You Know the Critical Text Position Is In Trouble When It's Propped Up by Blatant Lies

Let's just admit it, the critical text position doesn't believe the Bible.  God said He would preserve every Word.  Anyone taking the deserted island interpretation, where you just take the Bible at face value, as if you were picking it up and reading it on a desert island with no outside effects, knows the Bible says that about itself.  God promised to preserve all the Words and make them accessible to His own.  If the Words aren't accessible, that is not, um, preservation.

I do find myself boggled with the people who try to spin the Bible into saying something else about it besides perfect preservation.  What good do they get from having it not say it's preserved?  Less faith.  More doubt.  Less certainty.  More disobedience.  Is that what they want??  They might say, "It doesn't teach that, at least like you're saying!"  But theirs is a new viewpoint.  Christians have thought it did say that.  You read it and it says it.  The Bible says it and Christians have thought and said that it said it, until along came textual criticism.  We wrote a whole book about it, that was mainly attacked in very crazy, off-the-wall ways.  When you read the criticisms, you know their position is in trouble.  A lot of the criticisms are insane.

I want to give you a recent example.  I'm going to have to review this guy's book, because in the main it is a book to bash our book.  I don't want to give any attention to his book, which is my main negative to not reviewing it.  One more person might read it and entertain accusations that should not be considered.  The book was pushed along and encouraged and then the preface was written by the great scholar Bob Hayton.  I would say that Bob has an axe to grind.  A big one.  Most people don't know how big of an axe Bob Hayton is grinding.  They don't know what motivates his material.  It's easy to see if he was a member of your church, like he was ours, and you saw what he did and then what he later said about it.  Bob knows our position.  He was in our church.  He accepted our position.  He didn't oppose it.  He asked questions about it, but gave no sign that he didn't believe it.  I write all this about Bob, because Bob knows a bold faced particular lie in a recent published book is not true.  He knows it, and he says nothing about it.  It's a mean, evil, very scummy thing.  And he's good with it.  He brags on the book, knowing this lie is in it.  The book isn't very good, and I'll talk about it at some point, but I'm going to talk about this one whopper of a lie first.

When I read the left, I have noticed that they have no moral compunctions against lying to get their point done.  It is "end justifies the means," a philosophy of utiliarianism and pragmatism that came out of the age of reason.  God is diminished, man is at the center of things, and lies become acceptable.  You know for sure then that they are not interested in the truth.

I've been preaching through 2 Corinthians and I know it isn't new.  Paul was attacked in the most scandalous ways by false teachers to discredit him, to ruin his reputation, so that the false teachers could have their way with the Corinthians.  You've got to expect it.  You saw the Pharisees do it with Jesus.  So what are you to think when you see these critical text people do this?  I have to say I get it now.  It's sad.  I wish it weren't true, but it is.  They will use whatever they want, whatever it takes for them, to destroy the truth on this.  It's their way at almost any cost. It's just the way it goes, I guess.  I don't want to believe it's true, but I've just seen it too much.

Jason Harris in his new book, called The Doctrine of Scripture (highly misrepresentative really), mainly just attacks the perfect preservation view.  It's not any kind of quality, well-researched, scholarly, studied-out book on the doctrine of Scripture.  It's just a hatchet job against the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, regularly making outlandish statements without any documentation, asserting what it cannot prove.  He doesn't present any kind of historic, established, or exegetical view himself of this.  He just smears the perfect preservation position and assaults the people who believe it.  He lumps all sorts of different positions together as if they are one, not distinguishing between them.  The people cheering him on wouldn't care about such inaccuracy.

In a section on 1 Peter 1:23-25, Harris deals with the notion of people who believe that someone can only be saved by means of the preaching of the King James Version.  In that section, he quotes Jack Hyles as having taken that position.  It's true that Hyles took it.  Our book was very clear to say that position was wrong.  I wrote a footnote in that chapter and the first line of it reads:

There is enough of God's Word (at least 93%) in the CT that a person could be born again by means of that text.

And then the rest of the footnote backs up that initial statement.  That is an unequivocal statement that would deny anything that Hyles wrote.  Even further, I write:

As strong as this text is in relating salvation to the purity of the Bible, it does not go so far as to teach that conversion can only occur through the King James Version.

But Harris can't leave it alone.  He has to somehow connect us with this false position.  It's the strategy that false teachers do, who don't have the truth on their side.  They misrepresent people to harm their reputation and their credibility.  Of course, Bob Hayton knows we don't believe anything close to that, but he likes to have us smeared, even if it takes a lie to do so.

After dealing with Hyles in his footnote, he quotes three different people in our book:  Gary LaMore, Dave Sutton, and then me.  His quote from LaMore was saying nothing more than we are dependent on God's preservation of His Word in order to be saved.  Are we to assume that Harris believes that we can be saved without the Word of God?  Are we?  Should we assume that?  Perhaps I could write a book that says that Jason Harris believes we can be saved without the Bible.  I'm not going to do that, but why would he attack LaMore, who said nothing more than that?

He quotes Dave Sutton with a big bracketed statement in it as an attempt at mind reading from Sutton's chapter on the phrase, "it is written."  Here's what Harris writes, first quoting Sutton with his own bracketed material included:

"The doctrine of salvation is dependent upon preservation.  If there were no preserved Words [he's implying preservation in a particular text], then there would be no preached Word, and man could not believe on Jesus Christ; for 'faith cometh by hearing.'"  Following this logic, if one does not have the right "Words" (i.e., the text Sutton holds to) how can he be saved?

No, that is not Sutton's logic.  It isn't what he was thinking or writing.  He's actually writing what he means.  If you don't have the Words, then you can't preach them, and people are saved through hearing them preached.  That's what Romans 10 says.  Is Harris saying that you can be saved by Words that are not in fact God's Words?  If one can be saved by any Words, Words that are not in God's Word, then why would someone need the Word of God?  This is what Harris is denying by attempting to smear Sutton.  I don't think it's worth it to have so much disdain for someone else's position, that when you go after it, you risk orthodox doctrine yourself.  That's what Harris does.

Then he quotes my chapter on Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and accessibility or availability of God's Words. People use the unavailability of scripture as an excuse for not obeying God.  God says the Words will be there for us and Paul quotes this passage in Romans 10, a salvation passage.  I've preached through the whole book of Deuteronomy, studying it in the original languages, and I know what Deuteronomy is all about.  I talk about the layout of Deuteronomy in my chapter, and I don't think that Harris understands it.  I'm not going to say he didn't read it, but he writes like he didn't read the chapter.  If he understood the chapter, he would know that agreement to obey all that God said is equated with salvation in Deuteronomy.  That's how Deuteronomy reads.  Harris quotes one line from that chapter.

Belief in Christ assumes the reception of all God's Words.

From that line, Harris extrapolates a truckload.  He says:

This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg's understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation.

Really?  That's what that line implies, especially in light of the teaching of Deuteronomy and the instruction in that chapter?  Remember, I wrote that footnote to LaMore's 1 Peter 1:23-25 chapter.  The first line said that people can be saved through the critical text.  I edited the book.  I wrote that line in the footnote. Why try to read into something that I wrote something that I clearly said that I don't believe?  Harris is very, very loose with the truth.  He is so eager to discredit us that he's fine lying about us.

There will those who will be fine with Harris's lie, because he's lying about me, and that's fine.  He's smearing me, so that's good.  That's how they roll. That is their method of operation.  They'll be fine with it.  They will defend Jason, attack me.  I'm expecting that people will say, "You lied about me!"  And then they'll make up things about that too.  Of course, if they are concerned about lies, then they wouldn't want someone lying like that, but they aren't concerned about lies, but about a position that they appreciate, adore, support, like, or love being defended and believed.  If lies are what it takes, you use them.  The lies you oppose are the ones that hurt your position, but you're not really interested in the truth.

Should I assume that Harris believes that someone can deny God's Words, the ones He doesn't like or agree with, and still believe in Jesus Christ?  In other words, can someone be unrepentant of rebellion against teaching of God and still believe in Jesus Christ?  Is Harris into easy-believism?  All I would need to do is ask Harris if that's true.  That wouldn't be hard.  And that's what Harris did with me, rather than say that I believe this "dangerous error" that he says I believe.   No.  He doesn't ask me.  He just makes the statement without proof.  It's horrible.

I can guarantee you that the rest of the book is the same.  I'm not saying it is bereft of truth at all, but it is full of these same types of problems all over.  I'll be dealing with them, but this is representative of the kind of effort that he is willing to produce.

There is a lot of this that I read from critical text people.  Many are fully willing to do this kind of twisting.  You know their position is in trouble when it's propped up by blatant lies.

Some Thoughts on the Zimmerman Trial

The George Zimmerman Trial became one of the biggest trials in U. S. History so far, and I say "so far" because at this rate there might be many more of these spectacles.  In light of all the murder and mayhem across the country and world, this one should not have been rated so important, which is why I say it "became" big.  A first thought is one you've already heard with which I agree, that is, this non-crime shouldn't have gone to trial in the first place.  There was no evidence of either second degree murder or manslaughter.  There was only evidence of self-defense.  It only went trial because of race baiting opportunists, who exploited this tragedy for personal or political gain.  This country is already in steep decline, but if we continue to allow this type of circumstance to continue, we'll slide even faster to total demise.

It's got to be really tough to lose a child like the Martin's did, no matter what their personal condition, and I thought about being in their shoes.  I have one son.  If I were in their shoes, I know how I would react to it.  If it were reverse, and Zimmerman was black and my son was the one who died, I'm saying I know how I would be.  First, I would understand that I had totally blown it as a parent.  I would have seen it as mainly my fault.  I would have seen it as my fault that I had a child that was just allowed to run in a way that he was far too unaccountable.  I would have seen it as my fault that I didn't even know where my child was at.  I would know that I did not bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord for whatever reason.  The parents weren't together and perhaps it would be because of the condition of my marriage.  There were many bad decisions these parents made that resulted in their child's death.  I would have already seen myself as largely at fault for that.

At this point, the country has seen the pictures of Trayvon proudly puffing on the marijuana and posing in all sorts of rebellious ways.  We know about his filthy mouth.  We know about the kind of people with whom he kept company.  All of those were a recipe for disaster.  I know that not doing enough about those or not doing anything about them would have been enough for me to understand why this happened to my son.  I would know that.  I would understand that.  I would blame that on no one else.  I would be sad, but I would point the finger straight at myself for that.  Sure, I would wish that Zimmerman had done better at the gym in getting in shape and learning out to defend himself that he didn't need a gun, but I would completely understand his use of the gun.  People can carry a handgun.  You know that in Florida.  If you know that, then you stay out of the kind of trouble that could get you shot.

Second, I would accept why my son died.  I wouldn't like it, but I could accept it.  You can't get away with all foolish behavior.  All of us get away with a certain amount in our lives, where we could have or even should have been killed.  Our lives could have ended suddenly.  The more of that type of behavior, the greater the opportunity to have our lives terminate sooner than what we would like.  We have a responsibility to train our children in that.  Eli didn't warn his sons Hophni and Phinehas enough, so they both died, and he knew it was because of him.  This was a case when the wrong decisions resulted in his death.  Really one different decision out of several different decisions that night could have been enough for him to still be living.  I would have wished for a different outcome, like I have wished for a different outcome when I'm caught speeding, but I know I deserve it, so I accept it.  I'm hoping for mercy, but I understand when I don't get it.  I could hope for mercy for my son, but I would understand why that didn't happen.  We don't deserve mercy.  If you can't learn to walk away from certain situations, or just run away from someone you are twice as fast as, then you are going to get in trouble.

What I'm saying is that if my son died that way, and at the hands of a black Zimmerman, I would believe my son deserved it.  I wish he didn't have to pay such a price for a few bad decisions, but I would have understood why he died.  I wouldn't feel bitter about Zimmerman.  I wouldn't expect the justice system to do anything.  I would fully conceive of why it shouldn't and wouldn't go to trial.  I would not try to force the justice system to give me a trial.  It would be very apparent why the event transpired.

Trayvon Martin didn't die because he was walking through a neighborhood at night in the rain.  He didn't die because he bought Skittles and an Arizona ice tea.  He didn't get killed because he was black.  He didn't lose his life when he didn't do anything wrong or when he was just going about his own business.  He didn't pass away because of his hoodie.  Every single one of those could have happened and he still easily would have made it back to his dad's house safe and sound with no possibility of dying that night.  This was not a complicated case.  Anyone that had just certain basics of the case knows that everything I'm saying is true.  I believe the main race baiters of the left know this to be true.  They are either lying or they are of such destitute minds that they are able to convince themselves that their lies are true.

If someone were taught just basic civilized human behavior, he would have known how to have survived that night in that neighborhood with George Zimmerman.  One, learn how not to look suspicious.  You look suspicious when you take a shortcut through a neighborhood in the dark in the rain with a hoodie covering your face and talking on a cell phone.  That's just common sense.  If you don't think so, then get some common sense. Get.  Some.  Maybe you don't have that ability.  Your average lifespan is probably going to be shorter then.  Don't be surprised at an early demise.  You say, "He was just a kid."  True, which is why he shouldn't have been out at all after dark until he was taught some common sense.  If the parent doesn't have common sense, then it's easy to understand how the child doesn't have it.  This has nothing to do with being black, white, Asian, or Hispanic.  Common sense is, well, common.

I know what it's like to be young, athletic, fast, and scared.  When I felt that way, I ran.  If there was a potential threat, I ran.  I ran until I was in a safe place.  I remember running through a dark woods on my walk home after late away sporting activities.  We lived near the school, and I walked across a field, a woods, a railroad track, and then to home.  I often ran when I got to the woods and there wasn't even moonlight.  When you are scared, you run.  If I looked at a Zimmerman looking guy, and I wasn't sure about him, I would run home.   I would train my kids not to have been there in the first place, but at that point, they would have known that it was time to run.  Run home.  If you are really scared, use the cell phone and call 911.  Why aren't we hearing this type of instruction coming from the folks related to Trayvon?  It might be your right to walk through the neighborhood, but that doesn't mean that there aren't dangerous people around.  Don't risk it.  Run.  Trayvon Martin was so much faster than George Zimmerman, and as the evidence showed, he didn't need to get close to him.  How could he have ever gotten close enough to Zimmerman to break Zimmerman's nose and cut and bruise the back of his head, and put abrasions on every side of his head, if he was trying to avoid Zimmerman before he got shot?

The prosecutor started his closing argument with, "He didn't do anything wrong!"  I understand he was trying to win the case by saying something other people have also now said.  You shouldn't be able to win a jury, and I don't think you do, by lying and insulting its intelligence.  Of course Martin did something wrong.  He punched Zimmerman in the nose.  That should have never happened if Trayvon Martin was minding his own business, was afraid, and just wanted to get home.  Please.  Don't insult our intelligence with that.  Others have said, the injuries on Zimmerman weren't that bad.  Right.  He had a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, abrasions all over his head, and Martin had no injuries before the gunshot wound.  Using only a little available intelligence tells you that the injuries to Zimmerman could have been worse had Martin lived in order to keep going.  When you are taking a beating, and the beating stops because you shot your assailant, you can't say how bad the beating would have been.  What degree and length of beating are you required to take before you stop it with your gun?  Do you have to go unconscious?  At the moment it is happening, do you really think that Zimmerman can judge what is the correct amount of assault to endure before he stops it with his gun?

You don't carry a handgun for self-defense only in case someone else has a handgun, so you can win a gun fight.  You carry a handgun too in case you could get mugged or beat up by a more skilled or stronger or more athletic fighter.  In those cases, you shoot an unarmed man.  Landing a fist in your face and slamming your head on the ground is a physical threat.  It is a reason someone carries a handgun.  If I'm walking in New York City at night, and I am confronted by someone, who throws me against the wall, punches me, knocks me to the ground, and then starts slamming my head against the ground, and I have a gun, what do you think I should do?  Really.

If someone took the best case scenario for Trayvon Martin, there still wasn't evidence of a murder.  The best case for Martin would be that we don't know who was screaming on the 911 tape, we don't know who started the fight, that Zimmerman was in fact following him, and that Zimmerman had "profiled" him.  The problem with his best case scenario is that there is much better evidence that it was Zimmerman who was screaming, that Martin punched Zimmerman first in the nose, that Zimmerman wasn't following him in the manner that the prosecution tried to persuade the jury, and that there wasn't anything illegal for a private citizen to profile someone.  Who is a neighborhood watchman supposed to be watching for?  This goes back to common sense.  He watches for suspicious people.  If he sees anyone, and I mean anyone, he thinks is suspicious, he has now profiled someone.  Everyone profiles other people all the time.  If you hire someone, you've profiled that person.  If you don't hire someone, he's been profiled too.

I feel very little sympathy for George Zimmerman.  If I had a son, he wouldn't look like George Zimmerman, is what I'm saying.  I'm not even utilizing any kind of unique Christian experience or leadership or wisdom that I might have with this.  What I'm writing here relates to basic common sense.  Is that missing much more because of a lack of true conversions in the United States?  Absolutely.  But it doesn't take supernatural discernment to come to the same conclusions that I'm stating here.

Some said that they thought it was at least manslaughter, if not second degree murder.  Anyone who says that doesn't know what he's talking about. Stephen Curry, the guard for the Golden State Warriors, tweeted that.  He said he watched it closely and thought at least manslaughter.  Watching it closely doesn't explain a manslaughter possibility.  It wasn't easier in this case to get a manslaughter charge than a second degree murder charge.  The defense for both was self-defense.  If you decide it was self-defense, neither of those charges would stick.  Saying it was manslaughter doesn't understand manslaughter.  The only reason for manslaughter here would be if the jury wanted Zimmerman to be punished in some way because Martin was killed.  I think that's where most people are today who want Zimmerman in jail.  It's not justice they want.  They want revenge.  When they say there wasn't justice, they don't understand justice or a just system.  In our system, to be guilty, that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  For those who question this jury, they wanted the jury to come back with a verdict based upon a low degree of probability.  The idea is that if it was even possible that Zimmerman was guilty, then he should be punished, and that's what a manslaughter charge should be for.  The existence of manslaughter was in case that the prosecution could convince the jury purely on emotional grounds.  If there was no proof for second degree they could split the difference with a manslaughter.  In this case, the jury followed the law, which disappointed people who have little respect for the law.

Some are saying that the reason for the injustice here is because it was 5 white women and 1 Hispanic woman.  Those people are not racists, right?  They aren't sexists either, right?  When the experts said the prosecution was trying to sway the jury with emotion because they were six women, where was the outcry?  That's discriminatory, right?  Women aren't more emotional then men, or at least you can't say that, or you're sexist, I've been told.

Al Sharpton said they always had "plan B," if this didn't work.  Plan B is a federal civil rights suit brought against Zimmerman.  You get your trial, but you don't get your guilty verdict, and so you have another alternative.  Al Sharpton is twisted.  He's got some kind of outlook or attitude that disallows him from seeing  the world accurately.  Zimmerman never even mentioned whether Trayvon Martin was black, until he was asked whether the suspicious person was black, white, or hispanic, and he said he thought he was black.  If it's illegal for a citizen to profile, then why is that racial question asked?  Isn't everyone profiled then when there is a question about race on even government applications?

You reader might think this is insensitive to black people, that black people are far less likely to get justice and this Zimmerman trial only reinforces that conception.  Everyone -- red or yellow, black or white -- needs to know what and why this happened.  The instinct to blame these situations on others is against what is necessary to prevent more unnecessary deaths.

This country should not put up with the riots and the misbehavior stemming from this jury decision.  All criminal reaction should be dealt with according to the full force of the law.  No one should be excused.  If our country does not, it's only going to get worse.  Finally, the solution always comes back to the true gospel.  The only answer for America is a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

***************
Here's an article on this that adds the tell-tale statement by the main detective investigating the case when he interviewed Zimmerman, feigning that the whole incident was caught on surveillance tape, and Zimmerman replied, "Thank God." Zimmerman had said that he was being straddled and beaten by Martin, and he was confident that a surveillance tape would back his story.

We also now get an interview of prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel on CNN by Piers Morgan in which she says that Martin didn't think he was being followed by a racist, but he profiled Zimmerman as a predatory gay cop who wanted to rape him and then his little brother.  If this is true, and Jeantel is actually credible, then Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was gay.  If this scenario is correct, then the media is defending Martin's attempt at brutally beating someone for showing a gay interest in him.  According to Jeantel, Martin beat Zimmerman out of homophobia in the truest definition of that term.

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 17

            The affirmation of Habakkuk 2:4 that “the just shall live by faith,” the thesis statement of the Old Testament prophet,[i] is found in the thesis statement of the book of Romans:  “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17).[ii]  Genesis 15:6 is also quoted in Romans 4:3 to prove that Abraham was justified by faith alone apart from works of the law.  The significance of these two quotations in the context of the book of Romans, and their value in illuminating the character of Christian faith, will be examined in book order.

            Romans 1:16-17 reads:  “I am not ashamed[iii] of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”[iv]  Romans 1:16-17a illuminate what is involved in the affirmation of Habbakuk that “the just shall live by faith.”[v]  First, Paul proves in 1:18-3:20 that all need the gracious justification of God through the gospel of Christ, because all, Jew and Gentile, are sinners devoid of righteousness.  They stand in need of, by faith, becoming those who are just and shall live.  Men are by nature and choice the enemies of God,[vi] under His wrath, and separated from the spiritual and eternal life[vii] that comes through faith.[viii]  Whether Jews (2:1-29) or Gentiles (1:18-32), all[ix] stand condemned (3:1-20).[x]  In 1:18-3:20, the righteous wrath of God is revealed (1:18), rather than His righteous manner of showing mercy in and by Christ (8:18),[xi] for men are unrighteous,[xii] while God is righteous.[xiii]

            Second, Paul proves in 3:21-5:21 that men are delivered from sin and justified apart from the law and through faith alone.  Since, as Habakkuk affirms, those who have faith are those who have spiritual and eternal life, and are the just before God, clearly salvation is the possession of every believer, whether Jew or Gentile, rather than the prize only of those who perform meritorious works.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:21-28)[xiv]

The just or righteous are all[xv] those Jews and Gentiles[xvi] who have been declared righteous by the gracious God[xvii] on the basis of the imputed righteousness of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.[xviii]  Works cannot earn righteous standing before God—on the contrary, imputed righteousness is received solely through the instrumentality of faith.[xix]  The imputation of righteousness brings salvation and spiritual and eternal life.[xx]

This post is part of the complete study here.

-TDR

---

[i]           R. M. Moody demonstrates that “Romans . . . has in a very important way the same theme as Habakkuk. . . . In Habakkuk the centre of the solution of Habakkuk’s problem is Hab 2:4, and the theme verse of Romans is 1:17 . . . both books are on the same subject. . . . We therefore arrive at the conclusion that we have in Romans an extensive study of Habakkuk in the light of the coming of Christ in which Paul fully examines every aspect of Habakkuk’s solution to the problem of God’s dealing with Jew and Gentile” (pg. 208, “The Habakkuk Quotation in Romans 1:17,” R. M. Moody. Expository Times 90 (1980-81) 205-208).

[ii]           ouj ga»r e˙paiscu/nomai to\ eujagge÷lion touv Cristouv: du/namiß ga»r Qeouv e˙stin ei˙ß swthri÷an panti« twˆ◊ pisteu/onti, ∆Ioudai÷wˆ te prw◊ton kai« ›Ellhni. dikaiosu/nh ga»r Qeouv e˙n aujtwˆ◊ aÓpokalu/ptetai e˙k pi÷stewß ei˙ß pi÷stin, kaqw»ß ge÷graptai, ÔO de« di÷kaioß e˙k pi÷stewß zh/setai.

[iii]          Contrast the use of e˙paiscu/nomai in 1:16 with the only other use in Romans, found in 6:21;  Paul, as one would expect for the saints of God, is not ashamed of the gospel of the crucified God-Man, but believers are ashamed of the sins they committed before their conversion.  Compare the other NT e˙paiscu/nomai texts: Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 2 Timothy 1:8, 12, 16; Hebrews 2:11; 11:16.

[iv]          ouj ga»r e˙paiscu/nomai to\ eujagge÷lion touv Cristouv: du/namiß ga»r Qeouv e˙stin ei˙ß swthri÷an panti« twˆ◊ pisteu/onti, ∆Ioudai÷wˆ te prw◊ton kai« ›Ellhni. dikaiosu/nh ga»r Qeouv e˙n aujtwˆ◊ aÓpokalu/ptetai e˙k pi÷stewß ei˙ß pi÷stin, kaqw»ß ge÷graptai, ÔO de« di÷kaioß e˙k pi÷stewß zh/setai.  The verses are full of key terms that appear throughout Romans.

            It should be noted that both instances of pi÷stiß in Romans 1:17’s “from faith to faith” refer to the act of human believing, so that the phrase speaks of the increase and strengthening of the believer’s faith;  neither instance in Romans 1:17 refers to God’s faithfulness, and consequently the sense of the phrase is not “from the faithfulness of God to man’s faith.”  Indeed, both the e˙k pi÷stewß construction in the New Testament (Romans 1:17; 3:26, 30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30, 32; 10:6; 14:23; Galatians 2:16; 3:7–9, 11–12, 22, 24; 5:5; Heb 10:38; James 2:24) and the dia» pi÷stewß construction (Romans 1:12; 3:22, 25, 27, 30–31; 4:13, 16; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Galatians 2:16; 3:14, 26; Ephesians 2:8; 3:12, 17; Philippians 3:9; Colossians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 6:12; 11:33, 39; 1 Peter 1:5) always refer to human “faith” rather than to God or Christ’s faithfulness (cf. pgs. 363-373, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, John Murray, for further examination of this question and validation of the conclusions here stated).

[v]           As the Hebrew accentuation in Habakkuk 2:4 makes it clear that Habakkuk’s assertion is “the just, by his faith he shall live,” rather than “the just by his faith, he shall live,” so in Romans 1:17 Paul’s ÔO de« di÷kaioß e˙k pi÷stewß zh/setai does not mean “he who through faith is righteous shall live,” but “the righteous shall live by his faith,” a fact not only borne out by the Hebrew of Habakkuk but also a number of evidences from the Greek.  That is, the e˙k pi÷stewß modifies zh/setai, rather than di÷kaioß.  Paul could easily have written oJ e˙k pi÷stewß di÷kaioß zh/setai or oJ di÷kaioß oJ e˙k pi÷stewß zh/setai had he wished to indicate that e˙k pi÷stewß modified di÷kaioß.

As noted by Moody Smith (pgs. 17-19, “O DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI,” Moody D. Smith, in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament, FS K. W. Clark, ed B. L. Daniels and M. J. Suggs. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1967;  Smith’s argument is very closely followed below), Romans 1:16f. falls into four parts, the first three introduced by ga¿r and the fourth by kaqw¿ß.  The first, introductory, section is v. 16a.  The subsequent parts consist of three propositions with significant parallelism.  Three elements appear in each part, with the following pattern:  a.) The action of God b.) is a revelation which brings salvation c.) for all who receive it in faith.  That is:

A          v. 16b du/namiß ga»r Qeouv

            b. 17a dikaiosu/nh ga»r Qeouv

            v. 17b oJ de« di÷kaioß

B          v. 16b e˙stin ei˙ß swthri÷an

            v. 17a e˙n aujtwˆ◊ (=eujaggeli÷wˆ)  aÓpokalu/ptetai

            v. 17b zh/setai

C          v. 16b panti« twˆ◊ pisteu/onti

            v. 17a e˙k pi÷stewß ei˙ß pi÷stin

            v. 17b e˙k pi÷stewß

In v. 16b and 17a the pattern ABC if followed.  Since Paul follws the order of the text of Habakkuk (:h`RyVjˆy wñøtÎn…wmTaR;b qyäî;dAx◊w), v. 17b has the order ACB, but the pattern of the two preceding syntactical units indicates how Paul understands the Habakkuk quotation.  The pattern in v. 16b and 17a of:  a.) God’s action, b.) salvific revelation, c.) reception by faith, provides a key for unlokcing Paul’s understanding of the Habakkuk quotation.  Furthermore, the Habakkuk formula helps explain the disposotion of the two preceding affirmations in three parallel elements.  Thus, the parallel structure supports the fact that Paul construes the e˙k pi÷stewß with the verb zh/setai.

            Furthermore, it appears that v. 17a is a restatement of v. 16b in terms supplied by Habakkuk 2:4.  Paul’s mention of the righteousness of God is an abstraction promted by the upcoming oJ di÷kaioß.  The present tense aÓpokalu/ptetai corresponds to the future zh/setai of the Habakkuk quotation.  The present tense of aÓpokalu/ptetai, with the phrase e˙k pi÷stewß ei˙ß pi÷stin, indicates a continuing process of Divine self-disclosure on the basis of faith.  What Paul affirms abstractly and with respect to its Divine origin in 17a is then given scriptural grounds and set forth in concrete terms with respect to the human situation in 17b:  “The righteous [man] shall live by faith.”

            The view that the New Testament quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 means “the righteous shall live by faith” rather than “the righteous by faith shall live” is found throughout the church age;  see, e. g., for the early church period, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Chapter 1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 2:6; 4:16;  Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, Homily 7.

[vi]          While Qeo/ß, and His righteous wrath and judment, are ubiquitous in Romans 1:18-3:20 (see 1:18–19, 21, 23–26, 28, 32; 2:2–5, 11, 13, 16–17, 23–24, 29; 3:2–7, 11, 18–19), Cristo/ß (and ∆Ihsouvß) appears only in 2:16 (the only reference to eujagge÷lion in this portion of the epistle also), where His Messianic judgment and condemnation of the unbelieving wicked is in view;  there is no swthri÷a in 1:18-3:20 (the complete list of texts with the word in Romans is:  1:16; 5:9–10; 8:24; 9:27; 10:1, 9–10, 13; 11:11, 14, 26; 13:11).  In contrast, God as Author of the gospel and the loving and propitiated Father of those in Christ appears very frequently in the other portions of Romans (cf. 1:1, 7-9, 16-17, 3:21-23, 25-26, 29-30, 4:2-3, 6, 17, 20; 5:1-2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15; 6:10, 11, 13, 17, 22-23, 7:4, 22, 25; 8:3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 39, 9:8, 11, 16, 26, 10:1, 3, 9, 17; 11:2, 22-23, 29-30, 32-33; 12:1-3, 14:3, 6, 17-18, 20, 22, 15:5-9, 13, 15-17, 19, 30, 32-33; 16:20, 26-27) among a significant variety of other uses of Qeo/ß (cf. 1:4, 10; 8:7-8; 9:5-6, 14, 20, 22; 10:2, 11:8, 21; 13:1-2, 4, 6, 14:11-12—note that His judgment and wrath are also present in a variety of these texts). Cristo/ß appears elsewhere frequently in Romans (1:1, 4, 6–8, 16; 3:22, 24; 5:1, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 21; 6:3–4, 8–9, 11, 23; 7:4, 25–8:2; 8:9–11, 17, 34–35, 39–9:1; 9:3, 5; 10:4, 6–7; 12:5; 13:14; 14:9–10, 15, 18; 15:3, 5–8, 16–20, 29–30; 16:3, 5, 7, 9–10, 16, 18, 20, 24–25, 27) as does ∆Ihsouvß (1:1, 4, 6–8; 3:22, 24, 26; 4:24; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21; 6:3, 11, 23; 7:25–8:2; 8:11, 39; 10:9; 13:14; 14:14; 15:5–6, 8, 16–17, 30; 16:3, 18, 20, 24–25, 27).

[vii]         Romans 2:7-8.  Of course, spiritual life and eternal life are highly overlapping or even synonymous terms—those who will have eternal and spiritual life eschatologically are those who have spiritual and eternal life now by means of faith and regeneration.

[viii]         The human exercise of pi÷stiß is absent in 1:18-3:20.  Obviously, 3:3 is no exception.

[ix]          All (pa◊ß, 1:16) need the salvation set forth in the gospel because God’s wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness (1:18) of all men, Jew or Gentile (2:1, 9-10; 3:9) who are filled with all unrighteousness (1:29; 3:12) and therefore are all unable to be justified by the law (3:19-20).  Thankfully, the gospel is set forth in Romans as offered to all, whether Jew or Gentile, who believe (3:22-23; 4:11, 16; 5:12, 18; 9:33; 10:4, 11-13, 18, 26, 32; 15:11; 16:26).  The point of Romans 2:13 is the availability of salvation to both Jew and Gentile, as the following context demonstrates, while the verse also indicates that all who are justified by faith alone will characteristically keep God’s commandments.

[x]           2:9; 3:9.  2:10 is a proleptic reference to truth explained after 3:20—the manner in which, by grace through faith alone, one can become a true Jew (2:17, 28-29).

[xi]          aÓpokalu/ptw appears only in 1:17, 18; 8:18.

[xii]         aÓdiki÷a, 1:18, 29; 2:8; 3:5; cf. 6:13.  Oujk e¶sti di÷kaioß oujde« ei–ß, 3:10.  The di÷kaioß recipient of dikaio/w in 2:13 does not receive elaboration in the portion from 1:18-3:20;  the following portions of the epistle provide elaboration.

[xiii]         3:4-5; 9:14.

[xiv]         21 nuni« de« cwri«ß no/mou dikaiosu/nh Qeouv pefane÷rwtai, marturoume÷nh uJpo\ touv no/mou kai« tw◊n profhtw◊n:  22 dikaiosu/nh de« Qeouv dia» pi÷stewß ∆Ihsouv Cristouv ei˙ß pa¿ntaß kai« e˙pi« pa¿ntaß tou\ß pisteu/ontaß: ouj ga»r e˙sti diastolh/:  23 pa¿nteß ga»r h¢marton kai« uJsterouvntai thvß do/xhß touv Qeouv,  24 dikaiou/menoi dwrea»n thØv aujtouv ca¿riti dia» thvß aÓpolutrw¿sewß thvß e˙n Cristwˆ◊ˆ◊ ∆Ihsouv:  25 o§n proe÷qeto oJ Qeo\ß i˚lasth/rion, dia» thvß pi÷stewß, e˙n twˆ◊ aujtouv aiºmati, ei˙ß e¶ndeixin thvß dikaiosu/nhß aujtouv, dia» th\n pa¿resin tw◊n progegono/twn aJmarthma¿twn,  26 e˙n thØv aÓnochØv touv Qeouv: pro\ß e¶ndeixin thvß dikaiosu/nhß aujtouv e˙n twˆ◊ nuvn kairwˆ◊, ei˙ß to\ ei•nai aujto\n di÷kaion kai« dikaiouvnta to\n e˙k pi÷stewß ∆Ihsouv.  27 pouv ou™n hJ kau/chsiß; e˙xeklei÷sqh. dia» poi÷ou no/mou; tw◊n e¶rgwn; oujci÷ aÓlla» dia» no/mou pi÷stewß.  28 logizo/meqa ou™n pi÷stei dikaiouvsqai a‡nqrwpon, cwri«ß e¶rgwn no/mou.

[xv]         3:22–23; 4:11, 16; 5:12, 18.

[xvi]         3:29; 4:17–18.

[xvii]        The emphasis of the texts with Qeo/ß in 3:21-5:21 (3:21–23, 25–26, 29–30; 4:2–3, 6, 17, 20; 5:1–2, 5, 8, 10–11, 15) differs radically from those references to Qeo/ß in 1:18-3:20—in the latter section, God is now, because of Jesus Christ, who is abundantly referenced in the section (3:22, 24; 5:1, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 21), the God who manifests grace and love through propitiated justice, rather than the God of wrath who justly punishes those who have not been reconciled through the Redeemer.

[xviii]       Notice the abundance of references to both God’s and to imputed dikaiosu/nh (3:21-22, 25-26, 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 22; 5:17, 21) and to dikaio/w (3:20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9);  note also di÷kaioß (3:26; 5:7, 19).  The progression manifested in the uses of dikai÷wma is noteworthy. The ungodly know God’s righteous judgments but do not keep them (1:32), while regenerate Gentiles who keep God’s righteous judgments will be reckoned among the people of God (2:26).  Despite many offences, the people of God receive dikai÷wma for Christ’s sake, di∆ e˚no\ß dikaiw¿matoß receiving dikai÷wsiß (5:16, 18).  Consequently, because of regeneration, the righteous judgments of the law are fulfilled in them (8:4). 

In the book of Romans, the complete list of references to dikaiosu/nh is: 1:17; 3:5, 21–22, 25–26; 4:3, 5–6, 9, 11, 13, 22; 5:17, 21; 6:13, 16, 18–20; 8:10; 9:28, 30–31; 10:3–6, 10; 14:17; dikaio/w appears in 2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; 6:7; 8:30, 33, and di÷kaioß in 1:17; 2:13; 3:10, 26; 5:7, 19; 7:12.

[xix]         pi÷stiß, 3:22, 25–28, 30–31; 4:5, 9, 11–14, 16, 19–20; 5:1–2; pisteu/w, 4:3, 17–18, 24.

[xx]         swthri÷a, 5:9-10 (eschatological, rather than present, swthri÷a);  zwh/, 5:17, 18, 21 (see also 5:10)—note the references to zwh/ appear only at the end of the section 3:21-5:21, where a transition is being made to 6:1-8:39, and the references to swthri÷a are also both in chapter 5, where the dikaio/w word group is, although certainly still present, less overwhelmingly central than it is in chapters 3-4.