Coolhand

This seems to argue that this grace came to all men, by using the earlier definition that the writer use of all men: the ones that death came to. Farther than that, you could argue for universalism based on 5:18 separated from the rest of the test. So I would say, this grace is at least retroactive.

Though I do think that 12-21 is a somewhat of an explanation of 5:1, I do not think (in this text) that what is being compared is eternal final death with eternal life, or that Adam and Jesus are on the same level as in equality. I would argue that the point and the comparison is in regard to "justification." the writer (in my opinoin) is comparing/contrasting the work of Adam with the work of Jesus; not life and death. I would argue against the idea that the writer is placing Adam and Jesus on the same level as par. In my opinoin, a great case could be made conserning the failure of Adam and the success of Jesus, which could be extended to the fallen nature of man and his/her inability to do what is right all the time. The premise not explained in the text that I think was implied, that Adam sinned and brought this avenue of failure unpon mankind, and he did so when there was no reason to do so. So if the Adam in the presumed perfect environment failed, he then brought failure upon man as the norm to which all men from then on followed. Of course, death coming into the world when it allegedly did not exist creates an environment different from that of the Garden where Adam failed because when he failed he did not have the "time ticking" as the rest of us have had since then. We have an environment that causes sin (in my opinion) due to our knowledge that we are going to die; or that we have to protect ourselves or we could die. In my opinion, Adam made it much easier for disobeidience to God to occur environmentally. I would say that death, eternal or not, is not the subject of this text; that the author is not intentionally dealing with that; and that this text should not be used in coming to conclusions regarding eternal death and what happened to those who died before Christ died.

I was interested in hearing from you regarding why you say this. The statment about facts is in regard to referential language: that it is the type of language that is a statement of fact, opposed to emotional poetry type language. You may debate the content of the text, but you cannot debate that the language is referential and not commissive; which was my point.

How so?

My objection to what you are saying is that you are saying this text is ineffectual at communicating God's love, when that is not even the point of this text (see "Purpose"). In addition, this text uses referential language (see "Language Assessment") which can only pass on facts, not express emotion or feeling. In essence, you are saying that this apple is not a good apple because it is not an orange.

Would you agree that defining God's love and the comparison of God's love with orgasms is beyond the limits of this Scriptural text and the scope of this essay as described in the introduction of this essay?

When you used the word "ineffectual" what did you mean by that?

What do you mean by inneffectual? And, what sepcifically is ineffectual about a text that was written over 1,900 years ago and has remained unchaged regardless of the language the manuscript or translation is in?

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to be an exegetical analysis of Rom. 5:12-21. This is not a devotional paper or a sermon. This paper is technical in nature and deals only with the content presented in the text. As the specific questions presented in the Graduate Study Guide are addressed, definitions from the unit reading will be supplied to facilitate reaching the unit objectives while responding to the required elements. Content, Purpose, and Audience Content The first part of this assignment is to discuss the content of the selected passage (Rom. 5:12-21). The definition of “content” used for this assignment is “the meaning the author intends to convey”; this also referred to as the “illocutionary force” (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 169). Also, we will be operating under the assumption that the most probable interpretation is most likely the intent of the author (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 202). The content of this passage describes the avenue in which sin entered into the human race, and the consequences that followed. It then continues on to describe the remedy of sin and its results which are only possible through the work accomplished by Jesus Christ. In this text several contrasts are made: (a) Adam and Jesus; (b) before the law and after the law; © the gift and the trespass; (d) disobedience and obedience; (e) sin and grace. Adam and Jesus. In verse twelve the author is presuming a basic knowledge of Genesis chapter three, where the narrative concerning the entrance of sin into the human race is found. The author emphasizes “one man” being the door through which sin entered sets up the comparison for the other “one man” referred to in this pericope; which was Jesus. All the problems relating to sin and death are the result of the actions of one man; which was Adam. This effect is present in those who did not sin by breaking a command like Adam did (5:14). Similarly, the gift of God is available to all men (and women) through Jesus (5:17). Adam’s sin and effects are contrasted with God’s gift through Jesus and its effects. Regarding the law. Verse thirteen makes a distinction between the time before the law was given and the time after the law was given. In this contrast it is stated that: (a) sin was in the world before the law was given; (b) sin was present without breaking any commandments; and © the evidence that sin existed prior to the law is that death reigned even prior to the law. The author makes the case that breaking a commandment is not necessary for a person to commit sin. Gift and trespass. Verse fifteen states that the reason death came was because of the trespass of one man (Adam). This trespass is contrasted by the overflow of the gift. The text places the power of the gift far beyond the power of the trespass. Because of the trespass, judgment fell because of one trespass, but the gift made many trespasses justified. Disobedience and obedience. Verse nineteen states that because of the disobedience of one many were made to be sinners. In like manner, the obedience of one many will be made righteous. Something to note is the use of the aorist tense in reference to being made sinners, and the future tense regarding the will be made righteous. Sin and grace. The final contrast is made in verse twenty with sin and grace. In similar fashion with the obedience, gift, and Jesus, it is shown that the works of God by far out do the works of man, sin, disobedience, and death. Because of the law, sin was made more sinful. However, and the same time, grace became more graceful at the same time. Purpose As we discover the content of the text, and understand it in its context, we can then reveal the purpose of the text. This is referred to as the “perlocutionary effect” (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 169). In discussing purpose we are trying to understand why the author wrote the text; to discover what he was trying to accomplish with the text. The purpose of this text is to further explain the preceding content of Romans 5:1-11: to describe how we are justified in Christ Jesus and what it means to be justified in Christ Jesus. In the larger picture, the purpose of this text is to explain what Jesus has done for us and to show the extent to which His work reaches. Audience Verse seven states that Paul was writing to the believers that lived in Rome in the late fifties of the first century AD (Walvoord and Zuck 1985, 435). The text is not specifically addressed to Jews or Gentiles, and appears to be written to both Jewish and Gentile believers. It is important to note that since we have identified some brief details concerning the audience, any meaning that would not have been understood by the above described audience would illegitimate (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 11). Language Assessment Writers write to their audience with different purposes in mind (Lowenberg 2010, 19). Some write to inform their readers in regard to a subject, and some write to get a response from their readers. To accomplish these goals writers use specific language depending on their purpose for writing. Literature in general has two main kinds of language: (1) referential language, which is used to pass on information and describe something in a non-emotional way; and (2) commissive language, which is use to evoke decisions, convey and arouse emotions, and elicit feelings (Stein 1994, 73). We are going to examine Rom. 5:12-21 in search of commissive and referential language, and see how they affect the meaning of the text. Commissive Commissive language is the language of poets, people in love, football coaches, motivational speakers and those trying to evoke a response from their audience, (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 169; Stein 1994, 73). One feature of commissive language is that it could be in poetic form. Using the assistance of several modern translations (NIV, NAB, NKJV, NASB, and NRSV) in comparison with Stein’s chart (1994, 102) Rom. 5:12-21 does not fit the example for poetry. However, there is a rhetorical style component to the contrasting points given in the text, and also the reoccurrence of the words “one man” and “all men” which may have a commissive element to it. Apart from that, the language of this text is not poetic or overtly commissive. Referential Referential language is informative in purpose, it is non-emotional nature, and is used to pass on facts. It is the language of technicians, doctors, philosophers, and mechanics (Stein 1994, 73). In this writer’s opinion, Rom. 5:12-21 is a passage that is primarily composed of referential language. The description of how sin entered (5:12-13), and how death entered (5:14), the contrasting points listed above in the “content” portion of this paper, and the comments regarding death and life (5:20-21) are informative, non-emotive, and factual statements made regarding the subject matter. The Effect Referential language gives the reader a straight forward assessment or a report of facts. In this text reader is given an accounting of method in which sin and death entered and also how it is remedied. The effect is that the reader has a simple and easy to interpret explanation of what could be a rather mysterious and confusing subject. Variants The Bible as we have it today is the result of translations of manuscripts (copies) of the original work of the original authors (autographs). There are no existing autographs today (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 119) and though the manuscripts we have today are copies of the autographs, and we have several families of manuscripts. In regard to the New Testament texts, the main Greek texts are the UBS forth edition, and the NA twenty-seventh edition (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 119; Lowenberg 2010, 21). For this project, a comparison was made of Rom. 5:12-21 in the NIV, the NASB, and the NRSV and there were no notable differences. The only exception is where the NASB adds in verse sixteen “on the one hand,” “on the other hand,” and “that which came”. For a second comparison, the same task was repeated using the NIV (based on the Greek UBS forth edition), the NKJV (based on the Greek Textus Receptus), and the AENT (Aramaic-English New Testament based on the Aramaic Khbouris Codex). In this comparison, verse sixteen is the one with the most additional material; and the NJKV has the most additional material of the three. Clarifying statements such as “which came,” “that which came,” “resulted” where in the NKJV only. The Aramaic-English had one such clarifying note: “offence” in parenthesis. From the AENT naturally here we some expected Aramaic-“isms,” such as Y’shua the Mashiyach instead of Jesus Christ, Moshe instead of Moses, Elohim instead of God. Other than these slight differences, both comparisons yielded nothing that had any significance regarding textual variants. Factors Affecting the Transmission of the Text The transmission of the text throughout the centuries has several inherent issues that can surface: (a) the accidental duplication of portions called “dittography”; (b) the accidental omission of letters, words, or portions called “haplography”; and © intentional errors or revisions for intended to correct or clarify the text (Lowenberg 2010, 25). To investigate this specific text for evidences dittography, haplography, and additions I compared The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Baker Publishing: 2003) which uses the Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus , with the Nestle-Aland Greek Interlinear New Testament (UBS: 1998) which uses the NA27/UBS4 Greek text. It was discovered through this comparison that between these two Greek texts every article, particle, and pronoun was identical; every noun gender and declension was identical; and every verb tense, voice, mood, person, and number was identical. With the exception of “Moses” in verse fourteen the spelling and vocabulary was also identical. Though the spelling of Moses was different by one letter, it was clear by either Greek text that Moses was genitive noun in that sentence, and by the context then same Moses of the Pentateuch was the person being mentioned. In this text, it appears that the factors that could affect the transmission of this text have not affected the transmission of this text. Traditions that Affect Interpretation When we approach texts or writings, our interpretation of such are filtered through our own “preunderstandings.” A preunderstanding is what the interpreter brings to the task of interpretation, such as: (a) assumptions; (b) attitudes; or © biases (Blomberg, Hubbard, and Klein 2004, 154), which are affected by the traditions we come from, or are a part of. Our tradition is the result our entire set of experiences and settings that make up our own personal history (Fee 1991, 68). The theological and practical traditions that influence this writer’s interpretation of this Scripture are; (a) belief that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God; (b) ministry and business experience that provide evidence for the claim in this text that sin reaches to every person; © as an Assemblies of God minister Jesus is our savior, baptizer, healer, and coming king; and (d) personal knowledge that life is in Jesus Christ. Conclusion Understandably, the meaning of the text can be discovered by anyone who can read and understand English and have some knowledge of the author, audience, and surrounding context. However, interpretation calls for the ability to determine the significance to our world today. The illumination of the Holy Spirit is how the significance of the Scriptures is possible. REFERENCE LIST Fee, Gordon, D. 1991. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. 2004. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Lowenberg, Douglas P. 2010. Hermeneutics: God’s Message and its Meaning. Springfield, MO: Global University. Stein, Robert H. 1994. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary. 1985. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Volume Two. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Theoretically I agree with you.

It means that as I was reading Spong's book I was feeling strangely that I had already read the material before. I can understand being influenced by a writer, but there are also proper citation methods we should use when we use other people's work. Just posting some reflections on a book I was challenged to read.

Spong, John Shelby. 1991. Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. New York: Harper Collins. Interesting book that makes some interesting claims. Spong, the author, claims: He wants to place the biblical theological debates that are commonplace among scholars at the disposal of the typical church goer (X). That the average "pew sitter" in Catholic and Protestant churches is biblically illiterate (10). This befuddles me on a couple of levels. First in the respect that biblical "scholars" typically have eight to twelve years of biblical higher education. How the heck are you going to discuss with people these points of theology that they have no idea what you are talking about? In my opinion, you cannot do it. Today at a small group Bible study I was asked a question regarding doctrine that lead to my use of the words "Calvinism, Tulip, Arminianism, Pelagianism, and Traducianism; which in order to actually continue the response to the question required definition and explanations of these terms; which I'm not sure were completely understood by anyone but the professional clergy that were at the Bible study. Second, it seems Spong cannot get any of his "peers" to entertain his ideas, so then he turns to the "biblical illiterate" to push his ideas on: those with no defense. Third, he does not actually bring these scholarly debates to the laymen, rather he bitches and moans regarding a work (the Bible) he does not seem actually understand. The hermeneutical skills in this book are completely lacking. If you are interested in reading this book, I would suggest saving your money just reading Pete's posts; it is the same stuff.

My opinion is that Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God/Heaven almost exclusively; which makes sense after reading the OT prophets and their comments regarding the Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom. In my opinion Jesus went to the Jews to "wake them up" in regard to their responsibility of welcoming the Gentiles into the kingdom of Heaven, which they we not doing: “to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile.” I do not know if Jesus ate with Gentiles, but he ate with others who we just as “offensive” to the religious elite at the time. The main unifying Biblical theme (in my opinion) from Gen 3 to the end is the Kingdom of God/Heaven. The theme of the parables (in my opinion) is lost if they are not understood through this Kingdom perspective; for example: 16 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’ 3 “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4 I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’ 5 “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 “‘Eight hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied. “The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.’ 7 “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’ “‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied. “He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’ 8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. 10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own? 13 “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” 14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Lk 16:1-15. I have heard people butcher the meaning of this parable (in my opinion), and apart from the realization that God blesses people in order for them to draw others into the Kingdom, this parable would seem to be justifying and praising corrupt dealings.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Who was Jesus telling the parable to? I'm not arguing that or disagreeing with that.

Could it be that Jesus was actually telling that parable to deal with the older brother, the older brother representing the Pharisees and the Jews that had a problem with the Gentiles entering the kingdom of heaven/God? And also (but secondary) the returning brother. 15 Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear him. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Lk 15:1-2.

You are saying the point of the prodigal son story is about the son that left and returned?

I understand your points and I like your handling of this. In regard to "The Kingdom of Heaven," is Jesus refering to somthing specific? Or is it a general reference?

“Might turn” is a present-active-subjunctive verb. Active voice indicates that the action of turning would have to be the decision and action of the subject: the ones in this case who hear and see (both participles indicating that they continually do hear and see the message of the kingdom of God) but reject it and act like they do not hear, see, or understand it. Subjunctive mood indicates that this turning might or might not happen: it is possible, but maybe not probable, but could happen. The deciding factor is the subject (again active voice): the ones hearing and seeing but not understanding. It is up to them. I really do not want to argue about the “fundamentalist” interpretation of this, but would rather learn from you guys what the Lord is showing you through this passage.

In Mark chapter four we find the parable of the soils/sower. 4 Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the waters edge. 2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3 Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times. 9 Then Jesus said, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. 10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven! 13 Then Jesus said to them, Dont you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14 The farmer sows the word. 15 Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18 Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19 but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a cropthirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mk 4:1-20. In verse 13 there is a claim that it is important to understand this parable in order to understand all parables. Regardless of your/mine exegetical approach to Scripture: What (if anything) does this parable say/mean to you PERSONALLY? In your opininion, is this parable important to understanding the other parables? NOTE: I am asking this from a personal and reflective viewpoint, knowing that we all approach Scripture differently,and I respect that, and ask this in attempt to appreciate and understand the different approaches to Scripture.

Thank you for the clarification; right on!

Actually no, the discussion was between Hex and I, and you are arguing a different point. Which now I think you are doing on purpose. Exactly! Which baffles me as to why Pete would take this stance. Still don't get it.

You are still commenting on something that I was not even saying. Jews are Jews, regardless of them being orthodox, reformed, or messianic. Your posts argue the irrelevant point of how messsianic Jews are viewed by other Jews.

By the way Pete, the only way (in my opinion) for your point to be close to having any relevancy would be if you make the assumption that I was somehow referring to Messianic Jews that are Gentile converts. But I was never referring to Gentiles in any way when I was addressing Messinic Jews; I was reffering to people of Jewish heritage and Jewish decent that see Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah that was foretold in the Tanakh.

Pete, the question I was answering was this: Which I answered: To which you commented: All your comment does is discrediting non-orthodox Jews for their non-orthodox views; which to me is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black coming from you while you are arguing for non-orthodox views yourself. Are you paying attention to what you are saying? Regardless, Hex asked if I knew any Jews that believe in an afterlife. Are you suggesting that though Messianic Jews are non-orthodox that they are not Jews? The point was: YES, THERE ARE JEWS THAT BELIEVE IN THE AFTERLIFE. If you are then you just killed your entire premise for calling yourself a Christian, because then orthodoxy would get to decide who is and who isn’t, as your double standard proves in the case of the Jews. As Hex had suggested here in regard to determining the author's intent in the passage in Daniel: Another point can be made that Messianic Jews are potentially the best people to understand the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments because of their heritage. Yet is seems that they are the MOST marginalized group according to the posters in this topic based in thier race and thier religion. SUMMARY Non-orthodox Christians seem to believe non-orthodox viewpoints are in invalid for Jews, but preferred for gentiles which is a double standard; in the favor of the liberal Christian (surprise surprise).

That is the most pharisaical anti-Semitic anti-Christian statement I have heard. Are you suggesting because they are Messianic that they are not Jewish?