by Barry Newton

Like a good mystery novel, this is probably best read wearing a pair of slippers and sitting in your favorite chair with a cup of hot tea. I would also suggest a Bible and perhaps a pencil. Ready?

Clue #1 Strange Exceptions or Pure Baloney?

How finely tuned is your baloney detector? For most of us, alarms will probably go off in our heads if someone were to claim that a particular word normally means something, but when it refers to a particular person it then means something else. As an example, what would you think if someone were to claim, “I know this Greek word normally means ‘brother’ and different Biblical writers consistently use it in this manner, but it just so happens that whenever these different writers use it to describe Jesus’ ‘brothers’ they are actually writing about his cousins.” For the same reason that this probably sounds very fishy to you, I smelled something wrong as I’ve kept one eye on my Greek New Testament and the other on certain translations and commentaries.

How does the following claim strike you? The standard way of interpreting a certain Greek construction(1) in English is to use “of” or “from.” However, in Romans 3:22, 26; Galatians 2:16, 20; 3:22; and Philippians 3:9 where it ties faith to Jesus, some make the assertion that it does not mean “the faith of Jesus,” but “faith in Jesus.” According to these commentaries and translations, this unusual phenomenon should also be extended to Ephesians 3:12 where they claim that “faith of him” should be translated as “faith in him.” (Just for your information, except for Romans 3:26, the KJV translates all of these phrases with “of” and not with “in.”)

Typically, commentators try to dismiss the charge that they are engaged in special pleading by pointing to Mark 11:22, where they contend that “faith of God” should be translated “faith in God.” However, the granddaddy of Greek grammarians (A.T. Robertson) concedes that this phrase actually means “have the God kind of faith” and not have faith in God.(2)

So we are back to where we started. What legitimate reason would lead us to translate these verses in the special manner of “in” instead of with the expected “of”? Is the grammar of the Greek New Testament driving the translations and certain commentaries or is a predetermined doctrine in charge?

Clue #2 Paul Knew How to Clearly Write “Faith In Jesus” and He Did So.

In the Greek language, if someone wants to write, “faith in ___”, there is a way to do this.(3) Paul knew the normal convention to communicate “faith in” because he used it at various times. Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4; 2:5; 2 Timothy 3:15

This raises a question. If Paul knew how to clearly write “faith in,” why would he use the form for “faith of” in Romans 3:22, etc., if he meant “faith in”?

Clue # 3 Meaningless Redundancy? Concise Statements?

The plot thickens. If “faith in Jesus” is an accurate translation in Romans 3:22 and Galatians 3:22, then it would appear Paul’s pen needlessly stuttered. In these verses Paul would have written “through faith in Jesus, to all who believe” and “in order that the promise out of faith in Jesus Christ may be given to all who believe.” If someone has faith in Jesus, he or she obviously believes. So why the repetition?

On the other hand, if these verses should be translated as “faith of Jesus,” then clear concise statements ring out. In this case, Romans 3:21-22 would be teaching that the righteousness of God is manifested through the faith of Jesus being available to all who believe. Galatians 3:22 would be teaching that the benefits of Jesus’ faith are available to all who believe.

So, which of the two seems more reasonable to you? Did Paul repeat himself or was Paul teaching about Jesus’ faith?

OK Detective, Check Your Note Pad

There are some more clues, but what have you concluded so far? If you had to determine at this point whether the verses we have been evaluating should be translated “faith of Jesus” or “faith in Jesus,” which would you claim is what Paul intended to communicate?

What have some others concluded on this? “The true scriptural justification ‘ by faith’ has no reference at all to the stinking faith of sinners, but to the ‘faith of the Son of God.’ ... the faith of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the scriptures is the legitimate ground of justification because Christ’s faith was perfect.” James Burton Coffman, Romans, (ACU Press:1973), pp. 109, 110. “The decision in individual passages does not greatly affect the overall understanding of New Testament teaching. ... Even if all the passages speaking of ‘the faith of Christ’ refer to Christ’s faith, there are many passages remaining where righteousness is connected with human faith.” Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today, (Eerdmans: 1996), p. 157

What have I concluded? Well, we already know that it is because of Jesus’ righteousness and sinlessness that he could die on our behalf. 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 1:18-19 Since a sinner could not redeem us, our salvation rests upon how Jesus lived in response to God in order that he might die for us. For Paul to describe our justification to be based upon Jesus’ faith does not alter what we already know regarding Jesus being the basis of our salvation. Thus, these verses would reemphasize our dependency upon Jesus for salvation, providing us with a richer understanding of justification by faith. If Paul indeed intended for these verses to refer to Jesus’ faith (and this seems so), then the truth of the matter would be those who believe in Jesus are justified on the basis of Jesus’ faith.

(1) Genitive case (2) A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 500. (3) Dative case with or without certain prepositions.

by J. Randal Matheny

Wednesday morning Wilson called me. I'd gone out with him and his wife the day before to look at some buildings for rent, since our congregation is on the move again.

Wilson was concerned about me. Said I'd been acting "different" while we were out. Not my usual chipper self. Wondered what was bothering me.

So I shared with him some of my concerns, some of the things that had been weighing heavily on me as of late.

• The war in Iraq
• Tasks for the planning of the national men's conference in April
• Putting the magazine back on schedule
• Getting everything done for my son's college application (and wondering how to pay for it)

I'm one of those people whose face shows the soul. A college friend (female, yet) told me she could always tell what I was thinking. So when I'm preoccupied with something, my demeanor betrays me.

Wilson's phone call encouraged me. It's good to know a friend is near. Besides that, it gave me opportunity to reflect. Drove me back to the Word and to prayer.

His kind expression of concern powerfully picked me up and allowed me to set aside my worries in order to rejoice at God's goodness in his people.

Maybe you have something bothering you today. Please know that you have friends who are concerned. They may not have expressed it yet, but given half a chance, they'll sidle up to you to be there for you. They may not even mention your bothered state, but may just make themselves present, for you to know someone cares. Don't miss them; notice their presence.

And you may just be the person today to lift someone's burden and give them a reason for joy. A word, a smile, a call is all it may take.

So, what's bothering you today?

by Phil Sanders

I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. (Phil. 4:12)

Last November my mother suffered a debilitating stroke, which left her unaware of her surroundings, unable to communicate, unable to eat, and bedfast. My wife Jackie and I rushed to the hospital in Norman, Oklahoma, and spent four days with her. She never knew we were there.

The doctors told us that she had 24 to 48 hours to live. We expected another stroke would take her life. In our crisis, we prayed that if she could not get well, the Lord would take her and save her from the life of a vegetable.

God was gracious and spared her life. In time she went to rehabilitation and to a nursing home that was prepared to continue her treatments. Today she is aware of all that goes on around her, and her memory is remarkable. With the aid of a walker she can go to the cafeteria on her own. She can use her hands and is able to talk on the phone.

Up until a few weeks ago, she was unable to eat. The Lord has restored that gift, and she is feeding herself hard food rather than enduring meals given through a tube to her stomach.

Through it all, mother has not complained. No pity parties, no "why me?" Remarkably, she has said, "God is so good to me."

God's grace, when we have borne our own thorns in the flesh, truly is sufficient (2 Cor. 12:7-10). Learning contentment is a matter of perspective. It is learning to count blessings rather than adapting a mindset of misery over what we do not have.

Contentment must be learned. We are not automatically given it. The key to contentment is in drawing close to God and in gratefully receiving what He grants us. Contentment always follows gratitude.

"God is so good to me."

by Warren Baldwin

"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'"

This story comes from Luke 10 and is known as the Good Samaritan. And that raises an important question: Is there such a thing as a good Samaritan? Is such even possible? I ask that for two reasons.

One, in the previous chapter, in Luke 9:51-56, Jesus went into a Samaritan village. But the people in the village did not welcome him. This angered the disciples, and two of them, James and John, asked Jesus, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" Obviously the disciples of Jesus did not see any redeeming qualities in a Samaritan! And obviously their attitude betrays something of their understanding of God: "God hates who we hate." They expected him to send the fire they called for! The Samaritans were worth nothing more than to burn them up! So how could Jesus, one chapter later, tell a story about a "good" Samaritan?

The second reason is, apart from the story of the disciples wanting to burn a Samaritan town, the general attitude of the disciples and Jews toward Samaritans. The Samaritans were a despised people. They were the result of intermarriages between Jews and Gentiles. So they were not fully Gentile nor fully Jewish, and the Jews felt a rather strong passion against them. The full-blooded Jews had some rather unsavory designations for the Samaritans. If they could use a term for them today they might say something like, "Those Palestinians" or "Those Iraqis."

Hey, lets use them for an example. Let's reframe this question or this parable and ask, "Could there be such a thing as a 'good Iraqi?'"

You know, I'm rather uncomfortable asking that question. Our passions have been incited against the Iraqis for some time now, haven't they? They've done all kinds of evil things against us -- or at least we know they want to. It's just a matter of time.

And if you are following me, that is exactly how the Jews and the disciples thought about the Samaritans. They hated them. The Samaritans hadn't exactly done anything to the Jews, but that didn't matter. Passionate hatred doesn't need a reason. Followers of Jesus were ready to burn an entire village -- men, women, children. But Jesus said, "No, you don't. That's not how I do business."

How does Jesus do business with people like Samaritans? Iraqis? Palestinians? Jews? Americans... if we give him a chance?

We have numerous examples. In John 4 he ministers to Samaritans and converts an entire village. And in the very next chapter of Luke, Luke 10, where we have the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus commissions 72 of his followers to go out and do ministry to ANYONE that will welcome them. Including Samaritans?

And then immediately after the ministry episode we have the story or parable of the Good Samaritan. Mmmm. What is Jesus trying to communicate about our attitudes toward people?

Sandwiched around the story of ministry we have stories of Bad Samaritans and a Good Samaritan. And if that is not offensive enough to Jewish sensibilities, or to the sensibilities of people who claim to follow in Jesus' name, he says to the lawyers listening to his story: Now you go do ministry like the Samaritan. Not only does Jesus take away our pleasure of passionate hatred, he takes a member of an odious race, picks out a commendable trait or behavior of that person, and says, "Go be like him."

Jesus doesn't allow us to get caught up in the passions of our times, do you notice that?

by Greg A. Tidwell

It was bound to happen; only a matter of months since Islamic terrorists violated our nation's security, and yet an anti-war movement is growing.

Since the 1960s, our nation's media elite has worn a disdain for American institutions, and especially a contempt for the American military, as a badge of honor. These opinion leaders were temporarily silenced by the nation's outrage at the World Trade Center attack, but have steadily and stealthfully attempted to undermine the national resolve to seek justice through military action.

When There Is No Peace

Is war ever desirable? In one sense, no Christian needs to even reflect to answer. Our Lord is "the Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Violence is never, in itself, preferable to peace: "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace," as the Apostle Paul noted. (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Sometimes, however, sinful men thrust violence into human affairs, and integrity requires the use of force to oppose the force of injustice. Violence is justified in preventing injustice, and violence is required in rendering justice in extreme situations: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." (Genesis 9:6)

A Just War

War, while always regrettable, is often admirable and sometimes demanded by honor and integrity. God authorized human government "to punish those who do evil." (1 Peter 2:14) One aspect of faith commended among God's people is that they "became mighty in war." (Hebrews 11:34)

Beyond the clear right of the United States to use military action in self-defense, she has an obligation to protect the innocent. Twice in the last century America went to war in Europe to deliver nations, notably France and Germany, from oppression. Ridding Iraq of its evil dictator is a moral goal, as was freeing Germany from the grasp of Hitler. Christians, and indeed all men of good will, should support the liberation of the Iraqi people from this cruel tyrant.