The NT epistle for the First Sunday of Lent (Lent 1) in Year C is Romans 8b–13. It is a slightly odd choice by the lectionary, since the passage starts in verse 5, and you really need to read from there.
Paul does two important things as he reads the Old Testament. First, he notices the actual tension between being set right with God by obeying the commandments, and being set right by trust in God’s gift (that is, by faith). He then reads Deut 30, a passage about the renewal of God’s people after exile, in the light of what God has done in Jesus, and replaces the act of obedience with the achievement of Jesus.
The argument is quite close, and needs reading carefully—but in fact fits with Paul’s whole argument in Romans!
Come and join Ian and James as they explore these questions!
The video on the gospel reading for this week of the Temptations in Luke 4 can be found here.
You can read the written commentary about it here.
Interested to read the comment: “being set right by trust in God’s gift (that is, by faith)” as I have personally come to the conclusion translating ‘ pistis’ purely by ‘ faith’ and not by ‘ trust’ has led to all sorts of misunderstandings …
I agree with my namesake. In addition, I would suggest that one should also remember that ‘pistis’ can also be translated ‘faithfulness’.
Sideline from your mention of Jehovah’s Witnesses; my current “go to” with them is Hebrews 1 v10 where the author quotes as “Of the Son…” an OT Psalm which is very much about Jehovah/Yahweh – in effect explicitly stating Jesus is after all Jehovah….
See https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2024/06/02/jehovahs-witnesses-a-problem-in-their-new-testament-translation/
You also mentioned the problems of John 1; note that in what is clearly the climax of the gospel (the last chapter being in modern terms an ‘appendix’) we see Thomas worshipping Jesus and addressing him as “My lord and my God!” with “My God” being in Greek “Ho theos Mou”, using the construction WITH the article ‘the’ off which the Witnesses make so much fuss in chapter 1….
That is interesting. What do JWs say about that?
On both the Hebrews passage and the point about the climax of John, I feel inclined to describe the JW reaction with words like ‘evade’ or just ‘try to ignore’….
Exactly, Stephen. I use Isaiah 9:6 with JWs saying that ‘a child will be born who is called… mighty God’ and that nobody disputes this is Jesus. JWs agree, but have been taught (1) he will be *called* mighty God, not therefore implying that he actually is divine; (2) Jehovah is called *almighty* God in the Old Testament but Jesus only *mighty* God (the words in Hebrew are indeed different). To which I reply: (1) the reference in Isaiah is positive, not a warning about any pagan god, and Isaiah was writing in a monotheistic context; (2) Jehovah is called ‘mighty God’ in many places in the Old Testament, and in any case the point is the noun, not the adjective, for God to Isaiah means only one thing – Jehovah. When JW’s then start to dissemble I terminate the discussion saying that I consider them quite intelligent enough to understand these points but they are determined to misunderstand. They are taught to remain polite, and I say this politely, but I hope to make them think.
They have been taught stock responses to many Trinitarian verses, but it is like learning a book of chess openings and eventually one is in open play.
Did not follow allusion to “translation” difficulty with John 1:1. Was Greek to me.
Very good!
Some people turn to John 1.1 to demonstrate the divine nature of Jesus. But this hinges on properly understanding the way that Greek uses the article, which is different from the way English does.
My post on this is always one of my most read, and lots of JWs comment. https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-john-1-1-mean-the-word-was-a-god/
It is difficult to take Romans 10 in isolation from the chapter before it and that after it, which are a single passage of this letter and lead up to a doxological climax at the end of chapter 11.
I couldn’t agree more Anton. It would be interesting to see if there are any more responses to this particular comment!