‘should’ must?

Originally posted on April 13, 2009 – by Andre Piet

article in ND

By the hand of Ad de Bruijne, professor of ethics and spirituality in Kampen, an article appeared last Saturday in the Dutch Daily under the title ‘should’ must. In it he criticizes the aversion that nowadays seems to live among many Christians against the verb “should” or “must.” De Bruijne approaches it in a nuanced way and admits that this aversion is often understandable, yet he nevertheless observes that “among orthodox Christians a downright error is advancing…. This error is called antinomianism.”

un-shoulding

The article by De Bruijne prompted me. In August of last year I gave a presentation to a group of young people under the title ‘pleasant un-shoulding.’ In it I argued that the verb “must” or “should” (strangely enough) is used inappropriately especially in modern Bible translations. Thus in Ephesians 4:22-24 we read no less than four times “must” while this is not found even once in the original!

“you shall”

I also argued that the apostle Paul teaches us in the letter to the Romans and the letter to the Galatians that we, like Abraham of old (who lived 430 years before Sinai), do not live “under law.” Like him, we are expected to live out of the promise! A man like Abraham certainly knew the “you shall,” yet not in the sense of “you must,” but as a prediction. “You SHALL become a blessing,” “you SHALL come to your fathers in peace and you SHALL be buried at a good old age,” “you SHALL become a father of a multitude of nations,” etc.
A promise also contains the element of ‘must’ or ‘should’, with this difference that the obligation rests entirely with the one who utters the promise (>‘promise makes debt’).

faith versus works

Faith with Paul means: ‘to affirm what God promises.’ That this subsequently (as a principle) has consequences for our conduct and walk is entirely true, but that is effect and not cause. That difference is enormously important! If God, for example, says: “you SHALL be holy” and translators make of it “be holy” (1 Peter 1:16), then a promise (>faith) is degraded into a command (>works) and one falls into the same snare as Israel once did.

31 Yet Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, does not outstrip into law. 32 WHY NOT? Seeing that it is not out of FAITH, but as out of WORKS.
Romans 9

To live out of faith means: to stand on what God promises.

3 For what is the scripture saying? Now Abraham BELIEVES God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness. 4 Now to the worker, the wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as a debt. 5 Yet to him WHO IS NOT WORKING, yet is BELIEVING on Him WHO IS JUSTIFYING THE UNGODLY, his faith is reckoned for righteousness…
(…)
20 Yet, at THE PROMISE OF GOD, he doubted not in unbelief, but was invigorated by faith, GIVING GLORY TO GOD, 21 and being fully assured that what HE has promised HE is powerful to do also.
Romans 4

I anything must be done, then it is to believe and proclaim God’s promise without any reservation. That a category of people (who have heard something through the grapevine, but not know the details,) seize this as “an incentive to the flesh” is unfortunately all too true. Paul already had to deal with that in his days. But it does not change by a millimeter the truth of grace and “grace alone.”

Delen: