Luke 16:10-13

““The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own? No servant can serve two masters, for 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 God and money.””

— ‭‭Luke‬ ‭16‬:‭10‬-‭13‬‬

 This passage obviously follows the first portion of Luke 16 which is the parable of the “Dishonest Turned Shrewd Servant.” The manager was accused of being dishonest, then fired, then slashed all the debts until everyone like him again. The master applauded his efforts and reinstated him. There’s a lot in the passage by way of cultural contexts, so I’ll save that for discussion of the parable proper, but we can’t really understand these principles without looking at the parable, too.

Also worthy of note is Luke’s theme of money throughout the book, where rich become poor for the kingdom, and the poor are those who enter the kingdom bc of dependence on God. Zaccheus is another example of someone who gave away money in order to reflect heart change (and to be viewed as generous in people’s eyes).

Faithful/dishonest in little leads to faithful/dishonest in much. Someone’s character is so much more integral and important than the ministry, career, business, family, whatever that he/she is trying to lead. It is so easy to think one’s sphere of influence is insignificant. We always long for more authority or power or freedom in our schedule/choices. 

I wouldn’t argue that a “small” stewardship reflects a lack of faithfulness and so “God can’t trust me anymore.” That’s not accurate and unhealthy. There are thousands of pastors and teachers and parents (and others) who are serving faithfully in what the world would see as small spheres of influence. Perhaps the expanded stewardship comes in this age, or perhaps it comes in the age to come. We can simply be faithful with what we’ve been given.

Luke’s focus then is material wealth. If we can’t be trusted with material goods, how can we be trusted with “true riches”? Need more research on what is referenced there, but I’m sure it’s eternal things. The point is that wealth fades. Materialism is pointless. We should be able to manage these things (as in be generous and wise), because we understand they are more than temporary). Then we will have the proper perspective for the eternal things.

Someone else’s property vs our own? I would think this is the opposite. Usually, I need to manage my own stuff before I can borrow or use someone else’s. I’m allowed to break my own stuff. But in light of the parable, I’m guessing as a servant I would be managing the master’s property/possessions, and eventually be promoted to own my own things. Haven’t confirmed this, but that makes sense to me. 

No servant can serve two masters. (I’m not going to discuss here the Bible’s lack of abolishing servanthood/slavery. This would need to include a whole discussion of what slavery was in the first century, how the gospel interacted with it, and many other points. It’s a difficult issue.) The point is that we can’t have two people telling us what to do (and yes, for the first century slave, this would be more problematic). 

Our potential masters are God and money. With divided loyalties, it soon becomes very clear where our true loyalty lies. God requires generosity, humility, and sacrifice. Money requires greed, pride, and taking advantage of others. Can’t do both. 

We will become resentful toward the other master. Hate the other master. Why? Because they are giving opposite commands. Pulling us in opposite directions.

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.

Psalm 107

 “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, and his loyal love endures!”

— ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭107‬:‭1‬‬

Beginning of Book 5 of Psalms. Books 4-5 are similar but need to restudy how the separation into books are important for understanding flow of Psalms.

Psalm of exile. Thanksgiving for God’s work for exiles. Even in desperate times, tragedy, destruction, captivity, psalmist calls for praise. God has been with His people, blessed them, provided for them, brought them together, etc. This verse serves as some sort of chorus, since its theme is repeated throughout the chapter.

Goodness and faithfulness are not the same thing.

Micah 7:18-20

   “There is no other God like you! You forgive sin and pardon the rebellion of those who remain among your people. You do not remain angry forever, but delight in showing loyal love. You will once again have mercy on us; you will conquer our evil deeds; you will hurl our sins into the depths of the sea. You will be loyal to Jacob and extend your loyal love to Abraham, which you promised on oath to our ancestors in ancient times.”

— ‭‭Micah‬ ‭7‬:‭18‬-‭20‬‬

The whole chapter reads like one of David’s psalms. Beginning is despair, disappointment, frustration, almost hopelessness. Content/theme is clearly exile and punishment of Israel for their wickedness. Can’t even trust your own family it’s going to be so bad when Babylon attacks. But Micah turns to future hope of restoration. Enemies will be destroyed. Eat dust like snakes…picture of death. 

Basis of this is two-fold: character of God and loyalty of God to His covenant. He will not destroy Israel…that would prove Him a liar to Abraham. But He would need to punish them for their incessant disobedience. He does not remain angry forever. Interesting that there is no theology here of why God’s anger is appeased. Did Israel just serve the rightful sentence? What covered the sin and threw it into sea? We know they couldn’t pay for their own sin. And there were no sacrifices.

I think it goes back to the two fold point of the author in this passage. God’s covenant and God’s character. Fairness has nothing to do with it. He can discipline and He can have mercy to restore His people to Himself. 

We need to be careful before applying this whole scene directly to us. Obviously, we have Jesus. We interact with these themes at different levels. God is still merciful. And He has a covenant with His people. And He is still faithful to His promises.