Book Summary/Review: Day the Revolution Began (NT Wright)

 This is not an official book review—more of a summary of key points. Others have done much more in depth reviews (usually to point out their own critiques and complaints), but one of my goals here is to try to wrap my head around what NT Wright was saying (including his main ideas, implications, other systematic questions that are affected, etc)

I definitely enjoyed reading Surprised by Hope better, since I sort of knew what to expect, the main premise was obvious, I agreed with where he was going the whole time. I think perhaps some of my confusion regarding The Day the Revolution Began (DTRB) stems from the phenomenon of the atonement in general. So many theories, ideas, uncertainties, and pieces to fit together. No one can do it justice. In fact, his opening few chapters comment on how the cross is such a central symbol throughout history, and even if people don’t understand the story fully or can “explain” it, they are affected by it somehow. 

Ok, here we go. What’s the main premise of the book? Many of NT Wright’s critics accuse him of denying penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I have now read the book, watched at least ten YouTube videos of various conversations/lectures, and read articles on his website. I don’t see how that’s the case. He talks about substitution, representation, Jesus taking sins for the people all over the place. He, of course, answers his critics, but he more focuses on why he words things the way he does. Why he emphasizes these themes. 

One of my favorite paragraphs of the book was the epitome of NT Wright. He uses a C chord as an example (sorry if you don’t know music). The C and G are naturally significant, but that middle E makes the chord. He says if you move the E down just a half step, it’s a minor chord and sounds completely different. The E doesn’t give the whole picture but it’s an essential component. (This is PSA to NT Wright). However, if you stop playing the C and G, and only hammer on the E or even make a new chord from it, you miss everything.

So, NT Wright loves the themes more of Jesus conquering the enemies of God’s people, whether physical or (more importantly) spiritual. He frees them from bondage, rescues them from extended exile. Forgiveness of sins is certainly part of this, since wickedness is how they got into exile in the first place. But the overarching narrative of redemption through the people of Israel is Wright’s bread and butter. And he’s going to focus on Jesus being their representative, to do “what Israel could not,” and be established as king over all things. Then in new creation, those who are in Messiah fulfill their mission and purpose all along. Rule and reign with God in their midst.

To be clear, my response to this book was about like everything else by NT Wright. 70-75% I fully understood and agreed, though I may have had to reword thing in my own biblical/theological categories. 10-15% I mostly understood but was begging for more clarification, even though he repeated himself multiple times throughout the book. My questions were not being answered, so it doesn’t mean I disagree but need to do more digging to reach his conclusions. 5-10% were a bit of an overstatements. Maybe caricatures that he’s attacking or conclusions that don’t necessarily follow from the passage. These may not be detrimental to his argument.

His repeated caricature (some would call it straw man) of PSA is that we sinned; therefore God has to punish everyone; He’s full of anger and wrath and sin has to be “dealt with”; Phew, Jesus gets in the way of all that punishment; we get to go free with forgiveness of sins and a “home in heaven” (see Surprised by Hope for why Wright hates this so much. It’s clear from this book why eschatology and soteriology are so closely connected. More on that below).

Those who have been raised in church and have heard sermons on the cross a million times would probably be confused by Wright’s presentation. So what’s so wrong with that? Sounds pretty biblical. He has several pages pointing out logical and biblical fallacies (some incredible, some could go either way, some not so persuasive). His big critique is emotional. Yes, God must confront sin, wickedness, etc., but how we speak of God’s wrath should not give us joy. Wright famously misquotes John 3:16 as the broad public must be hearing it: “God so hated the world that he killed his only son Jesus.” A story of a hateful and angry God presents a whole different story than what Wright sees playing out from Gen - Rev. And adding the words “he did all this out of love” may be true, but if it’s tacked on a story that misrepresents the truth, people may find this God weird, unstable, or even abusive.

So here are some questions that Wright’s view requires answers. Some were answered in the book. Some I’ve done more research. These are his thoughts, not mine.

What is the fundamental problem of humans? This was when I realized the fundamental difference in Wright’s train of thought. PSA proponents will say mankind has sinned. They cannot approach God’s holiness. They are disobedient and wicked, and from Adam they inherited this sin nature. Spiritual death/separation from God resulted/results, and we obviously cannot save ourselves.

Wright calls that the “works contract.” Do good things/be perfect and see God. Fail to obey and be punished. The fact that Jesus was perfect only shows that a “works contract” remains in tact. He just doesn’t see this as the story Scripture is telling.

Wright: Humans were made in/as the image of God, a royal priesthood, to reflect God’s glory and dominion over the world. Likewise they were to reflect the praise of creation back to God. They chose idols and other things to worship. The main problem is idolatry, which grants power to the idols and gods behind them. This naturally leads to all sorts of wickedness and breaking of relationships. Wright doesn’t say God requires perfect obedience. 

What about original sin? Not going to get into Augustine’s mistranslation here or working with Latin vs. Greek text. This is a major question that deserves books, and there’s deeper questions whether we share Adam’s guilt or whether we inherited “sin nature” or whether Adam just introduced sin into world and now we are all sinners. There’s a “5 views” book on it. 

I know this is not NT Wright, but he would agree with Pete Enns, who was the first to make it obvious to me that whatever we say of Adam, it’s clear that the only two passages that talk about Adam again are Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Important passages nonetheless, but it’s interesting that as we read Scripture the assumption is that people can obey. When Cain kills Abel, his defense isn’t, “Well, what did you expect me to do—I was doomed to be a sinner because of daddy?” Prophets existed for a reason—to call Israel to obedience. They were supposed to follow commands (even if we know they were really sinners). So original sin is one of those topics that really depends on how you define it. NT Wright doesn’t really use the term in his writings. Perhaps because the Bible doesn’t focus on the how or the origin, or the mechanism. It’s more of the current situation: all are inclined to sin. The world is a mess. And those Romans and 1 Corinthians passages probably start with the solution (Jesus offers life for all) and argues back to Adam…if the solution is for all, then the problem must be just as grand).

What’s the relationship between Old and New Covenants? This is where NT Wright focuses on the metanarrative. He doesn’t like the individualism of “I’m a sinner. I’m separated from God. Jesus died for me. Repent and go to heaven when I die because Jesus died in my place.” All of that may be true. But it misses so much of the story. When humans ruined their place in God’s world, His mission was to restore them and it back to its original state (and even better). He longs to dwell with humans. Adam failed to complete his given tasks, so God chose Israel to display His glory as a light to the nations. To be “image bearers.” They also failed. But One would come to be the perfect Israelite, to purify the people, to bear their sins, to cleanse the meeting place between God and man, so that the idols could be conquered, and all could have access to God. 

Gentiles could then be brought into the family of God. Israel would fulfill her mission. And eventually, God would live with humans in a perfect state. There’s much more to fill in the gaps, but this is the story that NT Wright sees. It’s much more cosmic in nature. 

What metaphors surround Jesus’ death? I don’t have the line in front of me, but his repeated statement is that when Jesus tried to explain His death to the disciples, He didn’t offer theories, seminars, lectures, etc. He gave them a meal. And it wasn’t so much a redefinition of the Passover as filling it with new meaning. Thus, the Exodus from Egypt is interwoven in the passion narrative. The evil oppression of Pharaoh is seen not only in Pilate and Herod but in the demons, devil, and “powers” that have oppressed Jesus throughout His ministry. Yes, Israel has been in extended exile since the 6th century BC, but there are spiritual forces that overwhelm them even more. So Wright sees this as a freedom narrative.

But they went into exile because of their wickedness. So forgiveness of sins must play a role in their redemption. Jesus even says this at the meal. Cup = my blood for remission of sins. There are several interwoven themes in the gospels, and piecing them together can be difficult.

How does forgiveness of sins work in this line of reasoning? Wright relies heavily on Isaiah 40-55 (including of course, ch 53). This is the section that talks about the redemption of Israel, mentioning new covenant, restoration after exile, some servant songs, etc. Identifying the Servant is difficult, and I have another post on that. Wright seems to agree with my conclusions—identified with Israel sometimes, but also as opposed to Israel sometimes. Regardless of its/his identification, rescue will come from suffering. This quite clearly is substitution or at least representation. One will suffer instead of many. And instead of conquering, receiving glory or power, the path to victory is suffering and disdain.

Furthermore, this suffering brings forgiveness of sins. We still don’t get exactly how this works. We still don’t see “law court” imagery—imputation and all that. But we at least see forgiveness coming through suffering. All sin is gathered in one place and cleansed. The people are purified.

What was the purpose of sacrifices in OT? I had read about this before, but it was a good review. If we go back through Leviticus, etc, we see that sacrifices didn’t cleanse people but cleansed tabernacle/temple. Sins weren’t “forgiven” per se, but because these building were where God came to meet people, He could not come to a polluted meeting place. Particularly, He could not “sit” on a mercy seat (Ark of Covenant) that was stained. So many sacrifices were given to purify the tabernacle and the mercy seat.

When we think of Passover, most point to the lamb as sacrificial instead of killing the firstborn son. Well, maybe, but it’s not like Jewish fathers were going to kill their sons. God did require sacrifices and the tribe of Levi as the “firstborn,” but that’s a stretch to think these lambs during the 10th plague were true sacrifices. And even if so, there’s never any “sin” connected with Passover Lambs. 

The only sacrificial lamb that takes sins from people is on Day of Atonement. There’s two lambs. One is killed, and the blood is sprinkled in the sanctuary like normal. Then the priest places “sins of the people” on the other lamb. It’s not killed. It’s released into the wilderness. 

So it’s weird to think about sacrifices as not really forgiving sin. They cleanse the meeting place. 

What is propitiation/expiation/mercy seat? From Romans 3:21-26 and others. The word is translated as one of the three options above. Wright and the NET favor “mercy seat.” Other translations favor interpreting what the “mercy seat” was there for, as in the blood on the mercy seat “satisfied God’s wrath.” But putting Jesus forth as a “mercy seat” means that He is the new “meeting place” for God and humans. And sprinkling His own blood on the mercy seat means humans have access to God.

What is the “righteousness of God” (see Rom 3:21-26 and other passages)? Wright and Piper famously wrote back and forth books on this. Wright is much more New Perspective on Paul. Piper is much more traditional/forensic. Wright goes to Romans 1:16-17, saying “righteousness” is what God reveals in the gospel, basically that He is “righteous/just” and that “He has been just/fair/faithful.” He has done what He said He would do. Romans is not how someone gets saved. Romans is about how God has been faithful to His plan all along, including the family of promise (Israel). 

So Wright translates “righteousness” as “covenant justice,” showing that God has used Abraham’s family to extend blessings to all nations. Ultimately this meant the perfect Jew Jesus. And these blessings affect all (Romans 5:12-21). 

Faith in Jesus vs. Faithfulness of Jesus. Obviously another NPP issue, but even the NET says Wright and others are likely on track here. The Greek construction could be taken either way. We clearly need to have faith in Jesus for salvation, but our faith is meaningless if Jesus was not obedient and faithful to His mission. So it comes down to what the author is emphasizing in the passage. In many texts, “faithfulness of Jesus” is perhaps the better choice.

What was the point of the resurrection? From Romans 1:3-4, Jesus was declared to be the “son of God with power.” Without resurrection, we have nothing (1 Corinthians 15). Resurrection conquered final enemy of death. It proved Jesus was not a liar. It established the kingdom. It enabled the enthronement of the king in the ascension. Obviously an essential event.

What is the gospel message? Wright starts with 1 Cor 15:3-4 “Died for our sins and buried and rose again ‘according to Scriptures.’” But he goes back to Romans 1:3-4, where Paul says in v. 16 he’s not ashamed of the gospel and vv 3-4 probably show some of the themes of the gospel. Jesus died and rose in power. Wright laments that when we discuss the gospel or atonement we jump straight to Paul or Hebrews and leap over the Gospels. The story should enlighten our understanding of the event. 

The title over Jesus on the cross “King of Jews” was satire but all important. This is the message. The king has come. He is Lord. The kingdom is here. God’s new creation is expanding. Forgiveness of sins is possible and rescue can be found. God is restoring His world. Join Him. 

When does wrath of God come or did Jesus face God’s outpouring of wrath? This was one of the aha moments of the book. Paul says “Having been justified by faith we will be saved from wrath.” This seems to suggest wrath is future. Call it hell. Call it ultimate judgment. Call it whatever you want. Those who are not in Messiah face wrath. Condemnation. Damnation. All the verses we want to fit into that category. And we will not face that. That time or place or situation is where God unleashes wrath, or vindicates justice on the world’s corruption. (And we could tidy up the language to account for more views of wrath but I digress). 

But if the outpouring of wrath is future, what did Jesus endure? In the converse, if Jesus endured the outpouring of God’s wrath (so that we could be justified), what wrath is future? 

This requires an understanding of justification, in that the final verdict is at the end. We know this. We will stand before God. We will be justified, yet Paul says we “have been justified,” in that the final verdict has come early through faith. We are quite confident of God’s decision because of our faith. So we will be saved from wrath.

What then did Jesus “endure”? We can’t say separation from Father. That’s Trinitarian heresy. Could still be some punishment on our behalf, but this just shows the intricacies of the atonement. Wright would say He was cleansing the mercy seat, per se. He was opening access to the Father. No punishment. Suffering on our behalf. Taking away sins. Through suffering comes victory.

Why say soteriology and eschatology are linked? From Surprised by Hope and DTRB, it’s clear Wright’s main theme in writing is to prove that God’s mission is not to grab some souls, clean them up, and rip them out of this world. It’s to renew and restore all creation (i.e., this world) by rescuing humans and restoring them to the place of dominion and reign they had in the beginning. If we teach the former, then a gospel of I’m separated from God, God has to punish me, Jesus died for me, believe and go to heaven makes sense. And again, none of that is necessarily wrong. But if we understand that latter “gospel” story as more correct, we will emphasize the global church, the unity of the church, the restoration of all things, the mission of the church to rule and reign now, etc.  

Romans 10:5-13

“For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law: “The one who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭5‬-‭13‬‬ 

Lots of OT references here: Lev 18:5, Deut 30:12-14; 9:4; Joel 2. Lev 18 is about prolonging life in the Promised Land, so that’s a kind of salvation for the Jews. Paul is using that to make his point (how the NT authors use the OT is a whole nother kind of study). Digging into this “righteousness” is book worthy and very debatable. This is a classic NPP text, especially since it’s in the middle of Rom 9-11, where Paul is discussing his fellow Jews. Some would say the whole book of Romans is ethnic and not individual (New Perspective on Paul). Don’t think it’s an either/or. Could be both/and, since nations are composed of individuals. Paul’s point throughout these chapters 9-11 is something about God’s justice/redemption plan and the nation of Israel. 

I know we love these verses for their evangelistic flavor, and perhaps rightly so. I’m not going to diss on that, but there’s clear indications that Paul is focusing on the Jew/Gentile relationship. “There is no distinction.” “He is the same Lord of all” That’s the message of everyone who calls on Jesus will be saved, not necessarily an individual approach.

Paul contrasts salvation by law—whether strictly works salvation or more likely (again NPP) salvation by following Jewish boundary markers, “works of law.”—with salvation by believing. Word is near you, it’s in your heart, you’ve heard it. And with the heart, just believe. No national distinction. All who believe are saved.

Paul does have a confusing view of the law, and putting it together through Romans can break your mind. But it does appear that in 2:13; 7:10 that he really thought that perfect obedience would confer eternal life. But in the next breath he would clearly state that no one could obey perfectly. 

Paul uses the Deut 30 reference to talk about God’s grace. He comes near to His people in relationship, but not only through the law, but in a much more tangible way: Jesus. And we (or more contextually) the Jews) don’t need to ascend the heaven (code for the impossible) or raise Jesus from the dead (he already did that) to find Him. The message has reached them. They just need to believe it.

Lord Jesus: There is no verb written, so it’s best to assume Jesus is the object of what they are believing, and “Lord” is the complement. So it would be “believe Jesus [to be] Lord”. And in this sense, Lord is very likely a reference to YHWH. Quoting from Joel 3:5 in v. 13 confirms that Paul is equating Jesus with YHWH.

I don’t see a major distinction between the mouth confessing and the heart believing. It almost reads like a proverb with parallel structure. This isn’t two necessary steps/conditions to me. Maybe Paul is building off the OT texts. Since they mention both heart and mouth, so does he. We have multiple expressions for how an individual begins their faith journey. I’m not going to limit it to one or two.

Exodus 20:1-21

“God spoke all these words: “I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, and showing covenant faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold guiltless anyone who takes his name in vain. “Remember the Sabbath day to set it apart as holy. For six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or the resident foreigner who is in your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy. “Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving to you. “You shall not murder. “You shall not commit adultery. “You shall not steal. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.” All the people were seeing the thundering and the lightning, and heard the sound of the horn, and saw the mountain smoking – and when the people saw it they trembled with fear and kept their distance. They said to Moses, “You speak to us and we will listen, but do not let God speak with us, lest we die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you so that you do not sin.” The people kept their distance, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.”

— ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭1‬-‭21‬‬

I know many people have come to disregard much of what Andy Stanley says nowadays. This is not the post to discern every sound bite or sermon people have heard. (No I don’t agree with everything he says, but I can filter through a lot of it to see the larger point). Not getting into his sermons and statements right now, but a long time ago, he was the first to point out to me the grace built into the Ten Commandments.

Before God gives any rules, He reminds the Israelites “I am YHWH who brought you out of the house of slavery.” As Andy put it, “I don’t expect you to follow this list of rules, or try to please me, or obey a bunch of stuff to try to enter a relationship with me—Go ahead try. You’re already in.” So there’s some debate just how “legalistic” Judaism was throughout their history. Did they really try to keep the law as a way to please God, or was it built into their fabric that they already had a relationship/covenant with God? Perhaps they grew into a more legalistic people in the strictest denotation of the word, but at their origin, there was grace. This is the  covenantal nomism discussion and New Perspective of Paul factors here too.

There was one simple act of ridiculous, almost laughable faith to show they had confidence in the power and faithfulness of their God—the blood on the doorposts. Anyway…

God says, because we have already established this relationship, now we are going to finalize that agreement here in the form of this covenant. Which brings us to a sort of odd thought.

The 10 Commandments (notice 10) are the opening of a covenant, a treaty. In Deuteronomy, they are repeated in what many use as an analogy of Israel’s “Constitution.” 

But in Ancient Near Easter terms, this is much more serious, because they are entering a covenant with God. This has all the formalities of a suzerain-vassal treaty (we have many examples from people groups of the time to compare-mostly Hittite), where a king would offer provision, protection, etc for a smaller, inferior people, and the latter would be submissive and loyal to the former. There were stipulations and requirements, of course, but a mutual agreement between the two worked in favor of both.

The two parties in this case are YHWH and the nation of Israel. And the 10 commandments cannot really be separated from the rest of the covenant. Again, notice command 4 is still part of the 10. We love the other nine, and are quick to point out that Jesus fulfilled the law, and so #4 doesn’t apply (Sabbath). Fantastic! Hurray, but we can’t talk from both sides of our mouth. What do I mean?

We often (at least in many Christian or specifically, fundamental circles) try to divide the old covenant into civil, moral, and religious laws. If you read some passages in Leviticus or Numbers, though, laws that we would divide into our neat categories are all mixed up. The author and/or editors didn’t write the law as we view it, unfortunately. Why not? Because it ALL applies to the Israelites as a society among the nations around them, so they can represent YHWH as a holy people. There’s a lot more to unpack there, but the law is for Israel. It’s a covenant between God and His people.

I don’t get to pick and choose which laws apply to me, not even the ones about stealing and murdering. I’m not a Jew.

Wait, so the law of God doesn’t apply to me? I’m free from the moral law? How am I convicted of sin? I didn’t say all of that. 

I said the “Old Covenant,” and by inclusion —the 10 Commandments. So the Old Testament law is a representation of God’s moral law, codified and contextualized for a specific time and purpose. But stealing is still wrong. God is still the only god. Parents deserve respect. And yes, we need to build rest into our schedule (shoot, the book of Hebrews even reinterprets Sabbath as salvation and ultimate glory, but that’s not for here).

It’s not enough to say, we can preach the 10 commandments because all of them are repeated in the NT, except #4. We have to go deeper, as in if Jesus fulfilled the law, then He fulfilled the whole law. And Paul is going to say, (and Jesus even said), you have a new law. The law of love. We owe no one anything, except to love one another. And of course, I agree with all those who conclude that many of the commands are given to demonstrate love others or love for God (respecting parents, not stealing, not murdering, etc.) And indeed, the Sermon on Mount shows highest intent of these laws was fulfilled by the heart of love (no lust, no anger, no oaths).

So yes, I am still bound as human to the standard of perfection/God’s moral law. Jesus came to redeem humanity and the world from its brokenness/chaos/sin. But it’s not as easy as listing 10 commands. In fact, it’s much more difficult a standard than any listing of laws. 

See John Walton, Lost World of Torah for more discussion. (I did not reach these conclusions from him, but he does discuss many of these themes. He also has a unique take on the ancient law as wisdom documents, where the king needs the law to judge how to handle various situations. Case law is essential at this point to know how to handle random events on the daily).

But in light of this discussion, here’s a brief summary of the 10.

Command 1: No Other Gods

This is a key verse for the recognition of Israel as monolatrous people not necessarily monotheists. They knew of other gods that existed or were worshipped (10 plagues against Egypt were directly opposed to all of Egypt gods). Israel failed horribly at this command because they knew of other gods (or at least thought other gods were worthy of worship. They were supposed to stick with YHWH.

YHWH’s first command even seems to suggest there are other gods. God demands absolute allegiance, to the exclusion of any other deity or law code of other civilization. These would certainly be in opposition to the one true God. Deciding Whom to worship would be foundational for how Israel conducted society

Point: Choosing whom you will worship is foundational to the rest of the list. 

Command 2: No Idols

Not a repeat of Command 1.

Images were carved from wood or stone. Used for worship, not decoration. An idol obviously represents the power, ability, presence of the god.

This could also refer to YHWH worship. No images of YHWH. 1) God knew that humans could never make something that represents Him fully. “Don’t even try.” (2) God forbids the Hebrews from narrowing Him into a figurine that they could “manage,”—something that they can be in the presence of and then out of the presence of.

Cf. Duet 7:10; 24:16; Ezekiel 19:10-20. God promises not to kill future generations elsewhere, so Exod 20:5 sounds a bit odd at first. It doesn’t appear that God would punish sons for the sins of fathers, but we can’t fully understand the mind of God when handling sin or the cause/effect relationship. The consequences of sin certainly affect future generations. Perhaps patterns of the same sin occur for several generations until God punishes harshly. All we can stand on is God’s justice and righteousness. 

The main contrast is the 3-4 generations of cursing and the thousands of generations of blessing (cf. Exod 34:7; Deut 5:10; Ps 18:50; Jer 32:18). 

Command 3: Respect God’s Name

“Taking in vain” can apply to a number of ideas: misuse or abuse, or even using it for insincere purposes. 

O my goodness—How many times have we seen organizations, countries, individuals do atrocious acts under the name of God/Jesus? It’s absolutely awful.

Command 4: Sabbath

We have evidence that pagan nations also set a day aside, but it usually for magic or special sacrifices (see NET note). Israel was supposed to do something special in v. 8, distinguishing between holy and profane days. There was something higher than daily life.

This was the 1 command that became a covenant marker for the Jewish people (along with circumcision and their food laws). 

I’m sure this will be a different post later, but see Rom 12:1-2, Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11 for NT context for this command and how our holiness is related to it. For starters, Israel was required to share in the rest of their Creator. We do, too, but not by calendar observations. Our entire life is holy, resting because of Christ’s sacrifice.

(Just in case anyone is wondering, Exodus 20:12 is an ok argument for literal 6 day creationism, but it’s not a slam dunk. This explanation was probably not on the original tablets—Moses probably just had the bare commands, not the purpose clauses, explanations etc. So it takes a lot of work—much more and much smarter than I am able to do—to try to trace the history of documents to how Torah reached final form….and of course there’s endless debate. But generally speaking, these tablets were probably one of the first things ever written. By the time the explanations and purposes clauses get added/Exodus gets written as whole, Genesis 1 or the poem behind it has been written, so the author or editor can use what’s been established to build an argument. The fact that it’s dependent on Genesis 1 is fine, but it still leaves us to debate what’s going on in Genesis 1. This is more evident that the explanation for the Sabbath in Deuteronomy is different…slavery in Egypt).

Command 5: Honor Parents

It’s so easy to repeat this ad nauseam to our kids, but I don’t remember reading an age limit in v. 12. Remember, Israelites are a Semitic/Eastern culture, so honor/shame plays huge role in caring for older generations. 

God offers a national promise only to command. Ezekiel 22:7, 15 directly links Judah’s exile to lack of respect for parents (and to repeat previous point, I don’t think it was three year olds’ tantrums or ten year olds sneaking out at night). Malachi also says the future Elijah (ie. Messiah) would turn children and parents back to each other. This was key foundation of society, especially God’s holy society.

Command 6: Murder

This command refers to both premeditated and accidental killings. Later case laws would add stipulations for some basic situations, but this command gives the general principle that God values life.

God programmed us for love and unity. Anger, hatred, murder have no place among His people. 

Things like war/just war not really mentioned in case laws. 

Command 7: Adultery

Later laws would distinguish fornication and adultery, with the latter carrying death penalty (Lev 20:10). The abundant theme of Scripture, from Genesis 1 to the Law to Jesus in Matthew 5 to Paul in Eph 5 is that God loves marriage, values the loyalty and integrity of both individuals bound together. We can look at Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 later.

Command 8: Stealing

The Law not only protects lives and marriages but also personal property. In some ways, Command 10 (coveting) functions for Command 8 as Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 function for other portions of the law. What’s most important is the heart of the person. 

Command 9: False Witness

The immediate application is perjury in court, but the Israelite understanding most likely expanded to include lying in general (cf. Hosea 4:2). 

If an honest word is meaningless or impossible to find in a society, then I’m pretty sure destruction is coming quickly. 

Command 10: Coveting

Coveting/earnestly desiring can be a positive action (Ps 19:10; 68:16), but not when the object is forbidden. This is the only command that cannot be proven that the individual is breaking it. Must be hard to punish someone for coveting. The antidote has to be gratitude and contentment here. We see this throughout Scripture.

VV 18-21. People were afraid of the smoke and fire. They don’t want to speak with God. They’re terrified of Him. These cosmic signs demonstrate God’s power, His presence, and perhaps provoke fear but also motivate obedience. They do accept the stipulations of the covenant. (At least until ch. 32 with the golden calf). 

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.

Romans 3:21-31

 “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle of faith! For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬-‭31‬‬

This is major passage for New Perspective on Paul. (And key passage for Romans in general.) 

Debate is whether “salvation” in Romans focuses on individual or more ethnic approach. Since Reformation at least, it’s been more individual. NPP argues at least emphasis is more ethnic/national approach (but not necessarily neglecting individual. 

Nevertheless, in 1:18-3:20, Paul has condemned all people(s). To give good news, Paul has demonstrated how God is completely holy and needs to show how He can accept sinners. But there’s also debate on meaning of “righteousness.” 

Will add later blog later on this. Also debate on “faith in Jesus” vs. “faithfulness of Jesus.” No evidence is concrete, but it may lean slightly toward the latter. Then the object of our faith is proven worthy of of our faith because He himself is faithful.

“All have sinned…” vv. 23 and following are actually one long sentence, including some participles (e.g., being justified), so the “all” that begins v. 23 refers to believers in this context. Otherwise, Paul would be preaching universalism. 

Fall short of the glory of God is probably a reference back to 1:21 where humans fails to glorify God. 

Justification typically refers to a declaration by God that the sinner is righteous. Cf Exod 23:7; Isa 5:22-23 for similar language. God does not justify for a bribe. He justifies freely. 

VV 24-26. Most atonement language uses metaphor, and ransom is another. Many writings about ransom in Greek literature involve price, but other times, even in LXX (Dan 4:34) focus on liberation or deliverance. Here, though a price may be mentioned in Jesus’ blood, the emphasis is on the liberation. 

Mercy seat vs. expiation vs. propitiation. The term could be any of these, but the NET has translated as the mercy seat, the actual place where atonement was made in the OT. Only other place the term is used is Heb 9:5. Propitiation is the satisfying of wrath. Expiation is taking away sin. Mercy seat is the place where all of this occurred. 

In his blood provides a mixed metaphor, because Jesus is now the place of the sacrifice and the sacrifice. 

The main point of this passage is to defend God’s righteousness. He places Jesus forth so that He is able to accept sinners as sons and daughters. There is so much work done on the atonement and what exactly happened. So many theories. I’m currently working through it and rethinking some things. Passages like this are very difficult. Wrath of God and sacrifice of Jesus confused a lot of people. How does this relate to the gift of God and the conquering of death and evil?

VV 27-31 come back or continue the ethnic or corporate salvation themes. All nations come to faith through Jesus, not the Jewish distinctive found in the law or their traditions. Rom 2 is key for condemning Jewish traditions and law keeping. Jews didn’t necessarily think of YHWH as their exclusive God. Paul may be using common theology with his audience to advance his argument.

How do we establish the law? Christ’s faithfulness fulfilled law (just had whole section on that) This vindicates God’s justification and holiness/righteousness. As we follow and abide in Christ, we gain new life. Faith does not prove the law wrong but points us to live the way God intended. Galatians will say we fulfill the law of love.

Ephesians 2:8-10

 “For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.”

— ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬-‭10‬‬

Eph 2 is an amazing chapter, and I don’t think it’s so clear a break as vv 1-10 are individual salvation and 11-22 are reconciliation of ethnic groups through Jesus. The New Perspective of Paul may have too much emphasis on the latter but classic Reformation interpretation may have too much emphasis on the former in all the traditional “salvation” passages in the NT. The early church struggled mightily in understanding how to morph the Gentiles into the Jesus community. New Perspective has much to offer in at least being sensitive toward the background situation.

“Are saved” is perfect tense, so “have been saved.” Something has been completed and results continue, but many uses of perfect tense. In this case, NET is taking as intensive perfect which emphasizes results (translates as present tense in English “are”). See Introduction to Perfect Tense.

“Works” is NPP vs typical reformed understanding. Jewish boundary markers vs. all moral attempts. In light of second half of chapter, one can make case for the Jewish boundary markers. Looking at v. 10, one can argue it refers to any work, because we can’t do anything good until God enables us to do it.

Workmanship, word study fallacy to say it means poem, but that is the Greek word behind the translation. 

These first 10 verses are a marvelous trajectory of being dead, no hope, in sins, and God makes us alive in Christ. It’s all His doing and for His glory. Debate in v. 8 whether grace or faith is “gift” Both are feminine words, so gender doesn’t help the grammar. Most likely, refers salvation as whole—the entire sentence. 

God did not just rescue us from death period. He saved us for something. There’s purpose now, and that’s for good works. Would need more context to see how this passage fits in Paul’s thought through Ephesians as whole.

Romans 1:16-17

 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.””

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬-‭17‬‬

Gospel is the means God used to save people. It is what He has chosen to do His work. People cannot be saved apart from the gospel (and I’m not going to get into people who haven’t heard… let’s just leave that to Gods character for now).

This verse is key to understand Romans. I try to have balanced approach. Since Reformation, interpretation has been individualistic. New perspective on Paul emphasizes ethnic approach of Jew/Gentile relations. V 16 supports this. I like a both/and but Paul’s main point and throughout first century may be the Jew/Gentile relations.

Righteousness of God is debated: could be his character, believers new identity, or Christs imputed righteousness. Cant solve that here. 

From faith to faith is just as hard bc prepositions can mean different things. Point is that those who enter Gods family or inherit His righteousness do so on the basis of faith, and both Jew and Gentile are equal in this regard.

Romans 10:9-10

 “because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭9‬-‭10‬‬

Paul’s point throughout these chapters 9-11 is something about God’s justice/redemption plan and the nation of Israel. 

Some would say the whole book of Romans is ethnic and not individual (New Perspective on Paul). Don’t think it’s an either/or. Could be both/and, since nations are composed of individuals. 

Verses like this focus on individuals, but the context of the chapter is national. 

Paul contrasts salvation by law—whether strictly works salvation or more likely (again NPP) salvation by following Jewish boundary markers, “works of law.”—with salvation by believing. Word is near you, it’s in your heart, you’ve heard it. And with the heart, just believe. No national distinction. All who believe are saved.

V. 10 is almost like a proverb—parallel structure. Maybe we make too much of the different terms. And how each action results in different things.