his Jewish context.

The Greco-Roman family consisted of a husband and father who held legally granted absolute power over everyone who lived under his roof – a wife, children, and slaves. How he handled his home was tied to his public reputation and dignity. Women typically were married off by age 15, generally to much older men. Usually, love had very little to do with the marriage. Indeed, the Greco-Roman man was not required to love his wife. Paul found himself in this cultural context, and the options were few. He could have demonized the practice, as the European missionaries to sub-Sahara Africa did, and required the Christians to do marriages the “Christian way,” whatever that might have meant. But that move would be somewhat naive, impractical, and even foolish. First, cultural norms do not change overnight; expecting otherwise is embracing inevitable failure. Second, Christians were a minority, accounting for less than 10 % of the Roman empire at the time, and were despised for their culture-inverting beliefs and claims. An Emperor would later actively persecute them. So, Paul seemed to have taken a “slowly but surely” path to winning the Greco-Roman family structure for Jesus. He sowed the seeds and trusted God to enable germination.

Continue Reading