The Exegetical Challenge of Romans 9:5b

The closing doxology of Rom. 9:5, “the one being over all God blessed forever” [ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας], has engendered “one of the most difficult questions of exegesis in the epistle.”¹ As a matter of punctuation and syntax, if the statement stands independently, it would apply to God the Father (cf. 1:25), rendered “… the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever” (RSV, NRSV) or “the Christ … who is over all, God blessed forever” (ASV, NASB, KJV). On the other hand, if taken as a relative clause, it would apply to Christ: “the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever” (ESV, CSB, NET, NIV, NKJV). 

Grammar and Style Vs. Theology

The first option may be challenged stylistically and grammatically in that Paul’s doxologies normally complete a preceding thought rather than standing separately (cf. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31). The latter option may be challenged theologically in that Paul does not typically call Jesus “God” in such explicit fashion.² However, parallel teachings and implicit allusions in the midst of the apostle’s high Christology make a strong case for the latter. 

Paul’s High Christology

In v. 33 Paul quotes Isaiah 8:14, wherein the “rock of offense” is Yahweh (God's personal name), contextually applicable to Christ (v. 5; 10:4).³ In 10:9-13, affirming the requisites of confessing “the Lord Jesus” and calling upon “the Lord,” Joel 2:32 is quoted, “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” In the original text of Joel’s prophecy, the name to be called upon is Yahweh. The Lord [Yahweh] of Joel 2 is the Lord Jesus of Romans 10.⁴ Further, in 14:10 the judgment seat is God’s, while in 2 Cor. 5:10 the judgment seat is Christ’s. 

In Rom. 14:11 Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23, where every knee shall bow to Yahweh ’ĕl[ōhīm](“the Lord God”), whereas in Phil. 2:10-11 the same OT passage is alluded to yet applied to Jesus Christ. This follows Phil. 2:6, where the pre-incarnate Christ is described as “existing in the form of God,” who “counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped” (ASV).⁵  Paul is not introducing or trying to prove or defend a new theology but is pragmatically calling for a Christlike mindset by appealing to what Christians already know and accept about Jesus.⁶

Intentional Ambiguity?

It is not improbable that the apostle is intentionally ambiguous here to prevent strict partitioning of the divine essence and losing sight of the unified working of the Godhead, seeing that ὁ κύριος (“the Lord”) is applied in Romans just as readily to God⁷ as it is to Jesus Christ,⁸ along with references that are less-than-precise (16:2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 22) or even more ambiguous (10:12; 12:11; 14:4-8). As history confirms, interpretive ambiguities force readers to think more deeply than they probably would have otherwise.⁹

Amen

The brief doxology closes with “Amen” [ἀμήν] (cf. 1:25; 11:36; 15:33; 16:27),¹⁰ an affirmation of truth, signifying “so be it” or “truly.” This Hebraic expression served as a Jewish liturgical formula (BAGD 45) spoken by the congregation at the end of a prayer, a reading of scripture, or a prophetic declaration (1 Chron. 16:36; Neh. 5:13; 8:6), adopted by Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 14:16) and by Paul in particular.¹¹

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ C. K. Barrett, Romans 178. See also F. F. Bruce, Romans 176. 

     ² Notwithstanding scholarly debates about authorship, the so-called hymn or hymn fragment of 1 Timothy 3:16 begins with the relative pronoun ὅς (“who”) in the NA²⁸/UBS⁵ text, but θεός (“God”) in the BMT/TR, applicable to Christ Jesus (v. 13).

     ³ Cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-7. More explicitly, see Col. 1:15-19; 2:9.

     ⁴ By the second century BC, the Jews considered the name Yahweh to be so sacred that when reading the Hebrew scriptures the term adonai (“Lord”) was substituted. This practice is reflected in the LXX in that the Greek κύριος (“Lord”) is consistently used for the divine name. In fact, of the 8,000+ occurrences of κύριος in the LXX, 6,700 are in the place of Yahweh. Those in the first century AD who were familiar with the LXX and heard Jesus addressed as κύριος could surely make this connection.

     ⁵ The term “existing” is the present tense of ὑπάρχω – already in possession of and continuously existing – in the “form” of God. The word “form” is μορφή, signifying the embodiment of the divine essence. His “equality with God” was not something Jesus selfishly “grasped.” Although ἁρπαγμός is a rare term (used only here in the NT) and could refer to the act of seizing, Paul applies it to something Jesus already possesses. In order to carry out the redemptive plan, Jesus did not “take advantage of” or “retain with an eager grasp” his equal status with God. Instead, he “emptied himself” in becoming human so he could suffer death (vv. 7-8). While Jesus maintained his divine essence, he willingly took on a subordinate role.

     ⁶ J. M. Boice, Philippians 126; P. E. Harrell, Philippians 87; G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth 71.

     ⁷ Rom. 4:8; 9:27-29; 10:13, 16; 11:3, 34; 12:19; 14:11; 15:11.

     ⁸ Rom. 1:4, 7; 4:24; 5:1, 11, 21; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; 10:9; 13:14; 14:9, 14; 15:6, 30; 16:18, 20.

     ⁹ See K. L. Moore, “Interpretive Ambiguities,” Moore Perspective (30 Oct. 2019), <Link>.

     ¹⁰ With textual variation, see also 16:20, 24 (N/KJV).

     ¹¹ Outside of Romans, see Gal. 1:5; 6:18; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim. 4:18; cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; even more occurrences in the Byzantine Majority Text.

Related Posts: Rom. 9:1-5

Image credit: https://fulleryouthinstitute.org/blog/how-to-plan-a-bible-study

The Hard Work of Bible Study

If we accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, we are compelled to approach its message with utmost respect and care. “Scripture begins a conversation that is interpersonal and potentially life-changing, because it is God who initiates the dialogue.”¹ Bible study is rewarding only when it is done right, requiring a serious mind and a strong commitment. “We are dealing with God’s thoughts: we are obligated to take the greatest pains to understand them truly and to explain them clearly.”² 

At the end of a remarkable life in the Lord’s service, including an enormously impactful teaching and writing ministry,³ the apostle Paul produced his final apostolic manuscript that preserves his last documented words. What the aged apostle regarded as of highest importance was knowing and serving the Lord (2 Tim. 1:1, 3, 8, 11, 12; 2:3, 10, 21; 4:5, 11), while rightly discerning, obeying, defending, and propagating the Lord’s revealed will as recorded in scripture (1:13; 2:2, 9, 14-19, 24-25; 3:14-17; 4:2-4, 17).

In 2 Timothy 2:15 we read in English translation:

·      “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (NKJV).

·      “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (NASB).

·      “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (ESV).

·      “Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately” (NET).⁴

What is this passage saying, and how does it apply to us today? Among other things, Bible study (exegesis) involves establishing the literary context, considering the broader context, translation, comparative analysis, identifying key concepts, and word study. By engaging in biblical exegesis, we learn something here about biblical exegesis. 

The current text follows a previous letter to Timothy that provides background and supplementary information, along with the larger context of Paul’s life and ministry, his other writings, and the rest of the Bible. Leading up to the above admonition the apostle has been urging Timothy to be brave, faithful, and strong, to endure and work hard. And Paul’s instructions have much broader applicability (cf. 2:2; 3:16-17; 4:2; also 1 Tim. 1:3; 4:6-16).

The verbal spoudázō (lit. “hasten”) conveys the sense of “labor,” “exert,” “give full diligence.”⁵ The verbal orthotoméō (lit. “cut straight”) means to “handle correctly” or “rightly expound.” The expression, “the word of truth,” consists of “the word”  [tòn lógon], descriptive of deliberate and specific communication, while “the truth” [tēs alētheías] implies an objective standard of doctrine.⁶

What do we learn from this text about how the word of truth is to be interpreted and applied? What would be the opposite of this that ought to be avoided? What is required, according to this passage, to receive God’s approval and avoid shame? 

“The problem of interpreting a passage from the Bible is one to which we would all like to find the key, some simple and easy formula that will enable us to approach any text of Scripture and quickly establish its meaning. Alas, there is no such simple answer …”⁷ Without the investment of considerable time, devotion, mental exertion, and prayer, we run the risk of missing and/or misunderstanding God’s revealed will.

When I read a local newspaper or newsfeed, I interpret its contents with little conscious effort because I am familiar with the literary conventions and share the same cultural context as those who wrote and published the articles. However, the interpretive process becomes more complicated when I try to understand a literary work from another country or different culture, and the task becomes even more daunting when attempting to interpret ancient literary texts, like the Bible, even further removed. 

“There are significant gaps in our knowledge of the literary conventions, language, and social settings that surround and inhabit biblical texts. We live in a different time and place than the times and places in which and to which the Bible originally spoke. Deliberate attention to these issues and painstaking work at many junctures are required.”⁸ In other words, exert full diligence to present yourself acceptable to God, an unashamed worker correctly handling the word of truth.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ J. K. Brown, Scripture as Communication (2nd ed.) 3.

     2 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed.) 15. 

     ³ Note, e.g., 2 Tim. 1:12-13; 4:6-8; 2 Pet. 3:14-16.

     4 Other interpretive renderings include: “Study … a workman … rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV); “Be diligent … a worker … correctly teaching the word of truth” (CSB); “Do your best … a worker … rightly explaining the word of truth” (NRSV). Ernst Wendland renders the text, “to present yourself to God as a person who has proven to be worthy and with no cause for shame” (“2 Timothy—translationNotes” 34). 

     ⁵ See Gal. 2:10; Eph. 4:3; 1 Thess. 2:17; 1 Tim. 2:15; 4:9  21; Tit. 3:1; Heb. 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:10, 15; 3:14.

     6 When Paul penned these directives, “the word of truth” was not limited to just the OT and the spoken word. The Greek term graphē (“scripture”) applies to something written, and Paul goes on to say that all “scripture” is divinely inspired (3:16). At the time, the writings of Luke were already regarded as “scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18), and within a comparable timeframe so were Paul’s (2 Pet. 3:15-16). See What the Scriptures say about the Scriptures.

     ⁷ I. Howard Marshall, “Introduction,” in NT Interpretation 11.

     ⁸ J. K. Brown, Scripture as Communication (2nd ed.) 11.

 

Related Posts: The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Interpretation, The Heart of Bible Study 

Addendum: Seeing that God desires all to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), he has clearly made this knowledge accessible and attainable. However, it is not the case he has made it so easy (note 2 Pet. 3:16!) that knowledge just happens by accident with no effort from the recipient. “The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God” (Psa. 14:2, NKJV). God seeks those who seek him. “But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 4:29); “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). For those sincerely desiring to know the Lord and his will, demonstrated by the effort expended, he provides the way. “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened” (Matt. 7:7-8).

 

Image credit: adapted from https://clearipcc.in/how-not-to-get-distracted-while-reading/

Biblical Exegesis (Part 3 of 3)

A further extension of the Grammatical-Historical Approach to biblical exegesis and often assumed in the CENI schema (discussed in our previous post) is the application of general principles and prohibitive silence.¹

Principles are general exhortations requiring basic common sense and mature reasoning to make specific, practical applications (cf. Heb. 5:14). Without general principles, imagine how enormous the Bible would have to be to specifically address all moral, relational, and religious life situations. Applying biblical principles in modern times should not be as daunting as some may surmise. William Larkin observes: “As human beings we have a commonality that enables us to interpret and apply ideas and patterns and forms from other cultures and time periods” (Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics 200).

·      When Jesus said, “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matt. 6:33), no specific details are given about how to actually do it, so it is up to the Lord’s disciples to carefully determine how this principle should be applied in every area of our lives. 

·      The same is true for principles such as abstaining from every form of evil (1 Thess. 5:22), not being conformed to the world (Rom. 12:2), modest dress (1 Tim. 2:9), etc.

Prohibitive silence, also known as the “rule of exclusion,” is based on the conviction that the entirety of what God wants us to know about his will has been fully disclosed in scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). Whatever is not communicated or authorized in scripture (explicitly or implicitly) is therefore excluded from God’s revealed will. In other words, divine silence = no divine sanction. 

·      In Acts 15 certain Jewish Christians were advocating mandatory circumcision (vv. 1, 5). How were they, and those they taught, supposed to know this wasn’t right, seeing that it was integral to the old covenant system? The Spirit-guided answer was simply, “we gave no such commandment” [prohibitive silence] (v. 24). 

·      Another example is found in Heb. 7:11-16. The Israelites knew the divine will concerning the appointment of priests because God explicitly revealed this information (Lev. 8:5 ff.), specifying the tribe of Levi as the priestly tribe (Num. 18:1-2; Deut. 33:8-11; Heb. 7:5). He did not (and did not need to) supply a list of other Israelite tribes in order to directly forbid the appointment of priests from any of them. By specifying Levi, all other tribes were implicitly excluded, as “Moses spoke nothing” [prohibitive silence] concerning them.

Is biblical silence always prohibitive, or is it sometimes permissive? It depends on whether the issue at hand is specifically or generically addressed in scripture.²

·      If the divine injunction had been, “Appoint priests from among the Israelites,” anyone from any of the tribes would be allowed; but the requirement was not this generic. The law directed the appointment of priests from among the Israelite tribe of Levi, which would permit anyone within the stated category, including tall Levites, short Levites, brown-haired Levites, black-haired Levites, etc., none of which deviates from the specified command. But the injunction would prohibit Egyptians, Assyrians, Reubenites, Simeonites, etc. (even serving alongside the Levites), because these options exceed the parameters of the specified command.

·      If the Bible had said, “Commemorate the Lord’s death with food and drink,” any type of food and drink (brownies, carrots, water, coffee) would be permissible; but the stipulated elements of the Lord’s Supper are not this generic. The directive to use unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:17, 26-29) would permit plates or trays or baskets or containers for the specified elements, none of which adds to or deviates from the stated instructions. But the directive does prohibit brownies, carrots, water, coffee, etc. (even if consumed along with the specified elements), because they are unauthorized additions to what scripture teaches.

·      If the NT had said, “Offer music to God as Christian worship,” any type of music (singing, electric guitar, saxophone, etc.) would be permissible; but the musical praise specified in the NT is not this generic. The NT affirms, “… singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19 + nine other verses), which would permit song books or overheads (for words), a tuning fork (for pitch), a song leader (for tempo), none of which deviates from the specified instructions. But there is no NT authorization for playing and making melody on a piano in worship (even to accompany the singing), or beating drums, or juggling Bibles, or dancing with hula hoops, etc. All humanly-devised additions to the specified instructions are implicitly prohibited if the Lord has given no such directive.

A More Thorough Exegetical Approach

While maintaining the tried and tested methodologies that have served us well over the years, as our biblical knowledge increases there should always be room in our exegetical toolkit for additional information. Multiple in-depth academic approaches to biblical exegesis have been proposed over the years,³ but what I find most helpful when examining a passage of scripture is the following:

1. Establish the contextual setting: authorship, audience, date, provenance, destination, circumstances, including geographical, political, historical, sociocultural matters; i.e., who is speaking/writing and who is being addressed? 

2. Establish the literary context beyond a single verse: genre, paragraph or pericope, the entire document, collection of writings, theological linkage, relationship to the overall context of scripture.

3. Identify key words, phrases, and concepts.

4. Word analysis: textual criticism, translation, comparative study. 

5. Sentence structure, syntax, grammar.

6. Consult secondary literature if needed.

7. Contemporary application. 

Not all of these apply equally to every text. As John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay remind us, “no mechanical system of steps or stages in the exegetical process can be set up and rigidly followed…. An appropriate way of proceeding in doing an exegesis of a passage is to let the questions and issues arise from the text itself…. allow the text to speak for itself” (Biblical Exegesis [Rev.] 132-33). 

The primary aim of biblical exegesis is deeper understanding and continual growth in grace and knowledge through the living and abiding word of God (1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Pet. 3:18).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     1 See K. L. Moore, Getting to Know the Bible (Winona, MS: Choate, 2002): 45-49.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Musical Praise and Biblical Silence,” Moore Perspective (10 June 2015), <Link>.

     ³ For example, the 10-step process of Craig L. Blomberg in A Handbook of NT Exegesis xiv-xv; or the 13-step process of Gordon D. Fee in NT Exegesis [3rd ed.] 6-7).

Related Posts: Biblical Exegesis Part 1, Part 2, Speaking Where the Bible Speaks, The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Understanding

Image credit: http://scottroberts.org/how-much-should-we-revere-gods-word-and-should-bible-pages-be-marked-up/

Biblical Exegesis (Part 2 of 3)

Although there is a “sufficiently bewildering set of exegetical possibilities,”¹ 

for our purposes we will briefly consider the more prevalent ones.

1. The Impressionistic Approach is when scripture is evaluated in a way that equates the meaning of the text with the interpreter’s immediate thoughts. This is the simplest approach that requires the least amount of effort. But its subjective and emotive nature practically guarantees missing or misconstruing scripture’s original intent.

2. The Dogmatic Approach views scripture as a storehouse of proof-texts to be selected and arranged to bolster a preconceived doctrine or set of beliefs. The danger (and tendency) of this method is to allow little consideration of authorial intent or literary, historical, and sociocultural context. It may give the appearance of biblicality (book, chapter, verse!), but without context, scripture can be made to mean just about anything the interpreter wants it to mean.²

3. The Grammatical-Historical Approach³ is a concerted attempt to understand what the words of scripture meant in their original setting, i.e., what the inspired author intended to communicate to his targeted audience.⁴ For exegetes with a high view of scripture, this methodology is also concerned with modern-day application.

3a. An extension of the Grammatical-Historical Approach, “Command, Example, Necessary Inference” (CENI) is a common description of the exegetical method historically characteristic of the North American Restoration Movement.⁵ 

Perhaps a better way of expressing each tenet is “direct statement,” “approved example or precedent,” and “implication.” Not everything we learn that is explicitly conveyed in scripture is in the form of a command. Not every account of action recorded in scripture is a pattern or example to be followed.⁶ While inferences are deductions of the human mind, a “necessary inference” is necessarily drawn from what the Bible implies,⁷ i.e., it is truth, not because we have inferred it but because God, through inspired writers, has implied it. 

·      Direct statements are facts, instructions, or commands that are communicated explicitly. When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, NKJV), no further logic or reasoning is needed to deduce what is being stated.

·      Approved examples are accounts of action that help illustrate or clarify what God expects of his people and therefore serve as a pattern (example or precedent) to be followed. Baptism is described as a burial and resurrection (Col. 2:12), and the account in Acts 8:36-39 depicts the action of baptism. The Lord’s Supper is a recurring memorial of Christ’s atoning death (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and the account in Acts 20:7 shows when it was observed by early Christians.⁸

·      Implication refers to something not directly stated but necessarily drawn from what the text conveys. Mark 1:11 reports, “Then a voice came from heaven …” The question is, whose voice? The text does not say explicitly but we can infer it was the heavenly Father’s voice, implied by the reference to Jesus as “My beloved Son” (cp. 1:1; 13:32), and confirmed by other passages (Matt. 7:21; 10:32; 2 Pet. 1:17). We read in Acts 8:35 that Philip “preached Jesus” to the Ethiopian official, which resulted in his request to be baptized (v. 36). The implication is, preaching Jesus is inclusive of baptism.

If all other forms of communication effectively operate by way of these interpretive parameters, why should the Bible be approached any differently? While the traditional CENI methodology may assume other basic interpretive principles (to be discussed in our next post), it is still subject to abuse (e.g. proof-texting), omission (e.g. not considering contextual matters), resulting in faulty conclusions and unnecessary brotherhood divisions. It is necessary, therefore, for us to dig deeper, broaden our exegetical horizons, and fill in any exegetical gaps. To be continued … 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     1 I. Howard Marshall, “Introduction,” in NT Interpretation 15. See also Ralph P. Martin, “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed. NT Interpretation 220-51. For descriptions and critiques of additional methods, see D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics 58 ff.; also Gene Taylor, Hermeneutics: How to Study the Bible 11-12.

     ² The so-called “Roman Road to Salvation” (popular in a number of denominational tracts) cherry-picks selected verses from the epistle to the Romans to create a seemingly biblical case for salvation by faith alone, but in so doing context is ignored and allusions to obedience and baptism (e.g. Rom. 1:5; 2:8; 6:1-18; 10:16; 16:19, 26) are curiously omitted.

     ³ Also called Grammatico-Historical, this methodology stands in contrast to the more philosophical historical-critical method (or “higher criticism”) that is chiefly concerned with the origins of an ancient text and reconstructing the historical situation behind it, often dismissing the divine element, and includes sub-disciplines like source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism.

     ⁴ Reader-response theory is less concerned about authorial intent and focuses more on audience perception. The more extreme advocates of the “new hermeneutic” deny any objective truth based on the original intended meaning, arguing for multiple valid meanings according to the subjective reasoning of interpreters.

     ⁵ See N. B. Hardeman, Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons (Nashville, TN: GA, 1975): 4:46-59.

     ⁶ See Thomas B. Warren, When is an “Example” Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1975).

     ⁷ Opponents of this principle typically object to the prospect of fallible human reasoning but fail to consider the “necessary” aspect. If an inference is necessary, no other conclusion can legitimately be drawn.

     ⁸ Not every account of action recorded in scripture is to be imitated today (e.g. Matt. 3:4). As a general rule, there must be an implied or understood requirement behind it to make it relevant as an approved example. 

Related Posts: Biblical Exegesis Part 1, Part 3

Image credit: https://bibleevidences.com/archaeological-evidence/