Sarah and Rebekah were both barren women who God miraculously provided sons, in accordance with the promise given to Abraham for a Seed.
God trumps both in Mary, to whom he gives a son despite her being a virgin! He was THE promised Seed (singular) of Abraham, which the others were only shadows of.
I blogged about this series of shadows to Mary 3 years ago. But yesterday evening I came across whatever the opposite of a shadow is - reflected light?!
"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labour!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband." (Gal 4:27 quoting Is 54:1)
Who is this barren woman? For Isaiah it was the land of Israel and Jerusalem that was the inheritance of the people of God. For Paul it is "the Jerusalem above" that is the inheritance of the church. She like Sarah, Rebekah and Mary also gives birth to "children of promise...according to the Spirit" (4:28-29). That is us when we are born again and "Christ is formed in [us]" though the "anguish of childbirth".
O holy Child of Bethlehem,
descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in,
be born in us today.
We hear the Christmas angels
the great glad tidings tell;
O come to us, abide with us,
our Lord Emmanuel!
I've always been puzzled by the virgin birth thing. Virgin/Barren woman in Isaiah/Galatians seems to be Jerusalem/Israel as you say... More recently I've been mulling over Jesus' birth in the light of what original sin is and how it's "transmitted" - or vice versa. Strikes me the "transmission" of original sin/Adam's estate can only be by being born without/estranged from the Spirit, ie without the sweet fellowship Adam & Madam enjoyed - that no one else enjoyed except in the sanctuary of the temple until God's departure in Ezek 10. Then suddenly thought maybe what made Jesus' birth so special is not that mary was a virgin (somehow bypassing various systems for transmission of "sin"), but that "the holy spirit shall come upon you" - likewise, John the baptist "filled with the spirit"...in other words, God had returned! Restoring what had been lost since Gen 3/Ezek 10 - Immanuel: God with us. He will save his people from their sins. The more I think about it, the more this seems to resonate with Paul's insistence on our being made alive in the spirit together with Christ and on our being built together into a spiritual house where God dwells (and remains) by his spirit.
ReplyDelete- one provocative implication is perhaps that the way charismatics (in my experience) tend to default to in identifying the human problem (being alienated from the spirit and lacking power to resist/overcome sin) and the solution (receiving the spirit) may be a deeper & more biblical(?) appeal than merely "you've sinned, Jesus hasn't". You need him to die in your place, which is only (a central and crucial) part of the story?
Yes, very much so on the being the dwelling of the Spirit, and the Spirit's power.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is always good to keep in mind the power and penalty of sin and if we always keep them in mind we will keep balance. Most unhelpful thinking is from forgetting one of the two. Paralleling the power and penalty of sin over old man, is the status as sons and the power of the Spirit in the new man.
I tend to want to order them so that status/penalty LEADS TO power of Sin/indwelling power of the Spirit, but I don't think it quite works (although I think that is nearer than vice versa).
So... applying to original sin:
1. It is a status of rebels (due to the actions of our federal head - Adam) (PENALTY)
2. It is the power of the Devil's rule over us in place of the Spirit not dwelling with us as it would otherwise (POWER).
As for transmission, I have tended to think of it in a twofold way:
1. Corporate responsibility (difficult as it is to swallow); AND
2. Ontological connection (flesh with Adam, Spirit with Jesus)
This post was borne (no pun intended) out of trying to work out the significance of "God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law," in the context of Hagar and Sarah. I didn't really get it clear in my head. If anything it seems an identification with the flesh in mentioning woman in this context.
As I worked through it I was struck by the fact that for Paul, Jesus' earthly life is marked more by death and flesh, and it is his resurrected life where the Spirit and life comes in. I would say for Paul our new birth corresponds more to Jesus' resurrection than his incarnation. But Gal 4 seemed to not quite fit either.
Sorry, those are hasty thoughts. Got to go.
So in case you missed it. I think that we need both approaches in your last paragraph, and agree charismatics have something to teach the wider church.
ReplyDeleteWith you. Like the "seems an identification with the flesh mentioning woman in this context" - I've never noticed that, very observant of you. Compared to "now there is no longer male or female..." i'm guessing? In fact, hold on - no accident that Gal 3v21-29 immediately precede it
ReplyDelete"God sent forth his Son"...
[
"born of woman"
"born under the law"
ps for me, it was a pivotal moment in understanding Ephesians when I realised that the phrase in Gal 4v2 was the same as Ephesians 1v10 - in other words, the times HAVE reached their fulfilment - There is no longer Jew & Greek [he was born under law to redeem those under the law from the curse of the law, that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles?], slave & free [jerusalem above is free & she is our mother?], male & female [born of woman?]. There is now just a new creation: Christ.
I've been thinking a lot about this, but not very fruitfully I'm afraid. Here is my thoughts:
ReplyDeleteRomans 8:1-17 seems to parallel a lot of the passage we are talking about. The closest you get to Gal 4:4 in that is: "sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin"
Gal 3:22 seems as well to be retold in expanded form in 3:23-29, and then the same narrative repeated again 4:1-7. But I can't make that observation help me in this discussion.
Whereas I'm the categories in 3:28 are meant to be relevatised (1 Cor 7:17-24 would also be interesting comparison), I'm not sure that they are meant to carry negative connotations. Which I think born of woman/under law are in this instance (although there is obviously nothing inherently wrong with either - although both bring with them the curse post-fall/Israel's unfaithfulness). Although there is obviously is a move from slave->free, I can't see that we are meant to see a progression from Jew->Greek, or male->female, as an identity - although I can as a recipient of the promises (females excluded from much in the OT).
I just can't see how you can draw a line from "born of a woman" to "no male or female", much as I'd like to.
Sorry, that's a bit incoherent.