The Personalization of Scripture and Doctrine

     At times, I think we have a tendency to personalize scripture a little too much. For the past couple of years, I've been trying to see many New Testament passages as they relate to the Apostle Paul's calling and mission. In Ephesians 3:2, Paul alludes to the reason for which he was apprehended by God: "If indeed you have heard of the 'stewardship'  (Gk 3622, οἰκονομία: a religious "economy", stewardship, the management of a household or of household affairs: like the office of a   manager or overseer) of God's grace which was given to me for you." This word oikonomia seems to be similar in concept to what is stated in Hebrews 3:5 about Moses: "Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant..." The text says that Moses was faithful in his stewardship over all God's house. Moses' stewardship was over national Israel, the house that God built with His hands. Moses was faithful "over all God's house" or "over the  entire house of God" at that time. There was no other stewardship being built by God at that moment in history and everything that was being built had Moses as a servant or steward over it. This is similar in concept to what was given to the Apostle Paul; it is "the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit", Ephesians 3:4,5. 

     I believe that this entire concept of Paul's stewardship regarding God's house and the Gentile inclusion into this house was forever before the Apostle, and that much of what we read in the New Testament has this concept imprinted into it. If this is true, it may be that we are doing the Scriptures an injustice by coming to it with the assumption that your and my name can be automatically substituted into the text, replacing the word, "you", wherever we find it, and still somehow retain the original intention behind the text. I think any person would agree that this would be an assumption on the reader's part; it being either a valid one or not.

     The problem that I see is that the text has a slightly different perspective when the "you" speaks of a individual who has been communally included as a Gentile into Christ and when the "you" speaks of the reader alone. If anything the emphasis is ever so slightly different because one way deals more with the reason for Paul's doctrinal writings or his stewardship, and the other way, deals with the reader on a personal level. I would like to think that this comes under a "rightly dividing the Scripture" in conceptual terms. 

     I see the Church in America, since 1900, being the primary reason for this type of understanding of the Scriptures. This is good in the sense of personalization and application of the Word, but it can be a cause for misunderstanding context and even a reason for error. Minor errors assumed to be correct and compounded can become problematic. Nowadays, the personalization of Scripture has a great emphasis for the reason that it is understood to be the path for an individual to understand "who they are In Christ". I think that to always come to the Scripture with this preeminently in mind can cause confusion and misunderstanding, specifically in regards to the original meaning and reason for the text.

In reading Romans 4:16 -
"For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants (of Abraham, vs. 13), not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all".

My supposition is that reading this from the perspective of Pauline stewardship of Gentile inclusion is slightly different than looking at the text as an understanding of a personal grace and faith for individual salvation. First, from the perspective of Pauline stewardship, the grace cannot be separated from Christ Jesus at all. It is the grace that is in Christ that enables Gentile inclusion into any possible covenant with God, for those outside of national Israel were "without hope" and "without covenant". Though this passage has powerful implications and application for today's reader, it primarily concerns a grace that has been given to the nations for engrafting into the One Man, the commonwealth of Israel and the Gentiles, Ephesians 2:15. 

Galatians 2:21 - 
"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

     It is absolutely necessary contextually and doctrinally for grace to come through Jesus Christ. Why? Because the Gentiles were excluded and clearly could understand that as long as national Israel remained national and peculiar to the things of God and the Law of God, they were going to remain on the outside looking in. The Law did this. The Law revealed the separateness of God in regards to the nations that were not Israel. As long as this was the condition of things, the Gentiles were hopelessly in the "outer court" for quite valid reasons, as revealed in the Law. The doorway into inclusion had not yet been revealed. The door had yet to been opened and "pierced through". So transgression against the Law becomes even more sinful: even utterly sinful. If righteousness came through the Law, then like the harlot Rahab, the Gentile had to be joined to national Israel, for that was the only "house" being built at the time, and they had to be placed under the Law. Another issue before the Gentile was that they could not find the door or way in. If there were such a door, it only opened from the inside; and, from the perspective of the "outer court" it was apparent that it's purpose was more to keep the Gentile out as opposed to providing a way in. They, unfortunately, didn't have a key and were on the wrong side of the door: a door that they couldn't even find. Now in the text above, this is the reason for grace. Because grace came in Christ so as to enable the promise of the Spirit to Abraham concerning his fatherhood of many nations. And if this grace were unnecessary because the righteousness of Law could be given to Gentiles, then the death of Jesus wasn't even necessary to procure their entrance. From the perspective presented, the death of Jesus was necessary, first, to reveal the righteousness of God in providing a way for the promise of God to Abraham to come to pass. Any depth of knowledge in the ways of God, would place faith on the character of God in believing that He would vindicate his own righteousness, knowing that if there were any sense of righteousness being required by a holy God, he would first show Himself to be holy and righteous in bringing to pass the fulfillment of His own promise.

     All faith rests upon grace. The faith of Israel was to rest upon God's grace in choosing them and in the coming Messiah of Isaiah 53. Any work that Israel did, was to be connected to this grace through faith-filled acknowledgment of the faithful, lovingkindness of God. The faith of the Gentiles, under the stewardship of the Apostle Paul, was to rest upon God's grace to enable them to be chosen and included through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

     Though it might appear that there is quite a lot of similarities between these two ways of looking at passages, there are some important differences. The tendency in American culture is to overemphasize the individual. In doing this the gospel can readily be individualized. Faith is your faith, it is primarily for you to 'wield' for your own gains and purposes. Grace too, is your grace or a grace that is to you, the individual, and it is primarily for the individual and their purposes. The focus is therefore readily put upon the "you" in virtually every thing and way. The context as seen from the perspective of the "mystery of Christ" does not really place the spotlight upon the individual. You are a part of a greater "called out" whole, a covenant people. You are there, in the context, but you are "hidden in Christ". I think that when you read it this way that you have a greater chance at understanding of the proper doctrines embedded in the passages. 

     I can say with a fair degree of certainty that all of my failures as a Christian have come from my failures in not remaining "hidden in Christ". It's as though I somehow thought that I could emphasize myself, focus on my self and always be ready to "see myself" in the picture and still come out "hidden in Christ".  This hasn't worked for me. I think that the whole notion of "knowing who I am in Christ" is only a few degrees departure from my previously mentioned error.... for in doing this I am still somehow in the picture. The great "I am" is definitely in Christ and gratefully, this is not me.

     One reason that I wrote this was that I, for a great while, realized that I could be talking to people about particular passages on the Bible, and it seemed that we were on the same page, yet for some reason, not being of "one mind". It was like a feeling that we thought we understood each other, and yet for some reason, I just knew that we were slightly off. I believe the reason for this sense of not being totally in sync, is encapsulated in what I have written here. It, in some ways, has to do with cultural focus. I hope this helps you.