Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
Actually, the problem is not solved that easily. Both the word "Lord" and the word "Jesus" are in the accusative case in Greek. The accusative is the form of the direct object. That means that the sentence could be translated "Confess Jesus as Lord" or "Confess the Lord as Jesus." Since the proper noun is Jesus and the common noun is Lord, it is more properly translated as "Confess Jesus is (as) Lord."
The translation, "Confess the Lord Jesus" improperly puts the word "Lord" in an adjectival form. An accusative is not an adjective, but a noun, so the translation chosen by the KJV and the NKJV is incorrect. That is why the NIV, the RSV, and the NASB have translated it "Confess Jesus as (is) Lord."
This verse is a demand for the recognition of Jesus' Lordship, not just a title given to Him.
Actually, CalviBaptist, it's not that simple either. This is what is referred to as the "double-accusative." Daniel Wallace in his grammar says that it can be
the double accusative of the person and thing or
the double accusative of object-complement.
Now since both nouns refer to a person, this is likely the DA of object-complement. Some texts are "debatable." Wallace list Romans 10:9 as one of those - the jury's out. Hard to be adament. (pp. 181-184 in my ver.)
So if this the DA of the object-complement then this could be what's referred to as an
apositive kind of treatment something like,
"If you confess with your mouth Jesus, the Lord, and..."
That is the most likely meaning. In English, both "Jesus" and "the Lord" are the direct object. "The Lord" complements "Jesus." That means essentially something very similar to "...the Lord Jesus." It is not likely "...Jesus as Lord," though we cannot rule that possibility out, according to Wallace, though.
But I do not see a problem with viewing this as "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and..." though IMO that is not what it's saying there. It does not change the validity of J-J's position.
Paul is not saying that we must confess Jesus as Lord and also believe in our heart IOT gain eternal life. But before we head down that path, we need to first realize what Paul meant if he said here, "confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord." Note that in the 1st century the most common way of saying that Jesus is God was to say, "Jesus is Lord." That was a common greeting. So when Paul refers to (possibly) confessing "jesus as Lord" he does not mean that the person is saying that Jesus is Lord of his life. It means that the person is acknowledging that Jesus IS Lord... of the entire universe. And notice that it is not "confess with your mouth Jesus as YOUR Lord." "Your" is not there. To confess is to acknowledge to be true. So to confess Him as "Lord" is to acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, not to make Him Lord. That is something it does not say.
Now if someone acknowledges that Jesus is Lord, it could be assumed that he sees it applying to his own life. But if so it is one thing to acknowledge that Jesus is your Lord and quite another to "make" Him Lord in practice. BTW, you never see such an expression in the NT - "make" Him Lord. So IMO the focus here is on acknowledging who Jesus is and not talking about "making Him Lord."
OK, let's look at something that often gets neglected here - that this is generally acknowledged as a
chiasm - a form of Hebraic poetry. Such chiasms are quite common in the NT.
And regarding an earlier comment, it's not that J-J is eliminating Romans. But when Paul speaks of "salvation" in Romans he is not talking about "how to get saved." He is talking about the whole ball of wax, including growing in Christ - the focus. When Paul wants to speak about gaining eternal life he used "justification." Paul makes it clear in Romans that we are declared to be righteous by faith and not by works. But John makes the gospel clear... that it is by faith. People tend to see "salvation"/"saved" in Romans and think that Paul is speaking about gaining eternal life ("justification). He never uses "salvation" in Romans in such a limited manner.
But both books do emphasize faith. John's point is that LS adherrants derive their theology from Romans 10:9, 10 - where the Lord Jesus is probably a title, as was said, or else a description. But it does not tell us how to become a Christian or how a person gains eternal life, but how to live in Christ - discipleship.
Anyway, Romans 10:9, 10 is commonly accepted to be a chiasm - or "sandwich parallelism" as I like to refer to it. In such poetic literature the outer lines line up and you work your way in to the center. Sometimes there is a singular un-paired line. When that happens, the author usually is emphasizing that line.
that if you
confess with your mouth Jesus, the Lord, and
believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For
with the heart one believes to righteousness/justification, and
with the mouth confession is made to salvation.
Now, let's look at this Romans' passage again ->
If you
....
confess with your mouth Jesus, the Lord (or "Jesus as Lord")
and
........
believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead
--> You will be"saved" (NOT eternal life salvation, but the whole package.)
........
for with the heart one believes to justification
and
....
with the mouth confession is made to salvation
OK now, line up the
italicized and
bold sections.
If you
believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead... you are
justified.
AND if you
confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (or "Jesus as Lord")... you are
saved.
IOW, we are justified - we gain eternal life, by believing in our hearts ("for with the heart one believes to justification"), and we are "saved" (Don't limit this to eternal life salvation, or you'll completely miss what Paul is saying here.) by confessing with our mouths the Lord Jesus.
But I think we're getting a bit side-tracked here... I'm interested in what J-J has to say about John's gospel.
FA