Psalm 51

“Have mercy on me, O God, because of your loyal love! Because of your great compassion, wipe away my rebellious acts! Wash away my wrongdoing! Cleanse me of my sin! For I am aware of my rebellious acts; I am forever conscious of my sin. Against you – you above all – I have sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. So you are just when you confront me; you are right when you condemn me. Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. Look, you desire integrity in the inner man; you want me to possess wisdom. Sprinkle me with water and I will be pure; wash me and I will be whiter than snow. Grant me the ultimate joy of being forgiven! May the bones you crushed rejoice! Hide your face from my sins! Wipe away all my guilt! Create for me a pure heart, O God! Renew a resolute spirit within me! Do not reject me! Do not take your Holy Spirit away from me! Let me again experience the joy of your deliverance! Sustain me by giving me the desire to obey! Then I will teach rebels your merciful ways, and sinners will turn to you. Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me! Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance. O Lord, give me the words! Then my mouth will praise you. Certainly you do not want a sacrifice, or else I would offer it; you do not desire a burnt sacrifice. The sacrifices God desires are a humble spirit – O God, a humble and repentant heart you will not reject. Because you favor Zion, do what is good for her! Fortify the walls of Jerusalem! Then you will accept the proper sacrifices, burnt sacrifices and whole offerings; then bulls will be sacrificed on your altar.”

— ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭51‬:‭1‬-‭19‬‬

 Lengthy psalm, and I haven’t heard any reason to doubt the tradition that this was by David after he sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah.

Interesting that even the NET notes that vv 18-19 read as if they are from the exilic period. Why would David want the walls of Jerusalem to be fortified? He reigned during the most secure and prosperous time in Israel’s history. It makes sense that this psalm was read throughout their story and eventually edited to include further prayers for the people. Once they repented, the walls would be fortified and sacrifices could continue. They, as we, should adopt the heart of David here.

It’s always important to remind ourselves how poetry works in Hebrew. Second line (or third) usually helps us understand first in some way (either contrastive or fuller explanation). Some many of these verses are just saying the same thing twice in deeper sense. 

“Having mercy” and “wiping away rebellious acts” would be similar and it’s all because of God’s love/compassion. Nothing David has done or said could motivate God. It’s solely based on God’s mercy.

The heart of repentance is first aware of doing wrong. This is acknowledgement that motives, actions, thoughts, are all against God’s moral law. 

Some versions (and interpretations) stick with the “I have sinned against ONLY you.” Hebrew allows for that, and David is certainly focusing on his relationship break with YHWH, but there’s no need to separate his actions against Uriah and Bathsheba (and the baby). Shoot, and the army and whoever else was affected. (He should have been leading them in war.) 

Due to parallelism, there’s no need to see David admitting that his birth was a sinful situation. He is simply acknowledging that he has been sinful since he was a child. And the second line confirms it. This can hardly be a proof text for original sin/guilt. I’m not denying the doctrine or some version of it, but this verse is not saying David was a sinful embryo. That abuses the genre.

YHWH wants David to possess wisdom…after all he is the king. He has to rule and make decisions. And yes, he is a regular human as well. Wisdom affects the mind and heart, which would play out in actions.

Would need to look at the cultic practices of sprinkling water in the tabernacle to see the relationship between washing and the forgiveness of sin. What is David asking here? So much about sacrifices and how it cleanses the tabernacle. Only one or two sacrifices really deal with the sinner (Day of Atonement, and the sinful lamb goes into the wilderness).  But yes, there is ultimate joy in being forgiven. You can feel David’s sense of guilt in this passage. Freedom comes from forgiveness.

Isa 1:18 is another passage where God “reasons” with Israel about forgiveness and their sins become “white as wool” and then “snow.” I understand the biblical contexts. I know we have adopted biblical language straight from the text, but I have read a few articles of how our old and modern songs alike may be heard by all people of color. Why is the goal to be white as snow? A good listening point and perhaps worth tweaking language.

Do not take Holy Spirit. David is not scared of “losing salvation.” He doesn’t even have those categories of thinking. Remember his predecessor. Saul royally screwed up multiple times. God rejected him as king, and the Spirit left Saul. OT function of Spirit was distinct from NT. It came upon people for specific tasks for limited time periods (sometimes lengthy seasons or “reigns”). David does not want to lose God’s Spirit, presence, power.

NET makes note that the “sacrifice” discussed later in passage is not a sacrifice for sin. There were other offerings required by law. David says (poetically) those are not nearly as important as a repentant heart. 

Lots of good thoughts in this psalm, worthy of reflection, not just when we feel guilt or conviction. Should be a regular reminder of our humble position before God. He is full of compassion and mercy. Forgiveness is ours in Christ. 

Ephesians 6:10-20

“Finally, be strengthened in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Clothe yourselves with the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. For this reason, take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand your ground on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand. Stand firm therefore, by fastening the belt of truth around your waist, by putting on the breastplate of righteousness, by fitting your feet with the preparation that comes from the good news of peace, and in all of this, by taking up the shield of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With every prayer and petition, pray at all times in the Spirit, and to this end be alert, with all perseverance and requests for all the saints. Pray for me also, that I may be given the message when I begin to speak – that I may confidently make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may be able to speak boldly as I ought to speak.”

— ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6‬:‭10‬-‭20‬‬ 

Countless sermons on this passage, and it’s pretty difficult to mess up the explanation of the armor. Most of these are genitives of apposition. So arming ourselves with truth, righteousness, faith, the gospel, etc. I don’t know if I would make a huge deal about which body part is covered with which attribute, but maybe that was Paul’s intention. It’s obviously compared to the Roman soldier, and there are distinctions, for example, in the type of shield he is referencing and the type of sword. This is the nice, big shield that everyone came together to make a barricade and nothing could penetrate it. This is the short dagger.

The other grammatical thing to point out is “pray” and “be alert” at the end of the passage are participles, probably more means. The NET says they are “loosely related” to this list. It could be prayer is how we arm ourselves. It could be the mind is where this battle really rages. Something along those lines. 

But the major point of this passage, is the first few verses. I hope someday certain groups of Christians learn and digest these words that we are not fighting flesh and blood. Some days I wish the “war” imagery weren’t in the Bible because it’s way too easy to translate that into fighting for x, y, z. And if we don’t “win,” then we’re losers. So we have to “stand” stronger and “fight” harder. But that only turns into yelling louder and using tactics and “methods” of the world. Not what we find in Ephesians 6 or the rest of the NT for that matter. We don’t fight against flesh and blood.

Of course, the problem is there are humans and concepts and ideologies that are affected by the “principalities and powers/rulers of the age” and so there’s tension knowing how to respond, how to take a stand, how to “fight.” But we have failed multiple times. One of my biggest takeaways from grad school was the term cultural engagement, not culture war. It’s not us vs. them. We are not fighting people. We are extending hope and light to a broken and chaotic world.

At the same time, yes, we are withstanding the true enemy. I recognize the tension there, but we must maintain the tension. Releasing the tension means we ignore clear teachings of Scripture and have casualties along the way, either our testimony, potential believers, etc.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If someone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, which is what you are.”

— ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬-‭17‬‬ 

The concept of being the temple is both here and in 6:19. The main difference is that here the pronoun is plural. In 6:19, the pronouns are singular. This indicates Paul is talking about the group of believers collectively, i.e., the church. Since it is true that the Spirit inhabits individual believers (ch 6), it is also true that the Spirit inhabits the body as well. 

The context of this chapter is building on the foundation of Christ. Often we think of this as any good or fruitful work vs. being carnal or selfish. But because of the reference to the Corinthians’ argument over Apollos and Barnabas and Paul, this is likely referring to church leaders or those working in “ministry” (yes, I know we all should).

Their works will be burnt with fire/proving the motivation, stewardship, etc. So now Paul concludes that we are the temple (and because we are “in Christ” the true temple of God, this makes sense). 

I would take “anyone” then to be leaders/teachers. It could be the invisible infection of pride, dissension, etc (as Corinthians is known for). But the reference to all these other leaders makes me think Paul does not want any leader destroying the church or leading her astray. 

Leaders must be held accountable. God will discipline/punish those who ruin the church or defame her. The church is holy, set apart for God’s purposes. When someone diverts that mission or uses it for his own glory, that’s serious stuff. 

Acts 1:1-11

“I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God. While he was with them, he declared, “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me. For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight. As they were still staring into the sky while he was going, suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven.””

— ‭‭Acts‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭11‬‬

 I’m sure there are arguments against Luke’s writing of both Luke-Acts, but the same style of writing, recipient, continuation of themes and narrative—and tradition—are enough for me. We don’t know much about Theophilus. 

Connections between Acts and Luke: “former account,” Theophilus, Acts 1:4-5 references John the Baptist, ascension in both Luke 24 and Acts 1; Acts 1:2 recounts Jesus’ instruction about the Spirit.

Luke confirms his research efforts to Theophilus. This does not mean Luke acted independently—or that the other gospel writers didn’t do research or acted solely as eyewitnesses. If anything Luke gives insight into how authors did their work. Everyone used sources. Everyone copied from each other and edited as needed to get their point across. This does not affect their veracity or honesty. This is how all gospels in that day were written.

“Former” could mean “first” but this would possibly imply a third volume. Probably too much to put onto a word, so “former” is more appropriate.

“Through the Spirit” in v. 2 probably modifies Jesus’ instruction, not the choosing. There is no mention of the Spirit when Jesus chooses the disciples, but the Spirit is repeatedly part of their mission in Acts. He is the means of their enablement.

Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God for 40 days. NET makes important point that Jesus was not seen throughout the 40 days, just at various locations and situations. Not a continuation of His ministry. He was most likely explaining (again) why things happened the way they did, and showing them how it was “foretold” throughout their history/scriptures. After all, this is the content of their sermons throughout Acts.

They have to wait in Jerusalem for the Spirit, because without Him they can do nothing. But mentioning the Spirit makes them think of the kingdom. Spirit is part of the kingdom according to OT texts: Jer 31:27-34; Ezekiel 34-37; Isa 2; Amos 9: 11-15. One important point for any millennial debate is that Jesus does not deny their request. He simply postpones the answer. He changes the conversation.

There is debate over whether the terms “Israel” and “kingdom” change definitions as Acts progresses, but at least we can say that Acts extends the kingdom to the nations. Israel was supposed to the the means of representing God to the world. The focus is missional/ecclesiological/not eschatological.

Bock’s commentary makes a good point for v. 8 that the disciples probably heard “go to Jews in these regions.” Church wrestled with the Jew/Gentile relationship far beyond ch 10-11 of Acts.

Side note: Another reason Acts is a natural supplement to Luke is the geographical arrangement of the two together. Luke opens with the “whole word.” Jesus’ ministry has other regions (Galilee) then the last half of the book (9:59) he sets his face to Jerusalem. Acts 1 branches back out from Jerusalem to Judea to ends of the world.

Speeches in Luke-Acts always show continuity between OT and NT fulfillments. God’s plan is coming to completion. Luke uses phrase “must be” more than anyone else.

Back to v. 8: “power” —please, do all things holy, stop saying this is “dynamite.” Etymological fallacy. Last thing we need is more chaos from the gospel. Dunamis is the Greek word from where we get our English word dynamite, but we can’t read the meaning of modern English words back into Ancient Greek. That’s silly. Word studies are much more involved than that, but for my purposes here, the basic meaning is ability. We already said, the disciples could not do anything until the Spirit came.

Be witnesses: interesting distinction between noun and verb. Never really told to “witness.” But be “witnesses.” Disciples told of what they had seen and heard.

Ends of earth—of course, there are always more individuals and people groups that need to hear the gospel. But the purpose of Acts, both missionally and literarily, was fulfilled. The gospel went to Rome, and by the end of Paul’s life, he intended to get to Spain. Now apostles’ descendants have gone much much further. It did reach ends of earth.

Ascension is a weird topic still. Obviously, it’s essential to the gospel, because Jesus must be exalted to the Father’s side. This is further proof of His vindication. That’s the most important part—and clouds triggers a reference to Daniel 7 and the son of man. Riding on clouds and approaching the Ancient of Days. I think that’s the key, not Jesus playing hide and seek or floating into space.

Romans 8:1-4

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭1‬-‭4‬‬

 

8:1 does not connect directly to 7:14-25 but to 7:6. Otherwise, Paul is saying, “I am under sin, therefore, I am not condemned.” The thoughts do roughly connect to the end of chapter 7, though, because for Paul the  future deliverance in Jesus has been brought into the present reality because of the Spirit.

We love the idea of no condemnation. This is the future verdict brought in the preset. Ch 7 is all about living life in flesh—can’t be done. Ch 8 is living in Spirit. 

V. 2 Schreiner sees both uses of “law” as Mosaic. It is either applied by the Spirit or by sin and death. In ch 7 it is the latter; here it is the former. Most scholars disagree. They think the law is metaphorical in the first case, because Paul has just said the law cannot bring life in chapter 7.

The inability of the law has nothing to do with itself, but the weakness of human flesh.

God condemned sin by sending Jesus in human flesh (he did not sin obviously, but he was identified with all things human). “In the flesh” is probably a reference to the crucifixion. NT Wright says sin was drawn into one central location, i.e., the body/flesh of Jesus, as our representative

Likeness of sinful flesh—proper doctrine will say Jesus was fully human, but did not have sin. 

V. 4. Often taken forensically, that we do not have responsibility or role to play. God did everything for us objectively. Schreiner opposes this, saying Paul envisions actual obedience of Christians. This does not happen on their own, but they must still obey. Supported by 8:4b.

Ephesians 5:15-21

“Therefore be very careful how you live – not as unwise but as wise, taking advantage of every opportunity, because the days are evil. For this reason do not be foolish, but be wise by understanding what the Lord’s will is. And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music in your hearts to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for each other in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭15‬-‭21‬ ‭NET‬‬

Who did you want to be when you grew up? Not what but who. Anybody? I don’t think I really had anyone specific. Some people have an awesome sports icon or music person.

VV 1-2 of this chapter command the Ephesians to be “Imitators of God, as beloved children.” Now we all know that kids like to copy what their parents do. Little girls will slip into mom’s high heels. Kids will put on adult hats, or sit behind the steering wheel. 

But be imitators of God. Doesn’t that seem kind of far-fetched, Paul? What does this require of us? That I know God as my Father. That I can act like Him. This flows from Paul’s prayer in chapter 3 that I would be filled with the knowledge and character of God. That the immense majesty of God’s glory would strengthen me, so that I could understand His love. Because v. 2 commands me to walk in love, remembering Christ’s tremendous sacrifice. Again, imitating what’s been done for me. 

Now I want to jump down to vv. 15-17. The rest of this chapter fills in the gaps of living as God’s children in a terrible and sinful world. We are His children, though. We should be different.

We should be careful to live with a mindset of wisdom, not foolishness. There are traps and dangers lurking all around, potholes and ditches. Sinking sand. If we are not careful, always alert, we can trip, we can fall. You all know that our culture, our world, our entertainment, the philosophies and worldviews of our day are crawling with error and deceit. And lies lead to wrong behavior. Paul says, Be careful. 

Now, when he says, Make the best use of your time, is that like, “Man, I really need to wake up at 6:00 to get a healthy breakfast, to squeeze in a good solid workout before going to school/work? Get all my chores done? Buy three planners and time all my events perfectly, so that I don’t waste a second of the day?” I just don’t get the feeling that Paul is talking about my personal schedule in an entire chapter on imitating God. 

So as a child of God in a perverse world, how would I not waste an opportunity?

Discovering God’s will is always a topic of interest for people, but I think we make it more complicated than it needs to be. There are a few verses that tell us exactly what it is—we just wrestle sometimes with daily decisions that affect our personal path for years to come. That’s okay.

But v. 17 is the key. The path to understanding God’s will is not rolling dice, asking a bunch of questions, praying a gazillion prayers and not making decisions until you feel warm and bubbly, or reading the Bible until that one special verse sticks out. That’s not how the Bible works. A lot of times, God’s will is as simple as not being foolish. And that means analyzing your past, present, and future in light of strong biblical truth and realizing what’s best for your life. It’s biblical wisdom. What decisions are you going to have to make in the next six months? Are you prepared to do that carefully? Wisely? In a way that imitates God’s character and love or the philosophies and deceit of the world?

Ephesians 5:18 is tricky, because it has been misunderstood based on the preposition “by the Spirit.” I use the illustration of pouring a glass of water from a pitcher. If I represent the glass, most people would see the water as the “Holy Spirit,” in that I am to be filled with the Holy Spirit. (And the typical meaning of that is parallel to the drunkenness half of the verse—He controls me/guides me.)

But Wallace’s grammar confirms that the little preposition (see this post on the preposition) after this passive verb rarely means “content.” And when we step back to see Paul’s use of “filling” verbs in Ephesians, we gain more insight. Paul’s prayer in chapter 3 has already said we should be filled with the knowledge of God—and that verb is used with a noun of content. So the water in the glass is the knowledge of God. The character of God. Paul wants us to be filled with that. The Spirit then is the pitcher being used to fill us with the knowledge of God. This is a preposition of means. It answers how we are to be filled. (There’s one more use of “filling” in Ephesians in chapter 4. Jesus is the one “filling” all things, so one could say that Jesus is the one completing this process.) 

Paul says, I want you believer not to be drunk. Those people can’t control their bodies. They can’t control their mind. That only leads to more immorality and wickedness. But I want your mind and your being to be filled with the knowledge of God, and I want the Spirit to be the one who leads you on the path of understanding who this God is. This will lead you toward wisdom. This will lead you to be distinct from the world. This will allow you to reflect His goodness  and love in a world that doesn’t know much about either.

And then Paul gives the most perfect three point sermon. You may read vv 19-21 and think he’s just giving lots more commands on what we should do. But these are all related to the command to be filled by the Spirit. And they all give a picture of what it will look like when the Spirit is filling us with God’s character. They answer the questions, So what? Or To what end? (These are participles of result)

V. 19.  You know how you know if the Spirit is filling the individuals of our church with the character of God? We sing tremendous songs of faith to Him with all of our heart. Can you sing? Now I don’t mean, Do you have much talent? Few of us do. But when you consider how much you know of God, how much He has shown His love for you, is there a joy inside that spills out in song? Forget how it sounds. Even in times of trial and testing, a song of faith can help you recognize the goodness of God and the mercy He has extended to you.

V. 20. Being filled by the Spirit immediately results in our dropping to our knees and acknowledging that we did nothing for anything that we own, that we did nothing for our eternal life or spiritual inheritance. God deserves all praise. Are you thankful? Or is the Spirit still in the process of filling you with a much better perspective of who God is?

V. 21. The third action that results from a proper understanding of God’s character is the Spirit enables us to submit to one another. Look around. In this text I don’t see any distinctions. So what does this mean? It’s easy to look down on others, judge certain individuals for this or that, and think, “Oh, yea they’re doing that job in the church or serving in that capacity makes sense.” But how does every member submit to every other member, regardless of race, gender, socio-economic status, etc?  

Because what’s our tendency? Oh, well, I’m going to look out for me, myself, and I. And, sure, I love these people. We’re all Christians. But at the end of the day, I’m still going to get what’s most important. Paul says, That’s not the character of God. That’s not wise. That’s very very foolish.

Be careful how you walk. Pray for the Spirit to fill your mind with attitudes that reflect that nature of God. So that you can sing to Him. So that you can thank Him for His many many blessings in your life. So that you can treat others as much more important that yourself.

Gender, Case, and Number of Pronouns

As a rule, all pronouns agree with their antecedent in case, number, and gender. This applies to personal, demonstrative, and relative pronouns. If the reader is unfamiliar with “case,” see a beginner grammar on NT Greek, or I’m sure I’ll have a post explaining the basics.

Antecedent should be familiar from any grammar course. It’s the word that any pronoun replaces or references in its context. E.g.: Peter went to the store to buy his sister a birthday present. (His refers back to Peter—okay, elementary school is now complete).

Case of Pronouns: The case of a pronoun more than likely will be determined by its function in the clause. (Subjects are usually nominative; objects are usually accusative; various cases for objects of prepositions). However, there are times when the case of a pronoun (whether relative or demonstrative) adapts to the case of its antecedent. This can be helpful when we are unsure what the antecedent is.

The are a few examples where pronouns do not agree with antecedents in gender and number, but these are extremely rare (see 2 John 1). Therefore, if someone is arguing for a change in gender/number or making a key exegetical conclusion based on a switch in agreement, it’s best to take another look.

Here’s an example from Wallace’s Greek Grammar.

Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ· (Joh 15:26)

The demonstrative pronoun “this” is nominative, masculine, singular. Many see John (or Jesus) as affirming the personhood and even masculine gender of the Spirit (if we can even use such terms for a spirit). Why else would the gender be masculine?

But the antecedent is not “Spirit of truth.” It’s Paraclete, which is a nominative, masculine, singular noun. This is true in each passage in John that discusses the Paraclete. We can affirm that the Spirit is a person, but we cannot conclude anything about gender. Grammar is functioning here as expected. (Not to mention “Spirit” is a neuter noun, so making arguments based on gender of nouns is a bit silly).

Ephesians 4:29-32

“You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. You must put away every kind of bitterness, anger, wrath, quarreling, and evil, slanderous talk. Instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.”

— ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4‬:‭29‬-‭32‬‬

This paragraph is obviously part of a much larger section on life in the community, with an overarching theme of unity. This is one of my favorite examples of bracketing in Paul’s letters. 

Two things were common in my raising: (1) Vv. 29 and 32 were crammed into my head through memorization. I could quote them forward and backward. 

(2) Constant questions about what it meant to “grieve the Holy Spirit.” The typical sermon/lesson concluded that grieving the Spirit was sin. Choosing rebellion against God meant causing Him grief. 

We should first dive into the meaning of “grief,” which I believe has both connotations of frustration and general sadness. We would need to check the usage of the word throughout the Greek period as well as its specific uses around the time of the NT to narrow its possibilities here. More importantly, how did Paul use the word elsewhere and what makes most sense in this context? I haven’t done this study yet, but it really doesn’t affect my point here. Does the Holy Spirit grow angry? Perhaps. Jesus did. Does the Holy Spirit weep? Maybe. Jesus did.  

This is a tremendous responsibility. I have “power” to control the emotions of the third person of the Trinity?! I certainly don’t want to frustrate Him. That’s way too much pressure. I can’t even handle making decisions for my own life, wellbeing. 

Well, first, it’s a good thing Paul confirms the Spirit has already sealed believers until the day of redemption. So whatever he is referencing is not about salvation. God has secured His children. Ephesians emphasizes this throughout the chapters (see 1:3-14).

But this is where those other 2 verses help us. I have always used a jigsaw puzzle as my analogy. If I pick up a random blue piece of a puzzle, I may take a good guess as to where it belongs, but it could be part of a blue truck, or fill in some of the ocean, or find its place in the sky, or a house. The possibilities are endless. I need some surrounding pieces to help me. 

By looking at the surrounding verses, I may gain insight into how I grieve the Spirit. And what do you know—they both reference the same thing. Unwholesome talk, hatred, enmity, tearing others down, wrath, slander. One of the primary themes of Ephesians is the unity of the body of Christ. We are one church in Christ. If my life is filled with hatred and wrath, so much that I am tearing apart other believers, I am working against the mission of Christ. And the mission of the Spirit. 

I am not the only person who is sealed by the Spirit. All believers are. And if He guarantees salvation for all, then He unites all followers of Jesus. How can I possibly think it wise to tear apart what He builds together?

Working against the mission of the Spirit surely brings grief and frustration. 

Instead, v. 32b. Be kind one to another. Forgive. How much? By what standard? As Christ forgave you. 

These bring joy, peace, unity, not only to us but to the Spirit working in and among us.

Romans 5:1-5

 “Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory. Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭1‬-‭5‬‬

NPP again is going to debate this meaning of righteousness, whether the traditional/reformed imputation of Christ’s righteousness or the more familial approach that God has accepted us as one of His own. I haven’t studied this facet of NPP to know why they have to disagree so much. My assumption is that traditionalists accuse NPP of not going far enough and remove the basis for being accepted into God’s family.

The result is the same per the next phrase, we have peace with God. See textual criticism post on whether that word is indicative or subjunctive. The relationship has been restored. Reconciliation is made, and I don’t know how you reach a place of reconciliation without acknowledging a broken state prior to this. So those who deny wrath or holiness, I need to read more on their understanding of these first few chapters of Romans. I do know wrath is never mindless, spontaneous, emotional reaction. It is a character trait of holiness that must respond to sun appropriately.

Faith brings a state of righteousness and access to grace. And therefore, we rejoice because we have hope of God’s glory. Sounds awesome. Can anything go wrong at this point? 

We also rejoice in suffering, because we don’t jump straight to experiencing God’s glory. We mature in this life. Paul lists the stages in that journey and I don’t think it’s one cycle or even a straight progression. Probably multiple times and many steps forward and backward. 

But in every stage we have hope, which comes from the love of God. NET says there’s a good chance this is both our love for God and His for us. Perhaps. In light of preceding topics and 5:7-11 (particularly v8), I lean towards His love for us.

And the Holy Spirit is essential in reminding us of all these things, see ch 8. So much in these 5 verses. This is the whole book of Romans in a few sentences. 

So much truth to feed our mind. So much emotion to fill our heart. 

That one phrase is haunting…rejoice in suffering. Cause I know those early Christians had true suffering. May I continue to mature on the path to experiencing God’s glory.

2 Corinthians 3:12-18

 “Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective. But their minds were closed. For to this very day, the same veil remains when they hear the old covenant read. It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away. But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, which is from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”

— ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭12‬-‭18‬‬

Important to remember context of 2 Corinthians, especially this section, where Paul is defending status/mission as apostle. Could go into whole reason why he need to defend this vs attitude/approach in 1 Corinthians. Something has changed.

This passage is commentary on Exodus 34:33-35 where Moses put veil on his face after seeing back of God’s glory. Two key terms: confidence and veil. Paul adds three elements: Israel’s inability to look at Moses’ face, Moses’ diminishing brightness, and why Moses wanted to veil face. Again, Paul is defending his boldness/no need for veil, which all believers can have bc of Spirit. 

Why cover face? 

1. Prevent Israel from seeing fading splendor

2. Conceal temporary nature of OT covenant

3. Demonstrate their sin made them unable to see glory

4. Prevent God’s glory from judging them (from NET). “End” would not be a temporal idea but a goal or movement towards something

5. Prevent Israel from gazing until splendor is gone. This means  covenant would not last

For Paul, ancient Israel is a type for Israel in his day. Hearts are still veiled and unable to comprehend God’s will. In Christ, the veil (from Moses’ face or the one that’s blinding modern Israel) would be taken away).

Lord is Spirit??

Most see this as Jesus = Spirit but maintaining a distinction in function. Others see it as saying Jesus is the source of spiritual life in the new era.

Perhaps a better option is to the article before Lord as going back to YHWH in v. 16. YHWH in the OT, Exod 34:34, is in the present era, the Spirit (vv. 3, 6, 8.) When a person turns to the Spirit, the veil is removed. Just as Moses removed his veil when in the presence of YHWH, the veil which causes unbelief is removed from a heart when turned toward the Spirit. He brings freedom. Freedom from the law, to behold God, to conform to Christ, etc.

This is not a verse to be used out of this context.