Quotable: Leithart on the Beatitudes

Peter Leithart comments:

The Beatitudes are a description of Jesus. He is meek (11:29). He mourns for Jerusalem (26:36-46). He fulfills righteousness (3:15). He is merciful (9:27; 15:22). And for His trouble He is persecuted, reviled, slandered, and killed. Yet, He is blessed above all men, for in His resurrection He receives the kingdom, is comforted, inherits the earth, is filled, sees God, is declared Son of God.

Much as the Beatitudes are good news for us, they are good news only if we are in Jesus participating in his poverty as well as his glory.

To him be the glory.

Another theory about Romans

If Romans was a very obedient church (as I suggest in my previous post) and Paul was concerned to justify 'his gospel' against detractors (as I suggest here), perhaps large swathes of Romans are written to show that Paul is not an antinomian, and not just Romans 6. However, while he is keen to show this he remembers his experience with the Galatians and wants to make clear that obedience is 'of faith', and this means that obedience must take into account that Jesus has come and so obedience is to what James calls 'the law of liberty' and Paul 'the law of faith'.

Interesting fact

• 26% of the uses of the word 'obedience', and 27% of the uses of the word 'obedient', in the (ESV) bible can be found in Romans.

A theory about the Roman church

The Roman church was a very obedient church (1:8; 6:17; 16:19). However they had a judgemental spirit that was leading to divisions. They certainly did about others having different gifts (12:2-7), eating the 'wrong' foods (14:1-4), and observing certain days (14:5-9). Perhaps certain churches were also involved in judging the Jews, and others the gentiles. Certainly Paul seems concerned to show that both have a place in God's plan. The long list of people Paul greets in chapter 16 suggests to some that there were a lot of small churches in Rome. Perhaps they did not all get along. Perhaps this problem of judgementalism is behind the numerous references to judging yourself as well as others in the early chapters of Romans.

I don't know if my theory is correct. I'll keep on thinking about it.

Paul's concern in Romans

Peter Dray has had me thinking about Romans. I always think the beginning and end of a book are the best bits to find out the author's concerns, and when I looked at Romans sure enough the first and last few sentences contain several similar themes. I think it's likely that the same themes found at both the beginning and end of the letter they will continue throughout the book.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

[...]

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

(Romans 1:1-6; 16:25-27)

So here are themes I see in both the beginning and end:

• Paul teaches the true gospel ('a servant of Christ Jesus...'; 'my gospel').
• The gospel is about Jesus ('concerning his son'; 'the preaching of Jesus Christ').
• Gospel was promised in the OT ('promised beforehand through his prophets'; 'through the prophetic writings').
• Mission is to 'all nations' (i.e. including the gentiles).
• The goal of mission is 'the obedience of faith'.
• The ultimate goal of mission is God's glory ('for the sake of his name'; 'to the only wise God be glory').

Things that only occur in one or the other:

• Jesus was descended from David.
• Jesus was declared to be Son of God by resurrection.
• Roman church is called to belong to Jesus.
• God will strengthen the Roman church.
• Mystery (of God's purposes for the gentiles) has been revealed.
• God is the only wise one.

So in summary I think Paul has two main concerns in writing Romans.

1. Justify himself and his gospel against his detractors, principally by showing it is rooted in the OT.
2. Encourage the Romans to get behind his mission to all nations - in particular Spain (15:24) - by showing them God's plan for the gentiles.

I don't think that will surprise many, but never mind - novelty is not the goal.

Justification as aquital not forgiveness

I've been thinking that through lack of disciplined thinking my understanding of justification is in need of some sharpening up. This is thanks largely to a post by Tim Suffield and Michael Jensen's continuing review of Chris Wright's Mission of God. Michael Jensen has been pointing out a lot of Chris Wright's 'conceptual confusions', and I've been thinking that if I were ever to write anything it would be infested with the same problem. So, anyway, you may find me blogging a little on Justification for a while. Today I read this:

If the meaning of justification is forensic, then the understanding of justification is basically 'acquittal'. To be justified is thus to be the recipient of God's favorable verdict in regard to our final state. Justification, whose basis is forgiveness, is not itself forgiveness (with which it is often popularly identified), but the declaration that forgiveness, which confirms our new relationship with God, has been granted. The judge has pronounced in our favor! True, by our acquittal we have been forgiven, but justification is the recognition that forgiveness has occurred, not forgiveness in itself. Forgiveness is the gift, justification its recognition. Justification says that, as a result of forgiveness, we are now in right relationship with God.

Justification by grace through faith announces that we have moved from under the wrath of God to new life in Christ. The basic movement has occurred through the work of the Spirit in regeneration and it is this movement which justification recognizes. [...] Justification is the declaration of our change in status from sinner to membership of the new people of God.

(p. 53, Romans: A New Covenant Commentary, William J. Dumbrell)

I'll have to keep this in mind.

Ephesians and Paul's Theology

It is simply a travesty that the name "Paul" for most people, summons up a pastiche of Romans and Galatians while the other letters are relatively neglected. Ephesians 2.8-10 might make the cut but not much else.

I say it is a travesty because the evidence indicates that Ephesians was probably Paul’s generic tract–a circular letter meant to summarize the Gospel for any Christian in particular rather than an ad hoc letter dealing with a specific pastoral agenda for a particular church. Thus, if one wants to understand the foundations of "Pauline Theology," Ephesians would be the natural place to begin. (source)

Mightily interesting comment. It is common to believe that Ephesians is a circular letter but this is the first time I have read the corollary that therefore it is in Ephesians rather than Romans that we should look for the summary and structure of Paul's theology.

Why has this not been brought to my attention before? Perhaps because despite the strength of Evangelical scholarship the framework still being operated in is a liberal one where the authenticity of Ephesians is denied. Perhaps though the obsession with 'discovering' Paul's theology is a framework from liberal biblical studies anyway.

Still, its a statement worthy of further thought.

Trueman on the legacy of the Bash-camps and MLJ

What a disaster! Apparently Jim Packer and Carl Trueman are the only people who got it right about British evangelicalism!

Just in case I want to put my hands on it in the future, Carl Trueman has some thoughts about the "Spirit of '66". They may be right, they may be wrong, but they are certainly stimulating.

Back to life

Yes, I'm blogging again. The reason why I haven't been is because I've been very busy and the internet was taking up too much of my life. I think it's good for me though, and you never know it may be appreciated by others as well.

But I'm going to determinedly keep all posts as short as possible, which I'm sure any readers will be thankful of as well. This means there will be a lot of unexplored thoughts.

Elevation

And after that the Levites shall go in to serve at the tent of meeting, when you have cleansed them and offered them as a wave offering. For they are wholly given to me from among the people of Israel. Instead of all who open the womb, the firstborn of all the people of Israel, I have taken them for myself. (Numbers 8:15-16)

'Wave offering' is a poor translation. As usual the NRSV has it better with 'elevation offering'. This can be defined a "ritual [that] marked a change in ownership of the sacrifice from the offerer to God".

Although offered by Israel though the Levites are already God's following the passover.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am the Lord.” (Numbers 3:11-13)

Similarly the church offers the sacrifice of their bodies (Romans 12:1). Although they are already God's possession.

You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

There is freedom here though (1 Corinthians 7:22-23).

Concentric circles

The people of Israel shall pitch their tents by their companies, each man in his own camp and each man by his own standard. But the Levites shall camp around the tabernacle of the testimony, so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel. And the Levites shall keep guard over the tabernacle of the testimony.” (Numbers 1:52-53)

The Israelite camp was like concentric circles. At the centre was the Ark and this was surrounded by the Tabernacle itself. The Levites surrounded the Tabernacle and the rest of Israel surrounded them. Each circle protected the next from God's wrath at the unclean entering God's holy presence. Israel is protecting the rest of the world in the way it camps. Israel have their priests, but they are also priests to the rest of the world.

I wonder if it is significant that when the Ark precedes the rest of Israel it is usually (maybe always, I don't know) when they are confronting the world.

Gifts from God

the Lord has made Zion forget festival and Sabbath, and in his fierce indignation has spurned king and priest. The Lord has scorned his altar, disowned his sanctuary;(Lamentations 2:6b-7a)

Festivals, sabbath days and the temple were a gift from God and not something he needed. How often do we make God's gifts our gifts to him?

Pining for books

I'm pining at the moment for some serious theology reading. It's been too long! Far too long!

I'm sorry... I just had to share my frustration. I feel rootless - cut off from nourishment while other commitments devour my time, and TV picks off what's left before I notice what's happening. I should stop moaning and do something about it, but I must return to my essay instead!

Not very Philippians 4:8, sorry. I'll retreat into the woodwork again.

What do we actually mean by....

I'm currently burried under work, but I wanted to link to this post by Tim Chester. If you don't already read his blog you ought to, and stop wasting time around this neck of the woods. He has just posted a very suscinct definition of what we (should) mean by submission/headship within marriage:

• The wife puts her husband’s will before her own.
• The husband puts his wife’s interests before his own.

Brilliantly put I think.

Common grace

Great film, suffused with music to make you worship God. And all from a "unprincipled, spoiled, conceited brat" (in the words of Archbishop Colloredo in the film).

PS sorry for the lack of blogging. It's probably going to be a permanent problem.

Rejecting YHWH as king

In 1 Samuel 8 the elders of Israel gather and ask Samuel to appoint them a king to judge them. It is easy, as with most sins of Israel in the OT, to hear this and move quickly to identify what their sin is and wag your finger, while at the same time not really accepting how logical, even righteous, the sin may seem.

The chapter begins:

When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. Yet his sons did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice. (vv.1-3)

There are three things worth noting here and in the verses that follow.

1. Samuel was old, and Israel respected him as a fair judge.
2. His sons had been appointed by Samuel to judge Israel and yet they were wicked, and exploited the people.
3. They wanted Samuel to anoint what would be in effect his successor.

Interestingly though, only one reason behind the elders decision is emphasised in 1 Samuel 8, and it is summed up in the repeated phrase: 'that we also may be like all the nations'(v.5 and v.20). Moses preached that it should be the nations that are jealous of Israel not the other way round; and they should be jealous because 'what great nation is there that has a god so near to it' (Deut 4:7).

The Great Evangelical Bible Swindle

For what it counts, I think Michael Jensen has provided a much needed call for change.

Quotable: Leithart on 1 John 4:8

[John] doesn't say, "The one who doesn't know love doesn't know God." He says, "The one who doesn't love doesn't know God." The test of knowing God is not "knowing love" but "loving." It's an active, pragmatic test, a test that has to do with practice.

(source)

A beautiful prayer

Apparently John Calvin began all of his lectures with the same prayer, which runs as follows:

May the Lord grant that we may engage in the heavenly contemplation of the mysteries of God's heavenly wisdom with ever increasing devotion to God's glory and our edification. Amen. (HT Michael Bird)

But in case you all think I've gone a bit serious on you recently and started lecturing myself, here is an example of how great my favourite Christmas present, and the greatest comic strip in history, is.

Calvin: I should be doing my homework now. But the way I look at it, playing in the snow is a lot more important. Out here I'm learning real skills that I can apply throughout the rest of my life.

Hobbes: Such as?

Calvin: Procrastinating and Rationizing.

• Further reading (for the serious reader)

Defending grammatico-historical exegesis

Sounds like an important title doesn't it. Basically it means interpreting the bible with the intention of finding out "what the biblical author really meant" (and from that then understanding what God is trying to communicate). Although historically it is a strongly a held way of interpreting the bible it is beginning to be criticised in some quarters.

Anyway I was just reading the Westminster Theological Journal for Fall 2006 (thank you OU), and in particular an article by Peter Enns. I thought I would quote a little from it in case anyone has time on their hands to read it.

I am not arguing, implicitly or explicitly, that Second Temple studies should control how we understand Paul over against the history of the Christian church. Rather, our increased understanding of that context should, with great joy, be brought into a deepening and broadening of how we understand Paul— even if that deepening and broadening presents challenges. The context does not control Paul, the Spirit does. But the "Paul" that the Spirit controls was a first-century Jew. And a deeper understanding of that environment cannot be ignored. Neither am I saying that the church "needs" to understand Second Temple Judaism in order to understand Paul. That is not the case, for myself or Machen or Vos, and it is quite off-topic. The issue is depth and breadth for those engaged in a serious study of Scripture. And for that purpose, what Machen and Vos model for us is this: it is not simply the OT that forms the only proper background for the study of Paul, but Paul's context, Second Temple Judaism, as well, To understand the Jewish background better is to understand Paul/better.

[...]

this historical study of Scripture is a reminder of how very near God is to us, how down and dirty he gets. We sire all prone, in an academic setting at least, to speak of God in "distant" language, as a concept, an idea, a principle, a subject of study—an occupational hazard. But we all need to be reminded—and at some times more than others—what is so foundational to the gospel, which are the lengths to which God went to bridge that distance.

(Bible in context: The Continuing Vitality of Reformed Biblical Scholarship. By: Enns, Peter. Westminster Theological Journal, Fall2006, Vol. 68 Issue 2, p203-218)

What I like about Enns on this subject is how keen he always is to bring God into the equation when he is so often tragically forgotten. In this article as in his book and other articles he draws a lot on "Calvin's" doctrine of accommodation which I have benefited so much from.

Further reading (more for me than you)

• Inerrancy and New Testament Exegesis, by RT France
• John Calvin’s Concept of Divine Accommodation: A Hermeneutical Corrective, by Michael Tinker
• Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving beyond a Modernist Impasse, by Peter Enns

Shepherds and sheep

Old Testament

Plight

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)

Cause of the Plight

"My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains. From mountain to hill they have gone. They have forgotten their fold." (Jeremiah 50:6)

"Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths" (Ezekiel 34:10)

Solution: step 1

"The wind shall shepherd all your shepherds, and your lovers shall go into captivity; then you will be ashamed and confounded because of all your evil." (Jeremiah 22:22)

"My anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders;[1] for the Lord of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make them like his majestic steed in battle." (Zechariah 10:3)

"Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!" (Zechariah 11:17)

" "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me," declares the LORD of hosts. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones." (Zechariah 13:7)

Solution: step 2

"And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd." (Ezekiel 34:23)

"I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God." (Ezekiel 34:15)

"Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands far away; say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.’" (Jeremiah 31:10)

"[the servant] will tend his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms; he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young." (Isaiah 40:11)

New Testament

Plight and its cause

"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." (Matthew 9:36)

[Herod the Great: Mark 6:14-29 "had John beheaded in the prison" is the context for Jesus' comment that "they were like sheep without a shepherd" (v.34)

Herod Antipas: Matthew 2:13-18: "Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men." is the context for for the quotation of Micah: "for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel" (v.6b)]

Solution: step 1 but with a twist

"Then Jesus said to them, 'You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’" (Matthew 26:31)

[Herod Agrippa I: "Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon, and they came to him with one accord, and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, 'The voice of a god, and not of a man!' Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last." (Acts 12:20-23)]

Solution: step 1&2 combined in one person

"I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." (John 10:9-16)

Solution: step 2

"For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." (Revelation 7:17)

Pretty amazing stuff isn't it?

Matthew 2

Matthew 2 tells the story of the visit of the wise men to Jesus, and Herod’s subsequent butchering of babies living in Bethlehem, just before which Mary, Joseph and Jesus escape to Egypt before returning at the end of the chapter.

Saved from what?

Matthew 1 sets the scene a little in mentioning the deportation of Judah to Babylon and never mentioning the return (supporting Wright et al who consider that the Jews considered themselves still in exile). Even if the focus on the exile wasn’t intended in chapter 1 it is more likely we are meant to notice how a line of kings has become in Joseph a line of carpenters while someone else must be ruling in Jerusalem. In Matthew 2 we discover who is ruling over God’s people. Herod is revealed as paranoid, megalomaniac, hypocritical, and most of all brutally sadistic in his killing of innocent children. The leaders of Israel are often mentioned in the bible as shepherds and as long ago as Isaiah and Jeremiah are recognised as failing in their role. But Isaiah and Jeremiah painfully look forward to when a good shepherd will come, who will love his sheep and also not lead them astray (cf. Jer 50:6).

Saved by whom?

Matthew 2 clearly knows who will effect salvation for Israel. We already know Jesus was of a line of kings, and born in Bethlehem. The prophecy from Micah that Matthew quotes makes it clear what this means:

‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

The shepherd is here and good rule is round the corner for it is none other than lowly Jesus who is Israel’s hope.

Saved how?

This will have to be further elaborated through the rest of the book but it is suggested already in chapter 2. The lowly birth and origin of Jesus has seemed bemusing so far but in chapter 2 it starts to make sense. Jesus will save his people by being a different kind of king to Herod. He will not rule with a rod of iron only (cf Psalm 2) but will identify with his people in a way never before seen. To save his people from exile and foreign rule he will subject himself to the same, initially under Herod, then under Egypt, and finally under Rome (in the person of Pilate). In fact it is only by suffering with them under God’s judgment that Jesus can absorb the judgment that they are suffering so that he can take them with him to the other side of death and exile. In the past God saved his son from slavery in Egypt, but the same is happening again in Jesus. But it is not just being repeated but being ‘fulfilled’. Jesus as God’s son, is representing God’s other son (his people Israel) in his life and ultimately his death. But he is brought back from Egypt, as he comes up from baptism, and recognised as God’s son, no mere slave but blessed. The resurrection is the same story multiplied by infinity and we can join the same story by being joined with him in baptism, and death (Rom 6:4).

But we must never forget that Jesus represents Israel not just by being just like one of us (‘a stranger on a bus…’) but also by being our king (our shepherd). The wise men knew what this meant for how they should approach them.

…and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Hope that made some sense!

Foundations of faith

The author to the Hebrews lists as foundational the following (Heb 6:1f):

• repentance from dead works
• faith toward God
• instruction about washings [or baptisms]
• the laying on of hands
• the resurrection of the dead
• and eternal judgment

When I read this I wondered to myself how many of us 21st century Christians would list the same things as foundational to our faith. Having said that, I think a fair number of Catholics and Charismatics might (with different understandings of what the words mean of course). Sadly you would not hear anything like that coming out of my mouth (reformation needed).

It is interesting though that understood in context the author's list is really an expression of faith in the story of a Christian's life, when we are so often told today that redemptive-historical is the New Testament way of describing faith. An interesting comparison is Tertullian (AD 155-220) who wrote the following summary of the teaching of Christ, or rule of faith:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. (source)

Again, sadly, not like something you would come out of my mouth (except thanks to CofE liturgy when reading the creed). Like the earlier list of the author of Hebrews it is a story. However it is a different story. Nevertheless it is in perfect harmony with the biblical letter's whole argument, and a few verses later the link between the two stories is made (v.6).

The gospel is a many faceted jewel which can be described in a multitude of different ways. We should not try and make other Christian's sound the same but listen to all the different stories in wonderful harmony. But this embrace of diversity within the church does not remove all boundaries, or embrace 'multiple' gospels. As Tertullian saw his summary could raise 'no other questions than those which heresies introduce', and in extension we should reject all discordant notes in the different 'core stories' Christians tell, and recognise their danger.

Just wandering in thought...

Letter to "the Hebrews"

I've bought and have just read the introduction to Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews" by David A. DeSilva. Interesting reading so far, especially on the reason for the scare quotes in the title. DeSilva is convinced that that there is no reason to believe that the recipients of the letter were Hebrews (specifically that is). I have to say it is fairly convincing in its debunking of any reasons to believe the title given is unhelpful.

DeSilva believes that the pressures on the recipient church to apostatise are primarily social (regarding honour and shame within the society) rather than ideological.

I may come back to this, but that's all you are getting for now.

The pregnant Apostle

…my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you… (Galatians 4:19)

This was the text for the last sermon I heard in 2006 and it may have been the best I heard (live) the entire year. It was a very challenging sermon for assessing 2006 and making priorities for 2007.

The sermon was by a visiting missionary called Andrew King (he has a blog here, mp3 can be found here). Andrew pointed out the aim of Paul’s life was to see Christ formed in people. Similarly Christ formed in us and in others ought to be our primary goal. But, this is not something for us to be lackadaisical or dispassionate about. Paul was in the ‘anguish of childbirth’ that this occur and the lack of Christlikeness, the spoiled image of God that he saw in others was a consuming pain and passion for him. In fact, that it is only in this total abandonment for others that Christ is formed in us, never mind anyone else.

Grrr, I can’t encapsulate what I’m trying to recount so that it has the impact it had on me, but hopefully you get the gist.

On reflection the sermon reminded me of Bruce Longenecker’s point that Paul in Galatians is too often seen as interested in ‘the issue of the law’ when actually he is concerned for ethics (see my post here).

Older brother lostness

Tim Keller on the prodigal Son (and the prodigal's older brother). HT Justin Taylor. I love Tim Keller, he really knows how to make you think again about sin, and specifically your sin. Highly recommended.