White-erings

... And another thing! Revisiting Galatians 6:2

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:09:00 +0000

Hot on the heels of my previous blog, I thought I might as well visit the only other verse in the whole of the New Testament which even alludes to 'the law of Christ' - Galatians 6:2. Those who argue that this verse indicates that believers are, in any sense, under law are really tearing this one reference right out of its context. At best, it is really, really shaky to develop a doctrine from one verse. Yes, the proponents tie in other references. But if you do that, you end up with a doctrinal patchwork quilt effect - bits and pieces from all over the place stitched together by your preconception thread! Not a good way to handle God's word.

Galatians 6 and all that!

I'm going to back up into Galatians 5 to get the whole picture here:

"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.
Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. For each will have to bear his own load.

Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. "

Galatians 5:13–6:10

I've bolded those two references to pull out two clear points:

Christ's new covenant teaching is that all of the Law (Mosaic) is fulfilled in his re-iterated 'love' command.
The law - any law - becomes unnecessary in the new life of walking by the Spirit. The Spirit 'grows' his fruit in us

Thus we see that the old system and the way it worked - of being given commands to obey - is fundamentally NOT the way that the new covenant works. It isn't that we now have new laws to replace the old ones. It is that in the Christ-covenant, the 'modus operandi' is completely other - it is a covenant 'not like' the previous one. Indeed, all of the previous five chapters have been an argument designed to protect the Galatians against the teaching that in order to be 'real' Christians, Gentiles had to embrace all of the old covenant Jewishness. In the 'new commandment' Jesus has given to his followers (John 13:34) all of the old Law is FULFILLED - completed; finalised. No more needs to be added to it.

I have argued elsewhere that (in my view) the 'new commandment' to love one another as Christ has loved us may well be what Paul has in mind when he refers to 'the law of Christ'. It is the one place where Jesus specifically speaks of a given commandment. And the timing is significant. When doe it occur? AT THE INSTITUTION OF THE NEW COVENANT. In other word, the Upper Room, on the night before the cross, in the context of the visual representation in the bread and wine of the body broken and the blood poured out (this is all covenant-making language), God's Son gives to his appointed 'Moses equivalents', the Apostles, not ten, but one commandment. The Upper Room is the new covenant Sinai!

So when we arrive at ch6 v2, Paul has established that life in Christ consists of

Living and walking by the Spirit
Serving one another in love
Exhibiting Christlikeness (the fruit of the Spirit) in behaviour and attitude

No law is required to modify or regulate such lifestyle. It glorifies Christ fully.

And then Paul adds something else. This 'law of Christ' will be completed (fulfilled) by one more thing - bearing one anothers' sin burdens. Look at the context:

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ"

Paul is talking about what we should do if we see another believer 'caught' (trapped) by sin. Condemn? No. Disfellowship? No. Give up on him? Never. Draw alongside and help him through it. Bring him back to the Lord. Is not that why the immediate caution is given that we don't fall into the same trap? And look at the glorious description of what this is doing - it is fulfilling the new commandment. Jesus said 'Greater love has no man than this - that he lay down his life for his friend' (John 15:13) The Lord is not just talking about what he would do - he is showing us what we should do. At cost to ourselves, we commit to doing everything in our power to rescue the sinning prodigal from his state. Of course we don't die for anyones' sins. Jesus has done that once and for all. But this is the heart of our Saviour, is it not? This is 'loving one another as he has loved us'.

Well, that is my comments. Here is what AI returned!

***

In Galatians 6:2 what is the law of Christ, and in what sense is it fulfilled by us bearing each others burdens?

The “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2 is equated with fulfilling the whole law by loving one’s neighbor[1]—specifically, the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal 5:14) This is not a new law unique to the Christian era, but rather the singular divine demand that has always bound humanity, though the means of fulfilling it have changed with Christ’s coming and the gift of the Spirit.[1]

Bearing one another’s burdens fulfills this law through concrete action. Since the entire law is summed up in the command to love your neighbor as yourself, carrying each other’s burdens is simply love in action and the fulfillment of Christ’s command.[2] The exhortation represents a general call to help with various struggles—not limited to moral failures, but encompassing persecution, financial difficulties, sickness, and other burdens believers face.[3]

The connection operates through Christ’s own example. The “law of Christ” echoes the teachings of Jesus and is exemplified in his life, with his self-sacrificial example particularly emphasized as the model for how believers should treat their neighbors.[1] The “law of Christ” is to love one another as he loves us—the new commandment he gave.[4] When you bear someone’s burden—whether emotional, physical, or spiritual—you embody this sacrificial love and thereby fulfill the law that Christ both taught and lived.

Jesus commanded his disciples to “love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another,” (John 13:34–35) and love fulfills the law, for the commandments are summed up in the word “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Rom 13:8–10)

[1] Abraham Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text! A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching (Chicago, IL: Moody, 2013), 201–202.
[2] Tommy C. Higle, Journey into Believer Building, The Journey Series (Marietta, OK: Tommy Higle Publishers, Inc., 2007), 48.
[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 358.
[4] David Platt and Tony Merida, Exalting Jesus in Galatians (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2014), 127.

Explain why this phrase cannot mean that in the new covenant there is a 'new law' by way of a 'suite' of commands to obey. And how does this relate to what Jesus himself said about 'keeping my words'.

The search results clarify this distinction sharply. The words of Jesus do not constitute a new Torah for Paul—nowhere in Galatians or in the near context of 1 Corinthians 9:21 does Paul cite the words of Jesus as a new law for the Christian.[1] Rather, the law of Christ is not the new covenant version of the Mosaic law in which the hundreds of commands can now be kept through the Spirit; it is the manifestation and fulfillment of the law of love.[2]

This distinction matters because it addresses a fundamental shift in how divine authority operates. The law must be understood as part of the old creation and old covenant—the past age that is no longer normative. Paul’s argument is not only anthropological but also salvation-historical: the time period in which the Mosaic covenant was in force has passed away with the coming of Christ.[3] A “suite of commands” would reinstate that old covenant structure, which Paul explicitly rejects.

When Jesus speaks of “keeping my words,” he means something fundamentally different. The phrase “keeping Christ’s word” refers to the observance of the whole revelation in its organic completeness—the opposite of disregard or disbelief. He who “keeps” Christ’s “word” first attends to it, lets its significance sink into his mind, and then appropriates the revelation it brings by faith.[4] More specifically, these “commands” encompass all of Jesus’ words and teachings, which are God the Father’s words: “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching... These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.”[5]

The connection to bearing burdens emerges here: the commandments of the Old Testament have not been abrogated but rather internalized and reapplied through the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. All commandments of God are now internalized—written by the Spirit not on stone but on human hearts.[6] Obedience flows from transformed hearts responding to Christ’s revelation, not from external legal compliance.

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Law of Christ,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 543.
[2] Brian Vickers, Justification by Grace through Faith: Finding Freedom from Legalism, Lawlessness, Pride, and Despair, ed. Robert A. Peterson, Explorations in Biblical Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 178.
[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 397.
[4] A. B. Macaulay, “Keeping,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Aaron–Zion, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 1:926.
[5] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014–2021). [See here, here.]
[6] B. Ward Powers, First Corinthians: An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 205.

***

The 'Law of Christ' debate revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 10:35:00 +0000

Introduction

It got quite heated!

Amongst those who regard themselves as holding the position of New-Covenant Theology, some few years ago there was vigorous debate between two variants of the approach to God's word.

Briefly, for those not conversant, New-Covenant Theology (NCT) outlines how the 'system' of theology which is the framework of God's revelation through his word is the series and progression of God's covenants. And that all of them are fulfilled by the final Christ-covenant, instituted by the Son of God and intiated at the Acts 2 Day of Pentecost, when the crucified-risen-ascended Christ poured out the promised Holy Spirit. Most significantly, NCT argues that it is the process of covenant which determines sections of history, not 'Dispensations' which external thought has imposed upon the Bible. Further, NCT proclaims that the Bible should define and determine its own terminology. Thus we cannot impose upon the word 'covenant' what a systematic theology - such as Covenant Theology - requires.

A summary of this straight approach to God's word might be stated in two sentences:

Let the Bible be its own system, and
Let the Bible determine its own dictionary

Thus far so good! But what derived from this common base was a consideration of the 'mechanics' of life in Christ. Under grace, not Law (the old covenant Law of Moses). Living in the Spirit. But did that mean that no 'law' at all was to be regarded as applying to believers? Some said "in the new covenant, we are under the 'law of Christ'". Others argued that even this did not adequately grasp the degree of freedom which walking in the Spirit brings; that Paul argues clearly that the new covenant is not a law covenant at all. Accusations of 'anti-nomianism' were levelled. If following Christ was not regulated by given commands, how was the believer to know anything about how to please God? Appeal was made to the one verse in the New Testament - Galations 6:2 - where Paul speaks of 'the law of Christ'. Oh, and the other verse in 1 Corinthians where he says in 9:21 that he is not without law, but is (as many translations have it) 'under the law of Christ'.

This debate I have covered in other posts on this blog. But subsequent to that, we are now in the age of AI - a massively powerful tool, which, if used wisely, can very quickly accomplish research which would take us far longer, and can draw from sources we might not have been aware of. As an avid user of Logos Bible Software, I make regular use of their own AI, knowing that the parameters are already there to confine sources to Biblical and Christian ones. So I decided to see what additional light might be thrown on this old debate.

'Ennomos' in 1 Corinthians 9

In this post, I'm going to be looking at the 1 Corinthians verse. I am increasingly aware of the importance of understanding what we have written in our Bibles in terms of the minds of its writers and its audience. WHO wrote this particular passage? And to WHOM? WHY did they write specifically 'that' in the way it was written? Purpose drives it. And must be understood if we are to accurately hear what the Holy Spirit had it recorded for us. We seek the:

Them - There -Then purpose

in order to grasp the

Us - Here - Now purpose

So let's remind ourselves of Paul's context. Here is the passage:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.
To those under the law I became as one under the law
(though not being myself under the law)
that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (
not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ)
that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. "
(1 Corinthians 9:19–23)

I have addressed Paul's primary purpose in this passage (not insisting on his 'rights' and freedom in Christ) in other posts. Thus the reference to his position with regards 'law' is illustrative - secondary. It is not a major doctrinal assertion. If we are looking for that, we must look elsewhere.

Today, I want to look at the phrase 'under the law of Christ'. It translates the Greek which says that he is 'ennomos' to Christ - the words 'under the law' come from our translator's efforts. And noble though they undoubtedly are, I think it misrepresents something quite powerful. The Corinthians would have got it because they were living in the Roman world. This is where I got AI involved. What follows is what it returned in response to specific questioning, and I think it completely lifts the lid off that mysterious phrase. The first question helps us understand the background against which the church was living, and from which many of those now Christ's had been saved.

***

Tell me about the religio in the Roman world

Roman religio fundamentally meant aligning one’s thoughts and actions with conventional prudence, emphasizing practices over beliefs. This wasn’t primarily about personal conviction. For most Roman citizens, religion functioned as an expression of ethnic and geographical identity rather than private faith.

The Roman system incorporated foreign cults within a syncretistic framework, requiring all religious practices to receive official state authorization1. Religions that rejected Rome’s law, order, and authority—or encouraged others to do so—faced violent suppression.

The Romans understood religio broadly. Anything that called to mind one’s bonds and obligations—whether oaths, omens, laws, or traditions—could constitute a religio. The emotional dimension of religio encompassed fear, anxiety, and caution, as well as the guilt and shame resulting from breaking sacred bonds.

A crucial distinction emerged between religio and superstitio. Religio was the official state cult binding the state to the gods, while superstitio referred to private faith that was tolerated unless it involved harmful actions or neglected official state religio.

---

How did the idea of ennomos function in Roman religion, as authorised and licenced sacrifice to a god

The term ennomos means “legal” or “customary; within the law.” In the Roman religious context, this concept functioned as a crucial mechanism for legitimizing sacrifice and maintaining divine favor through proper procedure.

Roman religious practice was characterized by an exacting legalism: ceremonies required precise execution according to exact prescriptions, and if errors occurred, the entire ritual had to restart from the beginning—a practice called instauratio—with these ceremonies recited from written texts. This procedural rigor meant that sacrifice operated within a framework of authorized, lawful practice. Only authorized cults could be practiced within Rome’s sacred boundary, the pomerium, and only there could the civil divinations be performed.

The authorization dimension was essential. Roman ancestors established fixed and customary ceremonies regulated by pontifical knowledge, with sacrifice functioning as a customary rite performed when proper authorization and procedure were observed. Sacrifice thus became a communication act—the worshiper appealed to the god through proper procedure and attitude—but only when conducted ennomos, within the legal and customary bounds established by state authority.

Critically, the god’s acceptance remained unpredictable despite proper procedure; accepting sacrifice was a matter of divine choice, and sometimes the god declined to be gracious. Ennomos sacrifice thus represented the worshiper’s fulfillment of obligation—performing the legally prescribed ritual—but could not guarantee divine reciprocation. The term encapsulated Rome’s distinctive approach: religion as a system of authorized, procedurally correct obligations binding the state and its citizens to the divine order, rather than as a matter of personal conviction or assured divine response.

How does this help our understanding of Paul's singular use of the word in 1 Corinthians where he describes himself as ennomos to Christ

Paul’s use of ennomos Christou in 1 Corinthians 9:21 becomes strikingly innovative when read against the Roman religious background. Where Roman religio functioned as a system of authorized, procedurally correct obligations binding the state and its citizens to divine order—performed with exacting legalism and state sanction—Paul inverts the framework entirely.

Paul appears to have created this term ennomos to describe his own position toward the law after his encounter with Jesus. Rather than positioning himself under Mosaic law or outside God’s jurisdiction altogether, Paul refuses to identify God’s law with the law of Moses, and more fundamentally, his obedience to God’s law occurs within the context of his relationship with Christ.

The contrast illuminates Paul’s theological move. Roman religio demanded external compliance with prescribed forms—the correct words, the proper sequence, the authorized sacrifice. Yet Paul’s adherence to the law through Christ constitutes a spiritual experience of that law, avoiding both legalistic rigor and arbitrary anarchy through the internal action of the Holy Spirit. Where Rome’s ennomos meant “within legal bounds set by state authority,” Paul’s ennomos Christou means “bound to Christ’s authority”—a personal, relational constraint rather than an institutional one.

If Paul is ennomos Christou, he is bound not only by certain teachings of Jesus but by all that Christ accomplished and represents, and within this submission to Christ’s law lies perfect freedom. This represents a radical recalibration: the procedural precision of Roman religion becomes the transformative relationship of Christian obedience. Paul is not bound by Mosaic jurisdiction but is bound to obey God as one living under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

***

So 'ennomos', in Roman life, was the sanctioned activity by which a citizen would interact with whatever god they were appealing to. A kind of official licence, without which the act of worship or petition - including sacrifice - was not authorised. It was the permitted bond between the supplicant and the deity. Note that last paragraph. Paul is not declaring that he is 'under a law'. He is announcing the new relationship to his living Saviour.

The Lord Jesus Christ is MY Good Shepherd - Psalm 23 through new covenant eyes!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:01:00 +0000

What remains to be said about probably the most famous and well-known Psalm in the Bible - Psalm 23? And there is no doubt that so many have done the job much better than I ever could. Nevertheless, It is these six verses that have been speaking to my heart recently. The trouble with Scripture which is so well-known and familiar is that we can somehow look past it. The Lord often uses the same parts of his word in new and fresh ways, applying them to our specific circumstances in that wonderful way that His Holy Spirit has of speaking to our hearts. If I had to give this short and inadequate comment a more succinct title, perhaps it could be "A sheep's view of the Good Shepherd".

You see, I have tended to read these wonderful words with a kind of technical and analytical perspective. I am not a shepherd, neither do I have any natural knowledge of that world he would move in. And so I must enquire as to how what is said here works. First, to see it from the point of view of the man in that particular walk of life. Then to see how it reflects God's relationship with me. David, of course, grew up as a shepherd and knew all about it. What I attempt here is to see things from the sheep's view.

It is very special that shepherd David writes about his Shepherd. We know so much more about who He is - we see plainly the One who was promised. We have a fuller picture. So it is no surprise to find the Lord speaking of Himself in such a way, in John ch 10. We must remember that the chapter divisions are artificial. What has just taken place? A healed blind man has just been thrown out of the synagogue for the dreadful offence of having been healed on the Sabbath. It is to the Pharisees who have brought this about that Jesus begins to speak about shepherds. Oh, and of thieves and robbers and hired hands who care nothing for the sheep.

Think of this poor man, who is disfellowshipped because of his leaders' blindness. In the closing verses of chapter 9, we find Jesus speaking to him again and plainly telling him just who it was who laid His hands on his eyes. The man has been thrown out. But in the place of that flawed community, he has found ... the ultimate One to follow. The Good Shepherd. First, he has heard the Shepherd's voice, when he had no sight. Now, he looks on the One who had spoken to him.

How lost the people of our world are. Such busy lives, filled with all manner of things, all kinds of different voices, giving so many garbled messages - but no solace for the soul. What a lonely busy-ness that is! And what a thrill to discover the Voice of the Shepherd. "My sheep know my voice", He says. And He calls them. And they follow Him. Psalm 23 is all about the results of that discovery. The song of the sheep!

Christ Alone!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Wed, 18 Sep 2024 19:09:00 +0000

Christ Alone!

- revisiting the Law of Christ debate

I can hear restless sighs and exclamations of 'oh no, not that again'! I understand. It is tedious to revive dispute long after it seems that things have settled - not least the clouds of dust raised by the to-and-fro of ongoing argument. Perhaps (I hope and pray) I have mellowed, at least in my 'passion' over the subject. But I haven't had my view altered. Not one bit.

The question in dispute was "are we as believers in any sense 'under law'?" What is this 'law of Christ' which Paul mentions in Galatians 6 vs 2?

"Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, for each one should carry their own load."

This is the only verse in all of the New Testament where that phrase is used (the 1 Corinthians 9 verse says something totally different, in a completely different context. Not helpful to string two verses together and elaborate them into a whole 'system'). I still contend that in the context of the whole of Galatians, with Paul's considerably strong insistence that believers should not consider themselves as living 'under law', we simply cannot make this one verse reverse (sorry!) his whole argument's direction.

'Fulfillment Theology

Second, I argue that the word 'fulfill' here is vitally important. We know that Christ has 'fulfilled' the Mosaic law. And thus what has resulted means that that Law is obsolete - redundant. Jesus states that He upholds all of it. It is not a write-off. But it has been exceeded; superceded; transcended by a greater and more glorious principle. A new dynamic by which the believer's life in Him now operates. We no longer live by law-obedience. We live by keeping in step with the Spirit. And in this final section of Galatians, Paul argues that we mirror the sin-bearing aspects of our Saviour in helping our brothers and sisters who are struggling with 'a sin'. Not that we in any way do for them what Christ alone does - has done. - He alone died for sins; we have no need to But we have His heart, His mind, in that we set ourselves to 'seek and to save' our erring brother. We work to 'carry' his burdens, sharing the weight (but not the sinning). So, in the language Paul so ably employs, we do not 'keep' this law of Christ, we 'fulfill' it. This is the action of the loving heart which is created in the child of God. It disposes us to go far far further than any commandment could require us to. When the believer behaves in this way, in every sense he or she completes the new commandment of Jesus that we love one another 'as I have loved you'. Effectively, we are laying down our lives for them.

Illustrations

My simple mind looks for ways to see this.

Here is a caterpillar. A crawling grub, earthbound, mono-coloured. Now consider what it will become. In a few short weeks its being is transformed. One would not easily link it with its former state. Now it is a beautiful, graceful coloured-winged marvel. Now it rides the breezes above the ground to which it was once bound. But look more closely. Examination shows that you can still make out the previous form - of the caterpillar.

Life in the Spirit - is that in complete ignorance of the righteous requirements God commands in the lives of the former testament? No, that former law pointed towards what would be the ultimate shape of what would come - it was a shadow. Everything the former scheme was aiming at is now achieved - and exceeded - by what God has brought about in the effusion of His own Spirit - Christ is the substance. The believer is being transformed daily to become more like the Saviour himself. The seed - the shape of 'law' has died. What grows from it is vibrant, sun-seeking and vigorous. It bursts into the light - and keeps going upwards. It has the power to crack concrete. But first, the seed must die.

To attempt to restrict the 'style' of the transformed life in Christ to mere law-living is precisely what Jesus himself describes when he refers to the futility of trying to contain new wine in old wineskins. To attempt it will result in disaster. We need new theology to search out and explore new covenant.

Greater Glory

This is the same comparison Paul makes in comparing the 'glory' (revealed splendour) of the Law to the appearing of the Son in 2 Corinthians 3:

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

Here is how we are to place 'law-living' by the side of Christ-living'. The former does not have the vocabulary to define toe latter. It is all Christ, and Christ alone. To reduce living in Him to a set of rules, in the place of the freedom of the Spirit detracts from that focus.

And that, my friends, is why I contend so passionately for the theology of the Christ-covenant.

In wide-eyed wonder ...

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Mon, 16 Sep 2024 23:47:00 +0000

Have you ever visited a stunningly awesome and immense and majestic building? Perhaps with the knowledge of all the major historic and current events which it has seen, and the important figures who have walked within it's walls. And as you meander through, taking it all in, the sound of your own footfall seems so small and tentative in the light of the such great, world-changing events it has witnessed.

Sometimes my praying, my feeble effort to walk with Christ feels bit like that. The echo of my own steps being dwarfed by the cosmic nature of what I'm now included in. But then I suddenly realise where I am in Him. That this - all this - is no mere monument. This is my home.

Walking on Water - or Not!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 15:02:00 +0000

Walking on Water
- or Not!

Mudeford Quay can be a dangerous place. Two rivers, the Stour and the Avon, combine here to flow into the sea just opposite The Needles on the Isle of Wight. The flowrate is scary fast. Cross-currents are treacherous. To navigate takes skill and local knowledge.

So on a recent visit, imagine our surprise at the scene pictured here. A boat is powering from left to right - upriver- to head towards Christchurch. And then there's this. Moving the other way is a very confident fisherman - walking. Miracle? No, sandbank. He evidently knew exactly where it was safe to place his feet.

When Jesus walked on water there was no sandbank. It was the middle of the sea, not near land at all. And his disciples, who had gone ahead of him in boats, were finding the going tough. It was 'choppy', to say the least. Severe enough for seasoned fisherman to have to work hard at the oars to make headway. And then ...

... like a mirage, Jesus approaches, walking towards the boat on the water. The disciples are petrified - who wouldn't be. They think it's a ghost. To allay their fears, Jesus calls out to them to reassure them that it is him. Small wonder that the episode ends with his disciples worshipping him and acclaiming him to be 'truly the Son of God' (Matthew 14 vs 33). That story alone would be worthy of the retelling. But in between, there is the bold account of Peter, who calls to his Lord "If it's you, tell me to come to you - walking on the water". And Jesus does. And Peter does!

Fine Faith

It all starts out so well. Peter clambers down over the side of the boat (not just a rowing boat, this) and steps out boldly towards his Master. Confident that the One who has power to walk the waves also has the authority to enable him to do the same.

We would love to see ourselves as believers in this role, wouldn't we? Unshakeable, solid faith that trusts Jesus; trusts the promises of God without hesitation, come what may. Faith that is firm. That moves us towards doing great things for God. That displays Christ's power in us over the world, the flesh, the devil. And, at least for a while, by the grace of God, we do experience those strong times. God blesses, and we trust. In the face of trouble and trial, we hold firm, displaying to our brothers and sisters in Christ what it looks like to walk with Him. But ... and so often there is a 'but' ...

Failing Faith

... we falter! As is often observed with this story, when our eyes are off Jesus and we are more aware of the intimidation of our environment - in his case the howling wind and the size of the (gulp!) waves, we lose it. We start to sink. And once you start, you are going down. Next stop, Davey Jones' locker. Jonah - here we come. But here's the thing. God sent the large fish to save Jonah. Peter had something greater - the Son of the living God. And so do we.

The amazing thing about living for Christ is that we have to learn how to fail.

We need to get used to it. We're going to do it more than once. But it doesn't take God off-guard. See what Peter does:-

Now, his eyes are back where they belong - on the Lord. And his prayer is one we find echoed in our own hearts - "LORD, SAVE ME!!!"

The next word is the heartener - see it? IMMEDIATELY! Immediately, Jesus is there, his hand reaching for Peter to raise him - well - back to his feet. When we pray that prayer, there is no time lapse between the prayer and the provision. You are not left to your own devices in your struggle. Your Lord doesn't let you sink a bit lower 'to learn your lesson'. His hand is stretched out to you - take it, take it now. And here is the thing. That is just as much the action of faith as getting out of a boat in the midst of an ocean. Don't let the devil or anyone else say it's a sign of dismal failure. We learn just as much - perhaps more - from episodes like these as when we're on top.

Future Faith

The next bit is not recorded. But I want us to imagine it. How did they get back to the boat? Only one answer - Peter is leaning on Jesus as they walk the walk. It is doubt that started the sinking. But it is faith that brings Peter back. So learn how to fail God's way. Let it end up leaving you leaning. Trusting your Lord to uphold you and bring you through. Teaching you that success isn't about how strong your faith is. It's about how strong your Lord is.

Splinters

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:34:00 +0000

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."

(1 Jn 1:7)

Saved!

The believer in Christ is in a state, a condition, of having been saved. Saved from what? From the anger and judgement of a holy God whom we have despised, ignored, rebelled against. That was our former condition. Dead in sin and unresponsive to anything of the living God, even though the whole earth - indeed, the whole universe - shouts of His glory. Our ears are deaf to that voice and our eyes blind to His insisted goodness in all He has made. Saved how? By the self-surrender of the perfect, spotless Lamb, Jesus Christ, on a stark cross of shame. In which He took upon Himself the punishment we deserve for our cosmic treason. And by His blood we are 'ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven'. Saved for what? For living to the glory of God and for the love of our Lord. Working acts of righteousness, which He has prepared beforehand for us to walk in. Serving His saints with a glad heart. Showing to the world the abundant life that only Christ can bring.

Splinters!

But in order to remain in that state, our persistent God- neglect and failure to be what He now not only intends, but enables, we must have a continuous supply of saving power. Otherwise, every small sin will be like a splinter in God's hand, a persistent irritant which He, in His white-shining righteousness, must judge and deal with. Imagine the accumulation of every act, every thought, which falls short of His love-command to us. Each one as a splinter, demanding attention until it is removed. Each one a shadow in the light of His glorious presence.

God's 'Tweezers'!

Great grace provides great measures. This we have also, by the life-force of Christ and His cross. Every time, His presented blood at the altar in the throne-room of the Father speaks that better word, as our Saviour declares "for this, also I died". Out of His pierced heart there flow rivers of living water. And the believer walks in their flow. The shed blood of the precious Saviour washes us clean even as we walk in Him. We continue in the state of 'having been saved', not because of the achieved quality of our new lives in Him, but because of the continued, irretractable supply of His saving power. We are held, thus, in the condition His redemption has brought us into. We live in the gospel.

All of Christ, and His be the glory.

"Did God Say ...?"

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Fri, 19 Jul 2024 11:15:00 +0000

"Did God say...?"

This was the beginning of the evil one's deception of Eve, and the thin edge of the devastating wedge driven between man and God. He continues to hammer it with relentless hammer-blows, seeking to drive it's division between a God of unfailing promises and His children. But thanks to the pioneer of our faith, we now have what Eve did not.

1. We have the written word of God.

In our hands and before our eyes, encrypted in the words on paper, we can return again and again to read and re-read what God has said. Won by the faithful work, sacrifice and commitment of faithful men in our past, we have a totally reliable collection of the inspired and infallible record which we can check and meditate on whenever we care or need to.

2. We have the indwelling Spirit of Christ. He has gone away so the Spirit would come. From the throne-room of God, the source of power, grace and holiness, Jesus has poured him forth for the church, his body. He lives in us, and he gives the light behind his written word, bringing his truth forth and pressing it into our hearts. The truth thus sets us free.

3. We have the fellowship of believers. We are not alone in our examining and efforts to get to grips with Scripture. We are set in local gatherings of the saints, structured in a way that his gifts may benefit and bless us. The word is preached and taught by those the Spirit enables to do those tasks. We speak also to one another, uncovering the disciplines and delights of what our Father lays out, in glorious revelation, for our spiritual food. We feed not only ourselves, but also each other.

And thus we see the strong measures the wisdom of Christ has put in place to bring us to maturity and conform us to his likeness. Let us take much advantage of these things. So, when the evil one's haunting question arises we will answer with conviction - "IT IS WRITTEN ..."

On the Nature of Repentance

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 01:27:00 +0000

The Interface of the Covenants

Old covenant to new covenant. We do well to consider how they relate - the continuity and the discontinuity between them. Everything points to and exalts Christ, the living Son. All that went before was a glimpse, a shadowy 'taster' which promised and sketched what God would do, in Him and through Him, at the fullness of time. We understand the old by examining it through the enlightened eyes of the new. Through His own appointed apostle/prophets, Jesus makes known to us, by writing with their hand what they saw and handled and heard, and by expounding in His word,again, by their hand, all that it means for us. We are greatly blessed, greatly privileged, for we have all this in completion, in our hands. And we are endowed with His Spirit to take that living word out of His book and explode it into vital reality in our very beings.

Surpassing Glory

But I want to ask the question 'where and how did these covenants meet?' Where do we observe the transition from one to another? How does this great eclipse occur, the lesser old covenant becoming overtaken and exceeded by the new, which comes, as 2 Corinthians 3 tells us, with 'surpassing glory'? God was evidently active in those Old Testament revelations, in 'many and various ways' revealing Himself (Hebrews 1 vs 1), so that by the time He sends forth His Son, there is a 'backcloth' of reliable and infallible knowledge of God. The Son is born of a woman, is Himself a man, so we can grasp that there is that about Him which we can know because He shares our humanity. And He is born a Jew under the Law, so that we can appreciate that what has already been revealed is not dispensed with and thrown away, but rather gets swept up into and completed by the greater light of His coming and His truth.

We see that Jesus interacts with the old covenant in various ways, uses it to demonstrate that it is all about Him, none other. So do we best see this 'interface' where old becomes new, perhaps, in His "you have heard that it was said ... but I say to you ... " teachings in the Sermon on the Mount? Or is it in His ascerbic exchanges with the scribes and Pharisees? No, it cannot be there, because there He is dealing with their hypocritical twisting of the Law and its practice, not the old covenant as it really was.

The Last Law Prophet

I have come to see that the moving from old to new covenant happens in the relationship and development that occurs between Jesus and His forerunner, John the Baptist. I hope to provide a more extensive look at this in a book I'm working on, which I will call "The Last Law Prophet and the Grace-bringer". Or something a little more catchy, less cumbersome, if I can find it. But the essence of it is that in the relatively short period of overlap between the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus the Son, we do, indeed, see the change occur. And I want to point out that in this period, something unique and never to be repeated is going on. But is this just my fanciful thinking? Or are there grounds - good Biblical grounds - for believing that this is what takes place. Well, in fact, Jesus Himself points up this clearly delimited time slot, and has some interesting things to say about it.

When John is in prison, he sends a delegation to Jesus to ask Him the question,

"Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?" (Matthew 11 vs 3)

Now, I know that some have suggested that John, languishing in jail, was having doubts and wanted to check he had not made some dreadful mistake. But I really find it hard to swallow that the man who had heard from God how this Messiah could be identified, then baptised Jesus and saw the Spirit descend on Him to remain was going to second guess all that had happened. No, I think John is doing something quite deliberate here for the sake of his - John's - disciples. But look at what Jesus says after having sent the delegation back to John with His answer. He now addresses the crowd, challenging them as to what they expected John to be. Then He goes on, in verse 12:

"From the days of John the Baptist until now ... "

That is a very carefully defined time slot:-

'From' - the first day of public ministry of John, proclaiming that the kingdom is coming,
'Until' - now, when John's ministry is complete, God takes him off the scene, and ... the Son of God is proclaiming that the kingdom of God is here.

In other words, the period in which the last law prophet is succeeded by the Son Himself. And when John is confined, and his public ministry is at an end, we read:

"After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1 vs 14)

Do you see that there is something quite deliberate about the timing of these respective ministries? The old covenant is giving way to the new. John - and with him, the covenant he represents - is to decrease, as Jesus - and the covenant He is instigating - will increase.

Let me take one aspect of that here - John's message of repentance.

"Repent ... for ..."

"In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”" (Matthew 3 vs 1)

“I baptize you with water for repentance." (Matthew 3 vs 11)

"Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”" (Acts 19 vs 4)

Realistically, all the Law - all of it - could ever do was to lead Israel to this end, the confession of their sins. It had been given to 'lock them up'; the Law was their custodian. All through the period of time in which it ruled, the old covenant era, its task had been to consign them until God's promised one would come. And once He appeared the wait time would be over, and God-fearers would be brought to explicit faith. Galatians makes this plain. John's preached repentance is preparatory repentance. It paves the way for the coming Lord. So that when God's Son is revealed, the hearts of many are already set to receive Him, even though the majority rejected Him.

Repent ... and ...

But John does not advocate mere lip service. How rife with that plague Israel's history has been! Repentance must be accompanied by life change:

"Produce fruit in keeping with repentance"

he flings at the Pharisees. And there is practical advice as to what this fruit would look like:

"What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”" (Luke 3 vs 10 - 14)

This is no less than the old covenant teaching applied - all of the prophets were preachers of the Law of Moses. And this is really my point.

The repentance John the Baptist commands is - was - repentance under Law, something which would never be required again once Jesus had come, had died, and had risen. This is NOT to say that there is no repentance required when sinners turn to Christ - that is the gospel. But there is a difference.

John's message was - 'repent and wait'
The gospel message is - 'repent and believe'

Believers in Christ, under the new covenant are never exhorted to show the 'fruit of repentance'. They are told to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. But of course, at the time of the Baptist, the Spirit had not been given.

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 01:27:00 +0000

The Fruit of the Spirit

Our church Homegroups are about to embark on a series of Bible studies on the fruit of the Spirit as listed in Galatians 5. The study book we are using pitches right in with no introduction. But I thought it is important to understand how these attributes of the new Christ- nature come about in the life of the believer. So I have added an introduction session.

Really, this is precisely 'where the rubber hits the road' as we consider what the theology of the new covenant actually means to us. If we are not to live by 'mechanical' obedience to laws and commands, how do we function? Well, Paul leaves us in no doubt. This is 'new-nature obedience'.

One of the crucial verses in Galatians 5 is v5 -

"For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope."

How does this fruit, outlined in v22, get into our living? It grows, as fruit does. It is not produced by 'acts', or 'works'. It does not arise from 'the flesh', the desires of which produce the unrighteousness Paul lists. So what do we 'do'? Are we to passively sit while God does His bit in us? No, here is our part -

Galatians 6:8 (NIV): whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Sow to grow

If this fruit is to grow, we sow. Then we wait to see it spring forth. But isn't 'waiting' just passive? Ah, but it's 'eagerly await'. This is the jumping-up-and-down excited waiting of the child anticipating the promised birthday treat, who just can't wait to see it. This is waiting without wearying - waiting in faith, in certain knowledge that God's Spirit will bring forth in us what He promises.

How do we sow?

Ch5v6 - we express our faith in our love

Ch5:13 - by serving one another humbly,

like this:

Ch6:10 - Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

In doing this, we are 'sowing to the Spirit'. This is why physical fellowship is so vital. Without it there is no 'ground' to sow in. Think about it. Every interaction with another human being is an opportunity to sow.

The Harvest

And what is sown will quickly result in the crop of ...

... the righteous living that God requires and desires, fulfilling every God-given law we could imagine. Against this, there is no law. None is necessary. It is the outgrowing of our abiding in Christ, and He in us.

So ...

Is there an aspect of this fruit that you see yourself lacking? Are you so easily not-patient or not-self-controlled? Does your walk lack for joy? Must you then reach out to the heavens to bring these things down to you? Well, no, because God says His Spirit has already placed them within you - they come as a 'package' with His indwelling. It's God's promise, and you can 'wait' expectantly for Him to show them in your life as you prayerfully seek to be changed into the likeness of your Saviour more and more.

God's multi-fruit

It is well noted - and worth repeating - that this is 'fruit' not, as is often misquoted, 'fruits'. The word is singular. What we, in English, call a collective noun, denoting many of the same kind, like 'sheep'. I heard it explained this way: An apple, an orange and a banana - that is 'fruits'. More than one apple is 'fruit'. So here, these are what I have referred to as attributes of Christ-like character. If we want to see them perfectly modelled, we have but to look at the Saviour, who lived out His Spirit-filled human life as is evidenced and expounded in our Scripture. That is a worthy study.

Non-optional attributes

As such, God does not operate these like gifts, granting one or a few to each person. Rather, they are a description of what He is bringing about in and through us as we are being transformed day by day into His glorious likeness. How? By the ongoing renewal of our minds (Romans 12:1,2). Neither are they optional. This is not supermarket stuff; we do not select the ones we need and leave the others 'on the shelf' for later! We all must grow all of them. In John 15, Jesus talks about our essential 'spirit-organic' bond with Him. He is the vine, we are His branches. His 'sap' flows through us, providing us with the very life-sustaining force that invigorates us. He is in us and we are in Him. Without that union, even if there is superficially a 'join' we are just sticks, destined for the burning. And in that wonderfully full picture, we are shown that our Heavenly Father is the perfect Gardener, tending and cultivating the growing believer.

Fruit, not 'works'

Back in Galatians, Paul contrasts the outcome of flesh-living with Christ-living. He calls the former 'the works of the flesh'. In my mind, I picture a factory, with all of the machinery and noise, hammering out finished - but non-alive - products. Contrast that with the orchard, where by the natural processes of growing, trees bring forth their produce powerfully and quietly. That 'just happens'! What does the vine-branch have to do to bring forth fruit? Why, nothing but 'abide' in the vine. Then, it just happens. It's a natural outcome. It is the work of the Spirit in us to produce His fruit, as only He can. We can't!

So if I detect that my patience is lacking, what am I to do? "ABIDE", Jesus says. God gives us the promised right to expect His Spirit in us to 'grow' it, and we look to Him to do that. By spending time with the Lord, using all of the 'means of grace' - prayer, His word, fellowship, preaching ... - we can see ourselves change. 'That's just the way I am' is never a Christian sentiment to excuse a lack of fruit. That ISN'T the way you are. It might be the way you WERE. But in Christ, you have a new nature and the old is passed away. So, not to be too harsh, you need to grow up. And out. and in!!!! The power of a growing seed can split concrete. The power of the growing Spirit of God in you can change your life.

Complementary fruit

Another aspect of this 'fruit' allegory that strikes me is that these nine attributes are interactive - they work together. So we can test ourselves by asking 'is my love joyful love'? Is it 'patient love'? Is it 'self-controlled love'? Do you see?

In mathematics, there is a function called a factorial. It describes the number of possible combinations of a given selection of items. If that confuses, let me illustrate:

Imagine you have a red, a green and a blue ball in a bag. Without looking, you pull one ball at a time out. How many possible combinations of colour could result? Well ...

1. First draw - you could get any one of the three. Now there are two left, so

2. Second draw - you could get any one of the two remaining

3. Last draw - only one option left

So you could have any one of 3 x 2 x 1 = 6 different combinations.

(This is the kind of thing I consider 'fun'!)

So with the complementary fruit of the Spirit, you have 9 factorial ways of putting them together - is your joyful love also patient? And good, and kind, and faithful etc. That works out as 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1. A total of 362,880 combinations.

What's the point of all that? In the old covenant, there are 614 - possibly more - different commands of Moses. The Pharisees sub-divided those making thousands more. In law-observance, imagine trying to keep them all. But in the new covenant, for every single action or thought in which we live to please God, ALL of the fruit of the Spirit should be manifest! If the new covenant was a law-covenant, we would be striving to obey in all 362,880 ways.

And that is precisely why Paul is so insistent in Galatians that we 'fulfill' - FULFILL - the 'law of Christ', the perfect rule of God's loving through us, by walking in the Spirit, not obeying commandments. You see, the outcome grows in us, it is not 'manufactured'. And it does so to the glory of God, as the world, and our brothers and sisters in Christ, rejoice to see that serving them.

Praise His glorious name.

View insights

102 post reach

All reactions:

Moe Bergeron, Neil Whitcombe and 6 others

8 comments

Comment

Most recent

Joseph Krygier

Who Does He Think He Is?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:30:00 +0000

It was a kangaroo court, his accusers looking for an excuse to execute him. His crime was that he had become too prominent, too influential, attracting thousands to follow him. It had gone beyond his constant conflict with their belief system, which systematically stripped away its pretense and showed them up for their hollow hypocrisy. That was bad enough - a nettling challenge to their control. But if that same influence was noticed by their Roman masters, all of the might and wrath of that fearsome empire would come down on them, sweeping away the nation - their nation. And with it, their influence, their coveted corner of power. That could not be allowed to happen.

So, he had to go.

And a surreptitious, private assassination wouldn't do. They had to contrive a public discrediting and condemnation. Something that would depose him in the eyes of the populace, and at the same time, make him, not them, the subject of ultimate Roman vilification. The rights and wrongs of it were irrelevant - what mattered now was expedience.

They took him at night, deserted by his disciples and betrayed by one of his own. They tried him at night -illegal, but speed was what counted. Foregone was all the procedure laid down by law. No public statement of what he was being accused of. No appeal for witnesses to come forward in his defence, and no time allowed for that. The very law they boasted to uphold - the Law of Moses - was conveniently abandoned in order to serve their purpose,

And so here he stood, before them now, at their mercy. The paid liars had uttered their calumnies. Now, looking for something -anything - he himself would say that could be twisted to their advantage, he is challenged:

"The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”"
“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26 vs 63,64)

In the original language, the question is heard as a statement with raised inflection at the end to make it a question. Like this:

"You are the Messiah, the Son of God?"

Jesus' reply is simply 'your words!' You said it!
Obviously, he is not toeing their line. But he is not denying their stated truth - he has clearly made this profession elsewhere. Just seeing right through their game. He will not allow them to put their words in his mouth, not for their ends. But then, what an astounding addition:

From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven

They may account him 'worthy of death', but it is the Lord of life who speaks. He, not they, determines this outcome -"from now on ..." This is stunning. They may well put him to death. But that is not the finale! Jesus is determined that all present hear what he says; it applies to every one of them. Indeed, what they now accomplish will serve two ends:

Jesus will reign with his Father
Jesus will return to judge

And so it is for us.

For all who place him 'on trial'. Those who will seek to manipulate what he reveals concerning himself. Those who ask straight questions should be vitally prepared to deal with his straight answers. If he truly is the Promised One of Israel, the Son of God, the time to reckon with the response is now. For those who will not will nevertheless be subject to - be enemies of - his ongoing rule. And, at his coming again, let them ask themselves, where will they then find themselves?

The real question, then, is not 'who does he think he is'. But rather, 'who do YOU say he is'. Because if he is who he says he is, he is the one most important person in all of history to be heard. And heeded.

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 01:23:00 +0000

Surpassing, Transforming Glory

So what is Paul saying in his use of the Exodus incident in relation to the new covenant?

In our session with Dr Gary Williams, referred to in Part 1, we looked at the comparison between the experience of Moses at Sinai and that of Peter, James and John on the mountain upon which they witnessed Jesus' graphic transfiguration. Mark records that episode thus:

" After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant." (Mark 9 vs 2 - 10)

There are many similarities. Peter, in his second letter, refers to this also:

" For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." (2 Peter 1 vs 16 - 18)

It is not insignificant that Peter refers to this location as 'the sacred mountain'. We can only imagine the stunning (and terrifying) impact these events had upon the onlookers. Dr Williams drew our attention to the fact that both incidents are restricted in their revealing, and following, their is some kind of concealment commanded. Moses veils his face. The disciples are commanded not to tell anyone what they have seen until after the resurrection. I will come back to this. Let us first note that in both we have:

The revealer of the glory
The observer(s) of the glory
The receivers (ultimately) of the glory

With Exodus 34,

The revealer is God Himself
The observer is Moses
The receivers are the Israelites

In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul draws his parallel thus:

The revealer is Christ - He 'radiates' this splendour in such a way as to radically alter His appearance - even His clothes. He is the source.
The observers are the Apostles
The receivers are the Corinthians (and beyond, all those who receive the Apostolic witness)

Therefore we see plainly that Paul's 'we' in this chapter is the Apostles, the eye-witnesses to Jesus.As John says:

"We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John1 vs 14)

We have noted before, but let me say again, that the giving of the Law on Sinai, and the incident in Exodus 33 where Moses asks to see God's glory are distinct. Previous to the great sin of the golden calf incident, the stone tablets, with the Law inscribed, had been given with no reference to attendant glory. We conclude that it is not the Law itself which is glorious. The glory attends the Law, it is not synonymous with it.

Unveiled Communication

Now we can clearly understand the impact of what Paul is saying. In their preaching of the Gospel, which also comes with glory, the Apostles are unlike Moses, who veiled his face. The Apostles deliver and pass on to their hearers the glory they have beheld in the revealed Person of the Son of God WITHOUT obscuring the full vision of those who receive it - such is their boldness. Although Paul was not on that mountain, as an Apostle, he too has been a party to the same vision of the resurrected Lord. Thus his apostleship is being substantiated.

What did Moses hide?

The question arises as to what it was that Moses did not want the Israelites to see. We have seen that they glimpsed the glory of the radiance in his face as he communicated with them after he had spoken with God. But when he had finished doing so, he veiled his face until he next entered the Tent of Meeting to stand before God again. The result was that the Israelites were not allowed to 'look steadily', or 'gaze intently' at him. Their examination of this phenomena was not allowed to continue. Paul says that this was ...

"to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away." (2 Cor 3 vs 13)

And this is where many have concluded that it was the radiance which 'was passing away'. But why would Moses merely wish to hide from them the fact that the radiance was fading? What purpose would this achieve?

It is more probable that what Paul is referring to as 'transitory' is, in fact, the whole of the old covenant. When Christ came, the complete order would be fulfilled and exceeded by the new covenant, instituted by God's Son. How could Moses, at God's direction, be heard to construct an intricate system of worship, priesthood and law, for the governance of God's old testament people in His given land, when all of it would ultimately give way to something far greater, with any degree of authoritative substance? Thus God directs that this eventual outcome would not be revealed to the Israelites until their covenant was at an end. In a similar way, the disciples of Jesus are not to pass on what they observe on the mount of Transfiguration until the full disclosure of the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection is made - only then would that revelation be fully meaningful. Only then would it achieve its given purpose. This was its 'telos' - its end. And, as in Romans 10 vs 4, 'telos' can mean 'goal' - ultimate purpose:

"Christ is the culmination(telos) of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."

Richard Hays, in his excellent book "Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul", argues strongly for this:

And, in his paper entitled
"Did the Glory of Moses' Face Fade? A Re-examination of katargeo in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18",
William Baker makes a powerful argument for the view that the word normally translated 'fade' in many translations should really be rendered 'obscured'. His summary:

"The translation of katargeo as "fade" in 2 Cor 3:7-18 has little justification outside biblical literature or within it. Most scholars have abandoned this translation as inaccurate. Yet, it persists in modern Bible versions. Examination of the lexical evidence finds no support for this translation nor does reexamination of the Exod 34:19-24 context that the word is intended to describe. Moses' face does not diminish in its glory; it is merely blocked or "rendered ineffective" by the mask. Finally, examination of 2 Cor 3:7-18 reveals that a translation of "hinder "or "block" best accounts for Paul's understanding of the Exodus situation within his own purposes."

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_a_01_Baker_MosesGlory2Cor3.pdf

The 'Same Veil'

Paul takes the picture further. He goes on to say that beyond Israel's experience in the wilderness, even to current times, when Moses is read, there is the same failure on the part of the readers to be able to perceive and understand what it is saying. The 'blindness' persists. Now, however, the veil is not over the face of Moses, it is over the heart of the reader - of course, it must be so after Moses had died. But it is 'the same veil' - in other words, it operates in exactly the same manner. In Christ, it is removed - those Jews who believe in Him are then able to perceive that all of that former covenant pointed to Him. So, just as when Moses enters again into the very presence of the living God, he removes the veil, so it is that in Christ (what claim, there, to His divinity!) the veil is removed. Whereas the unbelieving Jew cannot see the glory of Christ in the writings of Moses, the believing Jew has full disclosure of all that this means. Another quote from William R Baker's paper " Did the Glory of Moses' Face Fade? ":

" Even Jews, Paul says, who have been shut off from the full glory of the Lord since Moses donned the veil, will find the freedom to gain full access to God when they come to belief in Christ. This, Paul says in 3:12, is the message he preaches "freely," or "boldly" (parrhsia), since he is not encumbered by a veil as was Moses. He preaches this message across the board which makes his ministry, though based on the same glory of God as Moses', superior to his. What was denied Israel by Moses' veil in Christ has been opened wide to all people. A personal relationship with God himself is now available to all. This is Paul's gospel"

Surpassing Glory

Paul draws magnificent conclusions from all this. First is an a fortiori argument - from a lesser to a greater:

If the ministry that brought death, and was transitory came with glory, then ...
... how much greater glory must attend the ministry that brings righteousness, and is eternal.

He acclaims:

"For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory."

Undeniable, is it not, that the revealing of the Son of God from heaven must be accompanied and attested by all the radiant glory of which creation is capable. So much so, that Paul says compared to this, what went before is as nothing. Like comparing a candle flame to the sun. 'We beheld it', the Apostles cry - 'we ourselves were eyewitnesses'. We saw it with our own eyes, it was displayed before us with unremitting majesty. The Voice of the Father acclaimed Him. And, at the end, death could not contain that glory. It burst forth from His tomb to shine as an everlasting light. Paul likens this to Moses standing before the divine, holy throne. As he had once requested 'Show me your glory', and that revelation had changed his face for the remainder of his life to reflect what he had witnessed, so it was that the Apostles had viewed surpassing glory, and were thereafter emanators of that same glory before all who would approach with a heart of faith.

Transmitted Glory!

Now we can see precisely what Paul is saying. the 'we' to which he refers is the 'we' of the Apostles, who personally and directly saw this latter, surpassing glory in the face of Christ.

"For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." (2 Corinthians 4 vs 6)

It is this Apostolic witness which Paul regards as the new covenant equivalent of the radiance emanating from the face of Moses. And of this greater glory, he says,

"We are not like Moses"

For whereas Moses veiled his face when he came from surveying that lesser glory, before those to whom he spoke, the Apostles do not. Here it is - the nature of that new glory ...

"... the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4 vs 4)

And what the Apostles do, in their Christ-appointed ministry is to plainly set forth their witness, unveiled - unlike Moses. There is neither dissemination nor distortion. If there is a failure to apprehend, it is caused by the blindness of heart due to unbelief:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4 vs 3,4)

The veil is no longer over the face of those to whom the glory was revealed. It is now over the hearts of those who do not perceive.

Transforming Glory

"And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3 vs 18)

But for those who see, there is the vision of all of the wonder of what God shows them, through the Apostolic witness, and ...
... this reception, this view of Him, has the effect of transformation. It changes the observer to make them not only a reflector of that glory, but a 'likeness' of its source. We become like Jesus, even as we gaze. This privilege, this wonder is not reserved for the Apostles only. 'We ALL' are affected thus - the Apostles themselves, and those who see the radiance of the gospel light through them.

The Apostolic Word

It remains for us to mark what this means for us, who do not share the Apostolic age. The Apostles are no longer with us - how is this process now active? There is only one conclusion, is there not? That which they did once in their very persons is now done through their written works - the inspired word of God. Here is what now comes direct to us 'from the Lord, who is the Spirit'. In it, we gaze upon the surpassing radiance of this infinitely greater glory. Through it, and our absorption of it, our meditation upon it, we receive what those blessed men were appointed to transmit to us. In it, we see His face and gaze upon that incredible beauty. And by it, we are being transformed into His likeness. Not by any given law. But by the Lord 'who is the Spirit'. And we are exhorted to 'open wide our hearts' to them, even as they have opened wide their hearts in all they have written, in God's wonderful word, our Bible.

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:27:00 +0000

Old Glory

We can be fully assured that the Apostle Paul was thoroughly conversant with the events which accompanied the giving of the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai. We can be equally sure that, as an appointed Apostle, writing Scripture under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he knew and was thoroughly convinced of the difference the new covenant makes. Thus we must pay careful attention, not only to what he tells us about those earlier events, but also to what he says it means for us who are in Christ.

Two Tablets of Stone - Given Twice!

Reading the Mosaic account in the book of Exodus shows how, whilst Moses is high up on the mountain receiving the two slabs upon which God engraves the Ten Commandments, the people he God has used him to rescue are abandoning themselves to idolatry and immorality at its foot. Moses had said to them:

"Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning." (Exodus 20 vs 20)

And the presence of God was attended with glory:

"When Moses went up on the mountain, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the Lord called to Moses from within the cloud. To the Israelites the glory of the Lord looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain. Then Moses entered the cloud as he went on up the mountain. And he stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights." (Exodus 24 vs 15 - 18)

Moses alone enters that thick cloud. Moses receives not only the Ten Commandments, but instructions regarding the Aaronic priesthood, along with many other commandments and instructions, including how to construct the tent of meeting. Of this last, God says:

"For the generations to come this burnt offering is to be made regularly at the entrance to the tent of meeting, before the Lord. There I will meet you and speak to you; there also I will meet with the Israelites, and the place will be consecrated by my glory." (Exodus 29 vs 42,43)

But the people tire of waiting, a golden calf is cast from Egyptian gold, and they bow down to it. The consequence is that when Moses descends from his encounter with God, there is righteous anger, judgement - and the stone tablets are shattered. It is only the mediatorial intercession of Moses that stays Gods hand from destroying them. But Moses pleads for more than mercy and forgiveness. He petitions that, despite their great sin, God would nevertheless go with His people into the land of promise. And this God agrees. Yet, Moses is not done. His next request of this great God, whom he has come to know so well, should stagger us. For Moses asks:

“Now show me your glory.” (Exodus 33 vs 18)

And this, God arranges:

"I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence."

Again, God reiterates the Ten Commandments, but this time, it is Moses, not God, who engraves them on the stone tablets (Exodus 34 vs 27,28). The first two tablets had been inscribed by the finger of God. But the second two were written by the hand of man. And - note this - that in the old covenant ministry of faithful Moses, the glory of God is displayed in His goodness and in the proclamation of His name, Yahweh.

Moses' Radiant Face

I have taken some time to go through all this. More detail is given in the text - I have just given summary. But it is this second occasion to which Paul alludes in 2 Cor 3. Exodus, again:

"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord. When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. But Moses called to them; so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and he spoke to them. Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the Lord had given him on Mount Sinai.

When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. But whenever he entered the Lord’s presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord." (ch 34 vs 29 - 35)

Note that the appearance of Moses' radiant face occurs after his seeing the glory of God in this 'close-up-and-personal', intimate manner. It is not mentioned when he comes back to the people with the first two stone tablets, which are then destroyed. Therefore, I conclude, along with Paul, that this phenomena is not so much attendant to the giving of Law itself (it didn't happen the first time) as it is to the ministry of Moses. 2 Corinthians 3 vs 7 refers:

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory ..."

The stone tablets did not shine! It was the living face of the mediator which retained the light of the glory of God.

Second, it seems reasonable to think that this retained splendour was as a result of the more intensive revelation of God's glory. There is a Jewish tradition that this radiance did not fade - at least, not until he died. We shall see that this inference is not what 2 Corinthians 3 is saying.

The reason for emphasising this is that Covenant Theology wants to assert that there is continuity between the glory of the old covenant and that, although far greater, of the new. And that therefore this 'underlining' of the Law carries its authority through. But Paul is clear in his statement that the ministry which included the Law was what 'came with' glory. The glory was attendant to the ministry. Spurgeon says:

"I would have you notice that this communion with God included intense intercession for the people. God will not have fellowship with our selfishness. Moses came out of himself, and became an intense pleader for the people; and so he became like the Son of God, and the glory descended on him. How he pleaded! With what sighs and cries he besought Jehovah not to destroy the men who had vexed his Holy Spirit!"

We see, then, that this ministry goes far beyond the giving of the Law, and all the other commandments too.

Third, we need to note that there were three 'phases' here, not two. Here are the verses again from Exodus 34:

" 33 When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. 34 But whenever he entered the Lord’s presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord."

So, we have:

Moses in the Lord's presence - unveiled
Moses communicating to Israel what God had said - unveiled and radiant
Moses after he had finished conveying God's commands - veiled until he again goes in to speak with the Lord.

We see, then, even from Exodus, that although the initial reaction to the splendour emanating from the face of their leader was great fear, such that they ran from him, Moses brings them back. And after this, they regularly observe this shining, when he emerges from the Tent of Meeting to speak with them. Thus, as Paul notes, to avoid their being afraid is not the explanation for Moses' veiling of his face. We shall see what that is in due course.

The Shekinah Glory

'Shekinah' is not a Bible word. But the Jews used it to describe the visible glory exhibited by the personal presence of God. Exodus 40 vs 34 - 38 tells us that God's glory so filled the newly-erected tabernacle that even Moses could not enter:

"Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Moses could not enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out; but if the cloud did not lift, they did not set out—until the day it lifted. So the cloud of the Lord was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the Israelites during all their travels."

Similarly at the dedication of Solomon's newly-built temple:

"When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. The priests could not enter the temple of the Lord because the glory of the Lord filled it. When all the Israelites saw the fire coming down and the glory of the Lord above the temple, they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshipped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying,
“He is good; his love endures forever.”" (2 Chronicles 3 vs 1 - 3)

***
Thus we observe that the glory of God is not to be thought as attaching to the Law of Moses, but rather to the whole of the covenant between God and Israel. It demonstrates the very presence of the Lord Himself within the 'ministry' of covenant. In the next and final part of these 'reflections', I will consider what Paul is actually saying in 2 Corinthians 3.

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:13:00 +0000

Glory!

In this seminal chapter, Paul says that both the old and the new covenant ministries 'came with glory'. He then goes on to state that the glory of the latter 'surpasses that of the former. Much of his illustration is concerned with this 'glory'. So it will benefit if we arrive at an understanding of what he means by the word.

It is evident that'glory' is not an object in and of itself. Rather, it is a quality which each of the two ministries 'came with'. The Greek word 'doxa' means judgement or opinion, and this gets extended to express 'good reputation' or 'honour' or 'majesty'. The Hebrew word behind it carries the meaning of 'weight' or 'importance'.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul demonstrates the foolishness of disparaging the resurrection body because it will be different to our current mortal bodies - inconceivable to his sneering opponents.

"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish!" (vs 13)

He states that all kinds of created, astronomical structures have different kinds of bodies. And that each has its own type of 'doxa' - glory:

" There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (vs 40, 41)

'Glory', then, is not a purely spiritual thing. Natural things can have 'glory'. It can be considered as the way that human senses are impacted by or impressed by the object - it is the 'shining'; that which gives us the 'wow' factor. We look at a sunset and we describe it as 'glorious. Or the magnificence of a splendid horse in full stride. Or even a distinguished human ruler or leader.

The Glory of God

When it comes to God, His glory can either be revealed or concealed. Jesus refers to the glory which He shared with the Father before the worlds were made (John 17 vs 5):

"Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed." (John 17 vs 5)

He says that He has 'glorified' and will glorify His Father, and that the Father will 'glorified' Him:

" I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do." (John 17 vs 4)

" Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you" (John 17 vs 1)

He also speaks of glory brought to Him by His disciples:

"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them." (John 17 vs 10)

...the glory given to His disciples by Him:

"I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one" (John 17 vs 22)

... and, stunningly, He speaks of the cross in terms of His glorification:

"Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." (John 12 vs 23)

... and finally, the glory He desires His followers to eventually see, in His presence:

“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." (John 17 vs 24)

So, without exaggeration, all that the Father has done and will do in and through His Son is pervaded by glory, and suffused with mutual glorifying. In conclusion, then, we can say of the glory of God, that:

It is shared between Father and Son before creation
It spills from heaven itself at the incarnation (Luke 2 vs 9, 14)
It manifests in the person and work of the Son throughout His earthly life (John 1 vs 14)
It is displayed in the cross, where the love of God is declared
It floods from the empty tomb (Matthew 28 vs 2,3)
It will fill all of heaven for eternity

And then, we must not bypass this:

"... so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless" (Ephesians 5 vs 26,27)

The purpose of Christ is invested in the glory of those who are His. The church which bears His name.

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:14:00 +0000

2 Corinthians 3 is a crucial chapter in the understanding of the relationship between the old and the

new covenant. Paul is engaged, for a good proportion of the letter, in defending his being recognised as a true Apostle. It would appear that there were those who had come to the church at Corinth, or who had arisen from their midst, who were claiming themselves to be 'the' authoritative leaders to whom these believers should listen and who they should follow. Paul makes no secret of the fact that he is not interested in a battle of egos. Personality is not to be the grounds on which the issue is decided. So what is? Paul is abundantly clear. It is the nature and character of the 'ministry' the Apostle delivers.

Who is the 'we'?

I recently had the privilege of attending a 'Pastor's Study Day' on the subject of 'the Christian and the Law of God', run by Dr Garry William's. I am grateful to him for his careful examination of this passage, alongside Exodus 34, from which Paul draws a dynamic parallel. It is this that has prompted these further thoughts.

Paul makes statements such as:

"Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." (2 Corinthians 3:12-13 ESV )

It occurs to me that it is essential to understand exactly who it is that Paul is speaking of. This will help us understand the thrust of the passage. It is easy to just assume that he means 'believers' - members within the new covenant as contrasted with those who were in the old covenant. If so, he is making a general point about our accessibility to God, made possible by Christ. But I think we will see that that does not make the best sense of the flow of his argument at all. That it is better to see this as a distinguishing authentication of his call to be an Apostle. True, later in his discourse on chapter 3, he widens to include 'we all', and speaks of the effects of various factors on the individual's hearts. But he doesn't begin there.

Will the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?

Paul begins chapter 3 by dismissing the need for a kind of spiritual cv in order to be recognised as a true Apostle. Is it to be about 'letters of recommendation'? Such human mechanisms would be wide open to abuse, their acceptance or rejection a matter of mere subjective analysis on the part of the recipients. Who would be in a position to write such a thing? Who could truly know? Endless argument and bickering would ensue. No, Paul says, this matter is down to God, not man:

"Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3:4-6 ESV)

'Claims' are not enough. The only grounds for 'sufficiency' comes from God, not from human means at all.

What he is saying, in essence, is that what distinguishes an Apostle, what makes him what he is, is not the man himself. Rather, it is his ministry. So the question to decide is this. Is this 'candidate' for consideration as Apostle ad-ministering from God?

The 'Men Commendments' of the New Covenant

What Paul does here is to demonstrate that the new covenant is eminently superior to the old covenant. And that this is his ministry, which he serves. His 'letter of recommendation' is not a written document at all, rather, it is the actual church at Corinth. And here is his first contrast. Remarkably, significantly, it is here that he begins to place the two covenants side by side.

"And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (2 Corinthians 3:3 ESV)

When Moses descends from Mount Sinai, the authentication of his leadership in the eyes of the Israelites is that God has given him the tablets of stone engraved with the Ten Commandments. This is ‘the result of his ministry’. Indeed, way back at the burning bush, God had indicated that the proof to Moses himself that it was God who had sent him was to be that he, and all Israel with him, would worship God 'on this mountain' (Exodus 3/4).

In the new covenant, there is to be a critical difference. Paul's 'licence' to be an Apostle is seen by everyone and anyone as:

The living entity which is the church at Corinth, not cold stone tablets
Written on the beating, loving heart of the Apostle, not engraved in stone tablets, carried in hands
Written with God's 'Spirit-ink', not mere words and letters

Moses could be called 'the Apostle of the old covenant. Paul's intention here is to compare the covenant callings to their respective ministries. And thus he will illustrate that the new covenant vastly surpasses the old. Initially, he demonstrates that Moses' passes through to Israel the relationship with God which is governed by the Law. Whereas that of the new Israel is governed by the Spirit of God Himself. Moses brings the Ten Commandments. Paul's Apostleship embeds the concerns of those who are saved into his very heart, engraved there by the inner work of this Spirit. This is ‘the result of his ministry’.

Confidence and Competence

Paul is not diffident about this. He states that his confidence is rooted in Christ, and stand up in the very presence of God. It is a robust confidence, and it leads to competence in this new ministry of the life-giving Spirit, contrasted with the old ministry of the letter, which, he says, kills. If any of his so-called competitors are peddling a kind of rehashed Mosaic law, in any respect, they are dealers of death, not life.

We need to note that the Apostle is referencing something quite specific here. He is not saying that it is the ‘written-ness’ of God’s communication which causes death – after all, he is actually writing a letter himself! He is explicitly speaking about the old covenant, within which the effect of God’s given law, on those two stone tablets, was to bring about condemnation and death. And, quite obviously, it was not the words themselves, but rather the sombre fact that no-one could perfectly live up to what was being commanded.

Bold Behaviour

Thus, Paul says, because of the nature and character of the new ministry, as compared to the old, this results in different behaviour on the part of those who exercise it – bold behaviour.

“Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.” (vs 12)

The ‘we’ speaks of the way those who have received, first-hand, from the Lord what they now pass on in their gospel conduct themselves before their hearers. Not like Moses, who obstructed the view the Israelites had of his encounter, face to face, with God (albeit at their request). No, rather, the Apostles of Christ show forth, in their lives and in their preaching, all of the fullness of what they have witnessed, with no veiling. The Apostle John says:

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1 vs 14)

And Peter attests:

“For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.” (2 Peter 1 vs 16 – 18)

Elsewhere, in 1 Corinthians, Paul states ‘what I received from the Lord, I passed on to you’.

Of all that has been revealed to these men, chosen by Christ Himself to bear witness, nothing is hidden from their hearers. And this is the witness which we see and read when we open our New Testaments. Bold, Spirit-written, words of life. For us, this means that what we have in the Apostolic word, in our Bibles, is not only reliable, it is complete. Nothing is withheld from us that we need for the fullest understanding of who Christ is and what He has made us in Himself.

More about this chapter in the next article.

Will There Be Law In Heaven?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:07:00 +0000

This is the question I recently posed in two of our New Covenant Theology groups on Facebook, inviting thoughts and discussion. I will reveal my reason for asking that, along with my own thoughts. Interestingly, the response from both ‘sides’ of the ever-ongoing ‘law for believers’ debate is in agreement – a resounding ‘No’! In support of that, the consensus seems to argue that as law is to do with the control of sinful behaviour, and there will be no sin in heaven, there will thus be no need for God’s law. Indeed, Paul says to Timothy:

“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” (1 Timothy 1 vs 9 – 11)

It is not difficult to see where this conclusion comes from, and I agree with the argument. But, strangely, I do not agree with the conclusion. I think there will be law in heaven. Follows my explanation.

Priesthood and Law

Hebrews is key when we are considering the old covenant. There is an important statement in chapter 7 which, I believe, helps us to answer my question. Verse 12 says:

“For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.”

The writer’s argument is contained in the preceding verse:

“If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?”

So he is establishing that there is an inseparable union between ‘the law given to the people’ and the priesthood. Why? Because it is the law that ‘establishes’ the priesthood. We can actually state this two ways:

The law determines the priesthood, and,
The priesthood enacts and administers their law

The one is completely interwoven with and interdependent on the other – you cannot pull them apart.

The purpose of a particular priesthood, its‘raison d’etre’, is to put into effect its particular law.

We see this very clearly with the Levitical priesthood. Intricate instruction is given to Moses concerning the appointment of the Aaronic priesthood. There are no exceptions. And of course, this requirement was adhered to throughout Jewish history, even following the Exile. Strict lineage had to be proven beyond doubt for all who would function a God’s priest.

Secondly, the functioning of the priesthood exegetes and applies the Mosaic Law to the community of Israel – they 'publish' and they ‘police’ it.

So, Hebrews argues, if the priesthood is replaced by another (the meaning of the word ‘change’ means ‘replaced’ not just ’altered’), there must also be a replacing of the law. If, and only if, the old law was still in place, and continued to function, would the old priesthood order continue.

A New and Better Priesthood

Hebrews goes on to demonstrate that in the covenant of Christ, we have such a change occurring. Jesus is a High Priest ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ (vs 11, 17). Thus the Levitical priesthood is dispensed with – made obsolete – by its replacement. And gloriously, we see that He is the ‘substance’ of which the old covenant priesthood and law was just a ‘shadow’:

“The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.” (vs 18,19)

So along with the obsolescence of the old priesthood, the Law of Moses is no more. It is replaced by whatever it was the ‘shadow’ of, whatever acts in the place of ‘law’ in the administration of Christ - the 'better hope' of which the writer speaks. And about this, Hebrews, of course, has much more to say, all of which exalts and proclaims the unique, singular, wholely effective functioning of Christ as our High Priest. He is now, for each and every believer; for the church through all the ages, the only Priest we will ever need. He is the eternal High Priest, who ministers in the very presence of the living God on our behalf. He is the eternal High Priest …

‘on the basis of the power of an indestructible life’ (vs16), ‘

the Son, who has been made perfect forever.’ (vs 28).

Praise be to His Name!

Thus, we are presented with the eternal credentials of the ever-living Son of God.

High Priest – Forever

Now here is the intriguing thing. If the priestly ministry of the Son is eternal, then so must be whatever acts for ‘law’ (the 'better hope') in His ministration. We see that ‘covenant’ is the ‘wrapper’ which defines all of these components, explaining clearly how God is relating to its members. The covenant is God’s established, regulative outline of how He acts within it. Whilst the covenant endures, so does the component priesthood-and-law combination within it. The New Testament – the revelation of God’s Son, and the subsequent ‘unpacking’ of that ‘super-nova’ of God’s truth – makes it clear that the institution of the new covenant (with all of its components) has made the old redundant – all of it. And that this is God’s final word. There will be no further covenant. There will be no new priesthood. And there will be no ‘new law’.

In other words, what functions in the community of the glorified saints of Christ then will be no different to what functions in the community of the justified-but-not-yet-glorified saints now. What WILL differ is our state of being. But Jesus – the risen, glorified, ascended Lord – will be just as much our great High Priest then as He ever was. Douglas Moo argues that it is not that we are in some kind of interim state in anticipation of the resurrection glory to come. But rather, that in and through Christ, and the Spirit He has sent to the church, God has already begun His kingdom work in us – the Gospel inaugurates it. That will be revealed – not begun – when Christ returns. And this means that heaven will not be the start of a new ‘order’ or dispensation. Rather, it will be the consummation of the current one.

So what does this mean for our question?

Eternal ‘Law’

I would suggest that whatever you take to be ‘the Law of Christ’ as Paul refers to in Galatians 6 vs 2, is actually ‘eternal law’. It is functional from its institution, and it will not end, neither will it be replaced, because the Priesthood of Christ will never be replaced. There will be no further ‘change’ in the priesthood, therefore it follows that there will be no further ‘change’ in the ‘law’ which

a) Institutes the priesthood, and
b) Is regulated by it.

And this has some interesting ramifications. It means that whatever commands of the New Testament, as the word of God for us, relate to our pre-glorified condition only, cannot be a part of the ‘eternal law’. Because they will pass away at the end of this present age. Two observations:

Commands relating to how we live, in Christ, which deal with sinfulness, cannot be included in ’the Law of Christ’.
Commands relating to evangelising in the fallen world, also, cannot be included in’ the Law of Christ’.

… simply because these two circumstances will not exist in heaven, all New Testament imperatives which concern themselves with these two considerations will not be required – they are temporal and temporary, not eternal.

Conversely, it can be argued that any aspects of what we are commanded within our covenant which will carry over into glory are at least ‘candidates’ for what could be called ‘the law of Christ’, because they will also be true and active under the ongoing Priesthood of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul is concerned with differentiating what will ‘remain’ from what will ‘pass away’ He says:

“ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.”

“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (vs 13)

So Paul actually identifies a third category of commands which cannot be a part of this ‘law of Christ’ – that which relates to the gifting of the church for her functioning within this word; these gifts are not required in heaven; they will be unnecessary.

It follows, then, that the new commandment of Jesus, that His disciples love one another as He has loved them IS the hub of this ‘eternal law’, because it endures beyond our mortal lives, and beyond the dissolution of this heavens and earth, and the new creation of the heavenly ones. We WILL carry on both loving God and loving one another throughout eternity. Perfectly so!

I leave this with my brothers and sisters to think and pray through. I have my own views on what Paul intends by his singular use of the phrase ‘law of Christ’ in Galatians 6. What I have attempted to do here is to demonstrate that whatever view is taken, it must be coherent with the ongoing priesthood of Christ – it cannot be for this life only. I believe that such an examination will lead us on to understand it more, in the light of the Biblical hermeneutic, whatever our starting point.

Living for the Lord - Bareback!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:46:00 +0000

Thinking about the difference between old covenant lifestyle, under the Law of Moses, and new

covenant lifestyle in the Spirit of God, perhaps we struggle to find the agreement between obedience and our freedom in Christ. The vigorous, ongoing debate between the respective views over whether there is or there is not a 'law' in play for believers contrasts two legitimate desires.

On the One Hand ...

Those who want to insist there is such a law are concerned with our obedience to God, in committed and specified choices and activities in our Christian living. Thus, they say, there have to be law-like commanding going on in the New Testament Scriptures which function in the same way as Mosaic Law did in the old covenant, binding the believer in law-like function, and holding him accountable. There is, then, a definitive prescribing in God's word for our lifestyle, which stand against any thought that we can just do as we 'feel' the Spirit is leading us.

... And On The Other ...

Those who want to emphasise that we are not under law, but rather under grace, and that we are to live lives led by the Spirit who indwells us are concerned to explore, to the glory of the risen Lord, all the joy and freedom, within the parameters of a holy life, unrestricted by the law-keeping of the old covenant. In its place, they argue, is the guiding hand of the Spirit, who imparts not only God's standards, but the very desire to live to them.

Concessions and Allowances

There needs to be grace on both sides. For the concern on the other is good. But the tendency is for both 'sides' of the argument to push the conclusions of the other to extremes, and then to accuse accordingly. Law-obedience tends to legalism (but doesn't have to end up there). No-Law living looks like, or could lead to, licence and licentiousness (but, again, doesn't have to end up there).

On Both Hands!

I have recently discovered what appears to me to be an excellent - and in my view, quite beautiful - analogy to illustrate this difference. It comes from an area of life I know very little about. Horseriding.

Cowboys and Native Americans!

We are used to seeing riders on horseback, if not in the flesh, on the TV. We view them adequately equipped with all the 'tack' which has become part and parcel of that scene. Saddles, stirrups, bits and reins all contribute to the horseman or horsewoman's control of the animal they are mounted on. But my mind goes to the Wild West movies of my youth. When the cowboys rode as described. But the 'native Americans' did not. They rode - bareback! Vastly different styles of riding, I am sure you will agree. The question arises; how do riders control their mounts without any of the 'gear'? And this is what I researched. The answers are intriguing. A quote from the website www.equinespot.com:

"The Native American Nez Perce Indians were some of the greatest horsemen on the Plains. They rode their bareback horses with such skill as to be the envy of Lewis and Clarke, the settlers of the Old West and the American cavalry too."

How did they do that? Here's how it works. I quote again:

"Developing as great sense of balance isn't the only benefit to riding bareback. You will find a beautiful channel of communication opens up between you and your horse. Without several inches of blanket and leather saddle between you and your horse, you will feel their every move. Your horse was always been moving and sending signals to you, but now you are suddenly much more aware of them. When bareback, you can feel your horse’s intentions clearly and respond faster. This channel of communication goes both ways. The horse can feel your every move as well. With such close contact between horse and rider, you’ll find yourself responding too and sending out ever more and more subtle signals. This beautifully silent communication between horse and rider becomes nearly invisible to the observer. Horse and rider are like one. It doesn't get any better than that!"

Essentially, the artificial aids may make life easier for the rider to control the horse, but that is the lazy way. What they do is to impose several 'layers' between horse and rider, which destroys much of the communication between two living beings. Bareback riders learn how to so interact with their animal, that the horse responds to subtle signals - and co-operates. Something in the horse's makeup delights to do so, to please its master. And vice-versa. Because their is no intervening, sensory depletion in cues which flag the horse's behaviour, the rider can anticipate and respond accordingly in a speedy manner. The summary above is apt. The horse and the rider are as one.

Spiritual Horseriding

This seems to me to exactly illustrate the way that external, law-command-and-keep dynamics work in the old covenant. God's law imposes His will on a people who are resistant in their nature to obedience to it. Structure and function make it work. Even where the hearts of those within the covenant are faith-filled and complicit, yet this law is an imposed law, not-natural to those it is placed upon. The requirements of God may well be called 'demandments' rather than 'commandments'. This Law is described in the New Testament as "a burden neither we nor our fathers were able to bear" (Acts 15 vs 10). Faith in those time points God's true Israel, the remnant within physical Israel, to the day when the love of God's standards will be implanted within the hearts of His own children. When the Messiah came and the Spirit was poured out.

But the way the poured-out, Christ-exalting Spirit of God now works within believers is no longer like that. What God has done is to remove the intervening insulating and artificial 'saddlery' from His interaction with the believer. The Spirit-believer relationship works like the bareback rider-horse does. The will of God for us is communicated by this amazing presence of God, right within our being, in the Person of His Spirit. He speaks still, authoritatively, from His word, and its importance and place in all of this is unquestioned. But because of the 'skin-to-skin' contact, He is able to relate to us - and from us - all that Christ wants for us in our new life in Him. We become 'as one'.

Thus the picture of obedience within each and every believer is still that of volitional and active response and responsiveness - and responsibility (and 'response-ability'!). And yet, there is also an intensely personal 'woven-in' experiential aspect of this which employs our faculties. Paul counsels, in Ephesians 5:

"Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." (vs 1&2)

and ...

" Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness,righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord." (vs 9&10)

'Follow God's example' - 'Christ's example'.

'The way of love' - 'all goodness, righteousness and truth'.

'What pleases the Lord'

'Understand what the Lord’s will is'
'be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

The intimate interface between our spirit and God's Spirit is a part of what is essentially new in the new covenant. God does not drive us from His 'saddle', as the old covenant had Him do. God rides 'bareback.

No Law! Yes, Really

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:37:00 +0000

David Gay has issued, and very quickly published, in pdf and audio-sermon form, a critique of my comment in the New Covenant Grace group. Sadly, every single one of his criticisms is flawed and invalid. He quotes me:

No Law!

‘But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control against such things there is no law (Galatians 5 vs23 ESV). This verse is indisputable. It cannot be implied that Paul only intends to say that the law of Moses alone is not in play – he plainly says ‘NO LAW OF ANY KIND And this indicates that when he says, so many times, elsewhere, that the believer is not ‘under law , he also means ‘ not under any law Not merely ‘no longer under the law of Moses , as some would like to have it, although the Gentile never was anyway.

Comments on DG’s pdf. His words in bold:

1. I freely admit that the phrase ‘the law of Christ is not used in any of those passages, but what else can they be referring to? (Quoting various passages)

Note: So this is a presupposed conclusion, from elsewhere, which has been imposed on these texts. I, and others, have commented on the passages he mentions elsewhere, and shown how they do not indicate or imply that they belong in a collated 'law of Christ'.

2. 1. If these two believers are right, this can only mean that believers, not being under any law, are not under the law of the land in which they live, and they do not have to obey it.

Note: This is quite evidently not what the original statement is about. The ‘no law’ statement in Galatians 5 is concerned with God’s law, not man’s law. This is a rather spurious observation.

3. 2. If these two believers are right, why do the Scriptures stress that believers are bondservants of Christ?

Note: This is a logical fallacy. It reasons:

a. Believers are under the ‘yoke’ of Christ

b. The Jews were under the ‘yoke’ of the Law Moses

c. Therefore the Law of Moses was a ‘yoke’

d. Therefore, all ‘yokes’ are laws

e. Therefore believers are under the law of Christ

This is a logical fallacy of the kind

a) All dogs have four legs

b) Cats have four legs

c) Therefore, all cats are dogs

A ‘yoke’ was the coupling device used to tether animals together to pull, for example, a plough. The plain, analogous meaning is a picture, not a definition. There is no reason to equate it with ‘law’. This is imposed upon it, and it stretches the analogy to suit DGs purpose. Are ploughing oxen ‘yoked’ with law? Does ‘unequally yoked with unbelievers’ mean ‘unequally lawed’?

Another objection. When Jesus says, in Matthew 11:28 - 30:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

... He is quite obviously talking about the 'yoke' of learning. In the rabbinical schools, pupils signed up to a particular teacher, accepting their particular 'take' on the Law. That was referred to as 'taking up the yoke' of that particular teacher. So what Jesus alludes to in this analogy is not to do with bondserveants at all. We cannot infer by this that what Jesus is doing is replacing old Law with new law. The whole point is that these Rabbis had such stringent and proliferate teaching on what the Law requires, which placed such burdens upon those who followed them. By contrast, Jesus says His yoke is easy and His burden is light. Further, the character of the great Teacher makes learning from Him a joy.

This is yet another example of where DG seems to read 'law' meaning into everything - whether it is actually there or not.

4. 3. If these two believers are right, why do the Scriptures stress that believers are married to Christ?

Note: Again, this is a picture -an illustration. And its point is that believers have ‘died to the law’. Nowhere does it state that subsequently they are ‘married to another law’. Paul says they are now 'married to Christ', not to 'the law of Christ'. DG reads that into the illustration.

5. 4. If these two believers are right, this can only mean that believers never sin.

Note: Again, a ludicrous accusation. It is patently obvious that I made the statement and yet I do not hold that believers never sin. Our display of the fruit of the Spirit in our lives is a ‘work in progress’ – we are not always consistent. Paul is saying that ‘against this fruit-manifesting display of the Spirit’ there is ‘no law’, as I have explained in my comment. Not that against any aspect of the believers life, there is no aspect of discipline ever required. Sadly this typifies DG’s extremising (see my book “Love – not Law”) – of pushing someone’s statement to an unwarranted extreme, then criticising them as if they said it!

Second, DG ignores Paul’s argument in Romans 2 and 5, which plainly states that there are two ‘kinds’ of sin – sin where there is a definitive command, and sin where there is not. Paul never says that the ‘law of conscience’ (a confused representation of what Paul actually says) was given ‘as law’ by God. Pagans are said to be 'without excuse' because their inward, moral sense points them in the same direction as 'what the Law requires'. Their conscience bears witness to this by either accusing OR EXCUSING them. This is no action of a God-given law - it is self-law. Pagans sin because of wickedness. Not because they break law. This is why the world was destroyed by God in the Flood. Genesis 6 refers.

6. 5. If these two believers are right, why did the apostle say what he did in 1 Corinthians 9:21?

Note: This has been addressed in my book “Love -not Law”. The use of anomos (without law) – and ennomos (in-lawed) need to be studied carefully, and they most certainly do not lead to the conclusions DG reaches. There are also articles on these two studies on my blog.

DG closes his ‘Stop Press’ alert with this:

“Finally, as I said, what might be the consequences if believers pick up the assertions on that Facebook thread, and run with them? Is there any danger that the idea of being law-less might morph into being lawless? How serious that would be!”

My answer –

DG is arguing with Paul himself, and with Scripture. Read Galatians 5 again!

And wait! DG has total ignored the rest of what I wrote. Here is the whole post:

*****

No Law!

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22‭-‬23 ESV‬)

This verse is indisputable. It cannot be implied that Paul only intends to say that the Law of Moses alone is not in play - he plainly says 'NO LAW OF ANY KIND'. And this indicates that when he says, so many times, elsewhere, that the believer is not 'under law', he also means 'not under any law'. Not merely 'no longer under the Law of Moses', as some would like to have it, although the Gentile never was anyway.

The truth consistently taught throughout is that the believer in Christ lives by the operation of the Spirit in his/her heart and not by the 'dynamic' of obedience to God-given law of any description. That when this is so, and the child of God is keeping 'in step' with Him, the fruit He brings forth will be evident in their life, to the great glory of God, and the fleshly desires will be put to death, even as the flesh has been already crucified with Christ. That when this singular, nine-fold fruit is the abundant harvest of the saint, the appearance of obedience will also be there as a matter of course, for fruitfulness such as this shines Christ-likeness which far exceeds mere outward conformity. For love alone fulfills all of the old law, and even fulfills what Paul calls 'the law of Christ'.

Thus such a Godly, Christ-exalting lifestyle satisfies, fills out to overflowing, and exceeds anything any paltry law could ever be seen to require. Better try to bottle the bright shining of the sun than to attempt to define such Spirit-rich exuberance in terms of obedience to laws! And God's word does not do so.The truth consistently taught throughout is that the believer in Christ lives by the operation of the Spirit in his/her heart and not by the 'dynamic' of obedience to God-given law of any description. That when this is so, and the child of God is keeping 'in step' with Him, the fruit He brings forth will be evident in their life, to the great glory of God, and the fleshly desires will be put to death, even as the flesh has been already crucified with Christ. That when this singular, nine-fold fruit is the abundant harvest of the saint, the appearance of obedience will also be there as a matter of course, for fruitfulness such as this shines Christ-likeness which far exceeds mere outward conformity. For love alone fulfills all of the old law, and even fulfills what Paul calls 'the law of Christ'.

*****

A Crucial Question

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:49:00 +0000

Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23

“What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
This is the question asked by the enquirer we have come to refer to as ‘the rich, young ruler’.

Who was he?

Mark just calls him ‘a man’. Matthew tells us he was a ‘young man’. Luke tells us he was a ruler. And all three gospels identify that he went away sad at Jesus’ answer ‘because he had great wealth’.

How did he address Jesus?

Mark, with his normal attention to important eye-witness details, tells us that he ‘ran up to Jesus’. Two gospels say that he addressed Jesus as ‘good teacher’. The third, that he asked about ‘what good thing must I do’.

What did he ask?

Two gospels say he asked what he must do to ‘inherit’ eternal life. Matthew just says ‘get eternal life’.

How did Jesus answer?

Jesus questioned the question. He queried the young man’s use of the word ‘good’. Whether ‘good teacher’ was polite and respectful, or ‘good thing’ was a generalisation, Jesus evidently wanted to make plain that ‘goodness’ is not a relative thing – it is absolute. And only God Himself is ‘all good’. Everything and everyone else which or whom we might consider eligible for that description is flawed in some way. I think Jesus was getting the young man to think “Why am I asking this Jesus about this? Why do I think He is qualified to answer?”
Thus the Lord turns the focus of the question from ‘the thing to do’ to ‘the person to ask’. Himself. And implicit in the consideration of this is the stunning conclusion that Jesus Himself is God!
Jesus then points to what the man already knows (“You know the commandments”). Pleasing God, in the old covenant, was about keeping the commandments. Again, the gospel writers vary in which commandments they record Jesus as mentioning. All are from the ‘second tablet’ – to do with relationships between man and man (whereas, traditionally, the first four commandments in the Decalogue are to do with relationship between man and God, and were thought to have been written on the first stone tablet). But in addition to the quoted commandments from ‘the Ten’, Matthew adds that Jesus mentions ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ – which is not one of the Decalogue. “Do this”, Jesus says, “and you will live”.
When the man responds that he has kept all of these “from my youth up”, Mark tells us something quite unique:
“Jesus looked at him and loved him.”
The Lord then proceeds to inform him of the ‘one thing’ he lacks – the most critical of all. He is to abandon his riches – distribute it to the poor – and become a follower of Jesus. The consequence is that he cannot see himself doing that because he has great wealth, and he departs crestfallen.There follows Jesus’ remarks on how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

My Comments

In consideration of this account, we need to take the story as a whole and look at it ‘in situ’, rather than extracts to which we apportion meaning which the Lord never intended. We have to bear in mind:
That Jesus is dealing with a Jew, well versed in the Law, and meticulously observant of it. Thus He speaks to Him in his own terms.
That Jesus ministers at the ‘junction’ of the covenants. He leads away from and out of the old, and into the new, for which he prepares the way. Consequently, it is a mistake to take what He says about commandment-keeping as a viable alternative to getting eternal life
That there are things here that we do not and cannot know. Both about what Jesus says and about the young man. In my view, it isn’t legitimate to prejudge him and the thoroughness or otherwise of his law-observance.
We must not over-interpret. When the young man says he has ‘kept all of these commandments from my youth up’, it is not necessary to think he is claiming perfect adherence. And Jesus does not castigate him for a false claim. Must we, then? Will we do more than Jesus does?

So, conclusions and lessons from the account:

Quite evidently, law-observance has not been sufficient to give this earnest seeker assurance that he has eternal life. But he knows he wants it.
The Law, though, has done the job God intended in his life. It has brought him to Jesus.
It is not a sin to be a ruler. It is not a sin to be young. And it is not a sin to be rich. Some take the last of these as an indication of covetousness – thus stating that he WAS breaking a commandment. But Jesus doesn’t even hint at this. Jesus elaborates later, and exposes how riches get in the way of discipleship. This is a 'new covenant' problem, not an old covenant one.
The Lord displays and illustrates His ‘mission statement’ – that He did not come to condemn, but to save.
We need to explore what it was that prompted (the also young) John Mark to comment that Jesus looked on him and loved him.
This is very ‘NCT’, is it not? A clear demonstration that the Law brought condemnation, but was powerless to give life. Only the living Lord could do that, and nothing should get in the way of our following Him.

To whom else should we go?

The Law Was Given Through Moses

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:29:00 +0000

Because some are asserting that God’s law is expansive – even eternal – so that all men everywhere and at all times are always under some version or other of that law, I want to spend some time examining what the Bible knows about these various ‘Laws’. The insistence, as far as I can see it, is threefold:

That law and law-keeping is a fundamental and essential attribute of man’s relationship with God, in whatever covenant, or even no covenant, he happens to be.
That certain of God’s moral requirements, expressed as commandments (laws), overarch the whole of human history, and that they have always been ‘issued’ for mankind to obey in some form or other.
That the breaking of God’s law is always the definition of ‘sin’, and ‘sin’ is always that.

I want to suggest that God’s word only knows of one, complete, God-given Law – the Law of Moses – whatever other commands and communications there were to others at various times. That the designation of that as God’s Law was unique and never repeated. And that the heart of the new covenant – Christ’s covenant – is completely contrasted to it, not paralleled.

‘THE’ Law

My first argument is simple. It is seen, for example in this verse from John’s gospel prologue:
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. …

Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”(John 1 vs 14; 16-18)

The contrast in the bolded statement is clear:
The law was given … – Grace and truth came …

We see, then, that the heart of the new covenant is Jesus Himself, rather than a suite of commandments sent via a mediator. But this is not my point. The thing is that it is a noticeable and consistent reference pattern of the New Testament writers to refer to ‘THE law” – indicating the Mosaic covenantal law. Implying that there is no other ‘law’ which is of interest to the writers to set alongside the new covenant. Indeed, going even further, perhaps implying that there was, only and ever, one, God-given law.

So Paul, in Galatians 3, says:
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. … What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.” (Galatians 3 vs 16,17)

Do you see?
‘The promises’ – and the qualifier (to distinguish from other promises spoken to anyone else) – ‘spoken to Abraham and his seed’

But
‘The law’ – and the qualifier is not ‘given to Moses’ (to distinguish it from other ‘law’ given to anyone else), but – ‘introduced 430 years later’.

‘Introduced’ means that it was not there, in any shape or form, before this. This was the first incidence of it.

It could be argued that this is only because it is this Law of Moses that is ‘in focus’. But I think it is significant that no other kind of law is ever mentioned. At all! This is Paul’s statement from Romans 2 – and he is talking to Gentiles as well as Jews:

“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” (Romans 2 vs 12 – 16)

Note that there are no qualifiers. At no stage in his argument does Paul say anything like “but they DID have ‘the Law of Adam’ or ‘the Law of Abraham’”. It is just, starkly, Jews had the law and Gentiles did not have the law. Quite evidently, he speaks of the Law of Moses. But no alternatives are mentioned.

This goes further. If, in fact, the Gentiles had some kind of God-given law, his argument in this passage does not make sense at all. He is saying that despite their NOT having God’s ‘given law’, nevertheless they had a law-like function in their hearts which makes them tend (imperfectly) to do the same things that the Law actually requires.

‘The Law of Moses’

Second, the designation ‘the Law of Moses’ is distinctive. We are never told anything about ‘the law of Abraham’ or ‘the law of Noah’ or ‘the law of Adam’. No collection of God-given laws assigned to any of these people is ever referenced in the Bible. The new covenant is new because the old covenant was old. And the old covenant, Moses’ covenant, was a law-covenant. As John 1 vs 17 says, the new covenant is a grace-and-truth covenant, a Jesus-covenant.

The Law of Sinai

Third, the occasion for God’s giving of this special Law, with all of its detailed commandments about tabernacle construction, priestly attendance and service, sacrifices, and the social rules of behaviour for the people in Canaan, is remarkable. It is given with great and fearsome displays of power and majesty, along with terrifying warnings and prohibition. Such a ‘giving’ is unparalleled. Surely, if God gave law anywhere else, it would be reasonable to expect similar display. Certainly, He would not just ‘slip it in to the statute books’ unnoticed and unannounced. When God gives law, those for whom it is intended hear what is going on, so that they are under no illusions that THEY are under that law. It is published and made both clear and available, so that it can be read and read again, and understood. It is to be proclaimed by the priests. It is to be ‘in the mouth’ of the leaders of Israel. It is to be ‘bound on their foreheads’ and affixed to the doorposts of their houses. The law of God is a very public affair indeed.

And, chiefly, we are completely logical to expect such occasions as the giving of God-law to be attested in His word – the word of the revelation of His dealings with man throughout history. But after or before Sinai, there is absolutely no equivalent at all. No other law-giving.

We are left to conclude that if law there is other than the Mosaic law, it is of a completely different kind. And of law of any other nature, again, there is no indication whatsoever in God’s word.

The Law of God’s New Land – Canaan

Lastly, Mosaic Law is physical in nature because it is ‘land-law’ – law given for a physical people occupying a physical country. They are not to be merely a replica Egypt. They have grown up under the law of Pharoah. They are now to adopt the law of God. It institutes not only laws for worship and approach to God, but also laws for their living side-by-side with each other. But in the new covenant, we are ‘living stones’, built into a spiritual – not a physical – temple for a dwelling-place for God. Essentially, non-visible. The true realities of which the old ‘shadows’ only hint.

The Visible Law

God tells Moses:
“I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” (Exodus 19 vs 9)

And vs 16 – 19 relate the phenomena which accompanied God’s communication:
“On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.”

Hebrews 12 draws out this contrast between these two covenants. This is the Sinai covenant:
“You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.” The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” “ (vs 18 – 21)

And the Christ-covenant:
“But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (vs 22 – 24)

We see that ‘the mountain that can be touched’ – visible, audible, tangible, physical – is compared to the as-yet immaterial realities of the ‘substance’, the heavenly Mount Zion. And belonging to the first is a physical set of laws engraved on very-physical stone tablets. But in the new, no mention of new law. It is, however, there, written on the hearts of the ‘spirits of the righteous made perfect’.

Here, then, is how God gives His law. Where else do we see it? Nowhere.

Heart Law

In Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36, God promises a new covenant, even in the midst of the chaos Israel had made of the old one. He says it would be a Spirit covenant, where a new heart would be given to His people – a heart where He would put His law. It would be ‘not like’ the covenant which Israel broke so completely. Hebrews 8 tells us that “the new covenant is established on better promises.” Not, you will note, ‘better law’. Obedience there would be. But when the Son of God gives us His commands, whether through the mouth of the incarnate Word, or those of His appointed Apostles, we are to obey not because they are our law, but because He is our Lord, and we love Him.

Conclusion

I still love that old Coca Cola ad. One has to see how clever these people are who draw our attention to what they want us to buy. There were many other ‘colas’. But only one original, against which the competitors came a poor second. Why be content with ‘also-rans’ when you could have … “the Real Thing”?

So we see that God’s law, as given through Moses, is unique in its many respects, and it was given only once. Nothing else is referred to as ‘the law of God’. And Biblically, nothing should be. What it promised is fulfilled in Christ. It is replaced by ‘the real thing’, of which it was a record only of the copies. God does not, again, ‘give law’. And what He gave to Moses was not ‘eternal law’ – it was not durable; it would be replaced by something – someone – who would vastly outstrip and surpass it. Who would fulfil it. And we would know, in no uncertain terms, that that was what He was doing, if it was, just as it was an unmistakable publishing on Mount Sinai. The laws which comprised it would be delineated and numbered, clearly identified as our rule-book for new covenant living. We would have a “however-many-a-logue”. But, as Hebrews 10 tells us:
“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.”

The reality is the givingof God's Son and the giving of His Spirit.

To refer to ‘the law of Christ’ as a substitute ‘law of Moses’ actually diminishes both. And destroys the super-eminence of the Son of God and the outpouring of His Spirit, which now lies at the centre of all we are as believers, members forever of the true Israel of God.

The Elusive Gay Gene

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 23:51:00 +0000

The Elusive Gay Gene

I write this as a response to various discussions in which I have been involved. As a professing Bible-believing Christian, I hold the view that God intended and created marriage as the vehicle in which sexual union is licenced between one man and one woman. And that the Bible quite plainly teaches that sexual activity outside of marriage is not in accord with His intentions – His ‘blueprint’ for mankind. Inevitably, in our current social climate, this exposes me to accusations of ‘homophobia’, bigotry – and many other appellations which accompany the outrage which is stirred when someone declares a belief that goes against the ‘PC’ ruling. I refuse to be ‘speech-policed’ or ‘thought-policed’ by bullying attitudes and reactions which will not tolerate disagreement. But I do wish to lay out, so that it can be clearly seen and understood, some of the thinking behind the view I hold.

First let me say that my personal relationship with the living Lord Jesus Christ has imbued my old, stubborn, selfish heart with new life and new love. That happened over fifty years ago. I can honestly say that I bear no hatred whatsoever for any other mortal man or woman. Indeed, God’s Spirit within me presses me to do good indiscriminately to all, even to those with whom I disagree on any count. So the accusation that because of what I believe about sexuality, and the fact that I hold that homosexual activity goes against the moral directives of God to man, as explained in the Bible – the accusation that this causes me to ‘hate’ gays is totally false and unfounded. Indeed, those who have made that accusation online have no grounds or basis to do so; they know relatively nothing about me, and thus their attitude is judgmental in the extreme. So I refute that I am 'homophobic' in any way, shape or form.

Second, let me say that the reason I hold what I hold is because the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles in the New Testament leave me no alternative to believe otherwise – I am convinced that this is what the text says. And as a Christian, I view the Bible as God’s infallible word – His prescription for all I believe and how I live out my faith. If anyone would persuade me that I am wrong, let him (or her) do so from these Scriptures. Passages such as Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 vs 9 and 1 Timothy 1 vs 10. I have read arguments that seek to explain away these direct references to the issue. I do not find those arguments any more than poor efforts at exegesis and exposition. They ‘fudge’ the text in order to reach conclusions they have already decided they wish to reach. That is not the way to read God’s revelatory word.

Third, and this is my main reason for writing here, I do not find that current or previous efforts to isolate and identify a genetic predisposition to homosexuality have been successful at all. And this despite the apparent common acceptance that it has been ‘proven’ beyond doubt. This assertion turns out to be an ‘urban myth’. There is no such absolute conclusion that has been reached on the subject.

When we examine the studies that have been conducted, we need to be careful that we do not swallow wholesale everything that is put before us. If we are not to be hoodwinked, there are some things to bear in mind. I will suggest a few:

1. Media reporting – even the BBC – is often biased and prejudiced, and this bias will not always be either declared or obvious. The presentation of facts is often selective and incomplete. Thus we cannot rely on TV reports, newspapers or Internet to give us a reliable base without knowing ‘where’ they are coming from.

2. The studies themselves will have been conducted by scientists or researchers ‘with an agenda’. The whole methodology of hypothesis-antithesis sets out to prove/disprove something. The statement of that ‘something’ will have been formed by a human mind with its own limitations and restrictions. To properly evaluate the results, we need to know the ‘slant’ that is being placed on the results.

3. This means that the facts brought to light by experimentation/observation must be what we look at, not just the conclusions the experimenters have drawn from those facts, which will display (betray?) their particular bias.

4. Experiments are not infallible. Methodology can be flawed, sampling can be biased, and unconsidered factors can intrude. Thus reproducibility of results is one of the requirements before the results of any one experiment can be accepted as valid.

With all this in consideration, my current awareness of the state of play to date is as follows:

1. No single gene which disposes homosexuality has been identified, despite many decades of its being searched for.

2. Experiments and studies which claim positive or significant results in this light have subsequently been challenged on various counts, and have not been possible to reproduce. Without exception!

3. There has been indication that multiple genetic factors may – may – dispose humans towards sexual preference. But these, even when accumulated, can be easily overridden by choice or ignored. In other words, this combined genetic ‘prod’ amounts to nothing more than a mild influence, not a driving force.

I ask that others correct me if they know different. But the conclusion I have to reach here is that despite vigorous and intensive looking for ‘the gay gene’, nothing has emerged which is in any way convincing. And claims to the contrary are exaggeration or just wishful thinking.

Bottom line – no-one is ‘born gay’.

As an addendum, let me say that the argument that we observe homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom is also unconvincing. Why this should dispose humans to act in the same way, or to excuse their doing so, is beyond me! Certainly there are other ways in which animals act that we would never dream of emulating or excusing - like fighting to the death to eliminate competitors for leadership, for example. And anyway, studies show that where same-sex acts are performed by certain animals, this does not exclude 'normal', heterosexual activity which is essential for their continued survival. There are no exclusively 'gay' animals. And there are assuredly no progeny of such creatures, even if they do exist!

References:

http://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/

https://www.academia.edu/4984160/Who_are_the_Arsenokoitai_in_1_Co._6_9

http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf

The Ultimate Imperative

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Mon, 08 May 2017 22:34:00 +0000

Introduction

Having spent quite some time thinking about the New Testament's use of the imperative mood, and after exposing what a wide range of meanings it is used for, from requests to military-style commands, my thoughts turned to what could be called the ultimate imperative. Which is, of course,God's own use of the command. The proclamation which does not ask for obedience because His word in and of itself has power to achieve what it declares. For example, the creation word which begins the whole Bible, and the book of Genesis - the book of 'beginnings'.

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."
(Genesis ch 1 vs 3)

That's some imperative. Literally, it says "LIGHT - BE!" We just don't have the tense flexibility to represent it properly. When you think about it, this is command at a level which is not possible for humans at all. Only God's word can accomplish what He sends it forth to do - without agency. When we humans issue commands, we are completely dependent upon someone else receiving our command and executing it - an 'agent'. Even if it is just the dog! Another living being has to be the recipient of the command and decide, whether coerced or not, to fulfill it. Without which, it doesn't get done. But God doesn't have that restriction at all.

The Faith Factor

In fact, the whole essence of faith is the realisation that everything depends on this invisible word of the Almighty. Hebrews tells us:

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (ch 11vs 3)

That can only be 'seen' by faith. It's a tacit realisation that this is the way things work. Mind-blowing, isn't it, to appreciate that what we perceive as the so-solid, physical universe actually relies for its existence on something completely intangible. Faith says 'what God says goes. And comes. And is!'

So when we hear the promises of God concerning and unseen future, or our unseen hearts, or our unseen Lord, it is faith that insists that even though we can't perceive these things with our five senses, nevertheless they are realities. And we trust them completely. That faith rocks the world!

The Mystique of Magic

The history of our race demonstrates the preoccupation many have had with 'magic'. Childrens' fairy stories and adult fiction too entertains us with the idea of someone, somewhere being able to control the inanimate with a word of command - a spell. Harry Potter. Witches and wizards. Superstition. All ideas about our own tight control over our environment, and bending it to our will. But of course, it's just impossible, and may be our hankering after wanting to be our own God. To be able to do for ourselves what He does.

God's Perogative

As believers, we attribute great majesty to Him for this very thing:

"I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? " (Jeremiah 32 vs 27)

And of course, when Jesus stands in a fast-filling boat in the midst of a stormy sea and commands 'peace' to the winds and the waves - and all is still, He is demonstrating that He has this power of command, and thus He is God. Well might the disciples frame their question.

The centurion, of whom Jesus marvelled at his faith, got this, didn't he? Remember what he says to Jesus? Luke 7:

“Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it."

He sees - amazingly - that this is none other than God in human form, and that He has the power of God-speech. If Jesus just 'says it', it will be!

Indeed, the Lord didn't even have to utter words. When the devil throws in His face the worst case of demon-possession there ever was, the demons are reacting before He even speaks out loud:

"For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”"
(Mark 5 vs 8)

God-speech for the New Creation

But it isn't just the creation 'ex-nihilo' of our universe. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 4, has this to say about our new life in Christ:

"For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ."

Which brings the whole thing right home to us. We are a 'new creation' And God has brought this about by the same means - by commanding in our very being "let there be light" - that oh so powerful ultimate imperative. And there WAS light - there IS light. In you. In me. The light of the glory of God.

God-speech in Transformation?

So when it comes to Christian obedience, I wonder whether more is going on in our Spirit-filled hearts than just the process:

1. God speaks

2. I hear

3. I obey (or not)

I wonder whether the command-voice of God is at work here too. That when we 'hear' an instruction to do with our living out the life He has given us, there is that same empowering - on an ongoing basis, as we walk in the Spirit. And that whereas the process I have just outlined is how law works, this is precisely what the New Testament means when it insists that believers are not 'under law'. And that this is why His word is described as a 'living word'. So, we get what Paul says in Philippians 2 vs 12 & 13:

"... continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."

- which really reads as:

"... continue to demonstrate in your lives your salvation ... for it is God who energises you to will and act ..." (two different words for 'work')

Hmm - food for thought!

John's use of 'anomos' in 1 John 3

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Fri, 05 May 2017 00:44:00 +0000

Introduction

Various ‘agendas’ make some want 1 John 3 vs 4 to read as the KJV and other translations have it:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”

The trouble is that the original Greek does not have the words ‘transgress’, ‘transgression’ – these were added by the translators, and place a specific interpretation upon the text. The ESV is the preferred translation:

“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” (vs 4)

Literally, John says:

“Everyone who is doing the sin is also doing the lawlessness and the sin is the lawlessness”

I have argued that this is indicating precisely the adverse – ‘transgression’ requires the law to be present, whilst ‘lawlessness’ indicates that there is no law in play. That said, some will still insist on arguing that ‘anomia’, the root word for ‘lawlessness’ means the breaking of law rather than the lack of it – and it can! So the matter must be decided upon other grounds, and, as always, context is prime.

John’s Argument

The issue, then, is not what we would like it to say in order to support some over-riding doctrinal persuasion from elsewhere. What is John’s point?

Lawlessness vs righteousness

Prominent and obvious is his use of a parallel expression by contrast:

“Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.” (vs 7)

Or literally,

“Whoever is doing the righteousness is righteous.”

We can see that the sentence structure is identical. The point being that it is the ‘doers doing’ that indicates the nature of the ‘doer’. Plain and simple.

The Argument

Following John’s line or argument from the beginning of the chapter, we can see him saying:

1. That we are called the children of God demonstrates His great love for us

2. Thus as with Him, so with us – the world does not know us

3. We are His children now, and what we will be ‘has not appeared’ yet

4. But when He ‘appears’ (same word) we will be like Him

5. This hope means we purify ourselves as he is pure (so that we are like Him)

Now, this point:

6. Those whose lifestyle is ‘sinning’ are also doing ‘anomian’; sinning is ‘anomia’

7. (But) Christ appeared to remove our sins – in Him is no sin

8. No-one who is in Him (therefore) can carry on sinning – to do so demonstrates that they are nothing to do with him

The line of logic plainly indicates that John is not making a statement about ‘law’ at all. He is elaborating “by their fruits you will know them”. The nature of the children of God cannot result in a perpetually sinning lifestyle. Where we see that lifestyle, we are to conclude that those are not God’s children.

The Common Use of ‘Anomia’

We must allow common usage of language in and around the time that the various New Testament documents are written and circulated to inform how we read them. What did the original recipients understand by what is said? For that will be our basic meaning too. Davison has this to say:

“In sum, anomos and its cognates almost always mean evil, wicked, or sinful in Jewish literature before 70CE, and the vast majority of examples refer to Jews or to the wicked in general and not to gentiles.”

So we see that even Jews – who had the Law – can be ‘lawless’.

From “The Encyclopaedia of Identity”:

“Anomia re-emerged in the Greek Old Testament around the 3rd century BCE as a translation for about 20 different Hebrew words that corresponded to English terms such as wickedness, evil, sin and iniquity. Anomia was seen as a general moral term and the polar opposite of moral law. In the New Testament, the meaning of the term was extended to include unbelief and the rejection of Christ as the son of God”

‘A general moral term’, then, for wickedness, evil, sin, iniquity.

From Gutbrod:

“In Judaism ho anomos or hoi anomoi is a common term for gentiles. Here it is hard to distinguish a mere affirmation that they do not have the law and a judgement that they are sinners. In general the latter view seems to predominate.”

So, predominantly, a derogatory - or, at least, contrasting - term meaning ‘sinners’.

One more – from “A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach” by Birger Olsson:

"… the letter does not support viewing the reference as an offense against the Law of Moses. … In apocalyptic texts the word anomia most readily carries the sense of lawlessness, godlessness, rebellion against God. The evidence for such an apocalyptic content is manifold … the sense of transgression against the Law of Moses is not attested in the NT."

Conclusion

Thus it would seem the consensus agrees that ‘anomia’ generally is synonymous with ‘wicked’ and ‘anomos’ means ‘wickedness’ – moral deficit. It is not a specific reference to the law of God being broken … UNLESS the context, as in Romans 2, indicates specifically that that is what is being spoken of.

To impose that meaning on the text contorts it and makes it say what it does not say.

Imperative Imposters?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Thu, 04 May 2017 18:55:00 +0000

Introduction

Some New Covenant Theology adherents want to insist that even in the new covenant, whilst

expounding vigorously that believers are not under the old covenant Law, nevertheless they ARE under a new kind of law. They would call this 'the Law of Christ', using Paul's phrase from Galatians 6. When asked how we are supposed to discover what, precisely, this law contains, various answers are given. A common one is to assert that 'the Law of Christ' is made up of all of the 'imperatives' of the New Testament - the command-style statements made through those writings. And that these are the new-law 'commandments' which we are supposed to be obeying. However, on closer examination, this definition proves to be woefully inadequate on various counts. And one problem is the Greek use of the imperative 'mood'. Here is a quick survey of Greek verbs:

"Ancient Greek verbs have four moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive and optative), three voices (active, middle and passive), as well as three persons (first, second and third) and three numbers (singular, dual and plural).

In the indicative mood there are seven tenses: present, imperfect, future, aorist (the equivalent of past simple), perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect. (The last two, especially the future perfect, are rarely used). In the subjunctive and imperative mood, however, there are only three tenses (present, aorist, and perfect). The optative mood, infinitives and participles are found in four tenses (present, aorist, perfect, and future) and all three voices. The distinction of the "tenses" in moods other than the indicative is predominantly one of aspect rather than time."

Greek, then, is much more precise than English, and sometimes our translators have struggled to adequately represent what is being said. They do a valiant job. Just, sometimes, we need to know a little more so that we do justice to all that the text is saying.

Imperatives have 'strength'

We must also see that all imperatives are not equal. They vary in ‘strength’. In other words, there are ‘levels’ of commanding, and this can be quite adequately seen in English. James L Boyer says:

“Much popular exegesis of the Greek imperative mood rests on unwarranted assumptions. Analysis of the actual usage of the imperative in the NT reveals that many common exegetical conclusions regarding the imperative are unfounded. For example, a prohibition with the present imperative does not necessarily mean "stop." And when it does, it is context, not some universal rule of the imperative, that determines the meaning. The imperative mood has a wide latitude of meanings from which the exegete must choose in light of contextual clues. The temptation to standardize the translation of the various imperatival usages should be resisted.”
Grace Theological Journal 8.1 (1987) 35-54.
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/boyer-imperatives-gtj.pdf

Even in our own language, we can see that imperatives can be used in different ways. Let’s take a single-word imperative – “Go!” – and see if I can illustrate.

Encouragement – “Go for it” (implies ‘you CAN do it’)
Exhortation - “Go on – shoot!” (as my football team’s striker nears the goal)
Direction - “Go left at the next junction” (Satnav command)
Authoritative - “Go into all the world and preach the gospel”

There are probably others. What determines? Context, of course. Boyer, again:

"Commands include a broad spectrum of concepts--injunctions, orders, admonitions, exhortations--ranging from authoritarian dictates (a centurion ordering his soldier to go or come, Matt 8:9), to the act of teaching (Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5:2, cf. 12ff.). Commands are distinguished from requests as "telling" is from "asking." The distinction, however, is not made by the mood used but by the situation, the context. They are used in the language of superiors to subordinates and of subordinates to superiors, and between equals."

To reiterate, Greek is far more ‘analytical’ than English. It has more tenses. And tenses have moods. As an example of this, there is a ‘mood’ in Greek called a ‘hortatory subjunctive’. It converts an imperative into an exhortation – usually translated ‘Let us’. But it is still an imperative. See, for example, Galatians 5 vs 26

“Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another”.

So what we might conceive of as New Testament ‘laws’ aren’t to be read indiscriminately as such, even if we take the view that the ‘law of Christ’ consists of all of its imperatives. For example, there are imperatives in what we know as the Lord’s Prayer. Are we, then, commanding God? Of course not.

Simply, imperatives are not always ‘imperative’! Read Boyer's article.

An Inadequate Definition

What I am seeking to demonstrate is that if this ‘law of Christ’ is going to be loosely defined as consisting of “all of the imperatives of the New Testament”, this is woefully inadequate. It does not give us enough basis for us to be able to decide what is ‘in’ and what is not. Which imperatives? How do we know? Second, we have no information about what the first church considered to be a part of it, and no way of deciding that. And what happens, without exception, with those who hold this is that they utterly fail to even attempt a definitive description. It is simply left as an extremely loose assertion, which is somehow expected to be convincing.

Paul's Use of "Ennomos" in 1 Corinthians 9

noreply@blogger.com (Dave White) — Mon, 01 May 2017 17:52:00 +0000

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes this intriguing statement:

"To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law." (vs 21)

Elsewhere, he repeatedly and pointedly states that believers are not 'under law'. It might seem, therefore, that he contradicts himself. But if we have a consistent view of God's word, we know that this cannot be so. It is the Holy Spirit who is the author behind the author of every written part of our Bible, and it is inconceivable that He argues against himself. So, we who take this view must seek to understand what is going on here.

Some have taken this verse and, standing it alongside Galatians 6 vs 2, which speaks of believers 'fulfilling the law of Christ', have constructed a kind of 'believers' law' which stands in the new covenant where the Law of Moses stood in the old. But what of Paul's emphatic insistence that those who are in Christ are NOT under law?

Countering this argument, others have noted that the actual words used in 1 Corinthians 9 are not 'hupo nomos' - 'under law', but 'ennomos', which, strictly translated, means 'in-lawed' to Christ. Their opponents argue back that this is splitting Greek hairs, and that the two terms are virtually synonymous. I have considered this discussion for some time, and have recently come across something which may well throw all the light on it that we will ever need! But before I reveal this enlightenment, let me explain why I am not happy that this verse speaks of believers being 'under law'.

The Perspicuity of Paul

Historically, Protestants have argued for a doctrine known as 'the perspicuity(clarity) of Scripture'. This states that:

...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (1646 Westminster Confession of Faith)

So, within this, we can also expect Paul to be plain in what he says. It would be no exaggeration to describe this learned, skilled Apostle as 'God's mastermind'. It is not for nothing that God used him to write 13 of the 29 documents which comprise our New Testament. Their contribution to our understanding of our faith is inestimable. And we can trust utterly his grasp, and his expression, of what God commissioned him to communicate - to the first church and to us. His extensive Jewish scholarly background, his understanding of the cultures of the churches he was writing to, and, not least of all, the enlightenment and Godly training of the risen Christ in his life had sharpened this finest of 'God's tools in the toolbox' to the nth degree and fit him for God's purpose. And yet he knows he writes to untrained men and women, non-scholars, in the various places in which God has used him to plant and nurture churches. So he, and the Spirit through him, ensures that his language is, as far as possible, plain and succinct. He writes to be understood!

When it comes to him using a different word from the usual and expected one in the context of 1 Corinthians 9, then, my suspicions are aroused. Why does he not just say,

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law."

... using 'huper nomos' as would be perfectly reasonable? Surely, if he wanted to make that point abundantly clear, beyond the realms of conjecture, he could so easily have done so. But what he does is to state,

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but in-lawed to Christ."

Notice that what has happened is that the object of the sentence is different to the way most of our translations present it - Paul's object is Christ, not law. I don't think that is accidental. 'In-lawed' at least, here, becomes descriptive of the way he, as a believer, is related 'to Christ' - he is not 'under ...', he is 'in-lawed'. Whatever else is going on, that at least, is significant, and I don't think we can reasonably just shrug shoulders and say "but he meant 'under the law ...'"

And then again, if the maxim of believers yet being 'under law' is so important, why is it not everywhere and all through his letters, employing this word freely and liberally? Why only once, and only to Corinth?

All Greek To Me

So here is the shaft of bright sunlight! I am indebted to a very thorough study by Fred Naiden in his book titled "Ancient Supplication". It gets a bit technical, but I will try to keep my explanation simple.

First, note that Paul is writing to the church at Corinth - a Greek church. For many years, that great city functioned almost as the capital. Their society had inherited the full complement of the Greek pantheon of gods, and now, added to all of them, were the extra Roman ones. Temples abounded, and the practice of the worship of their gods was 'sewn in' to their society - extremely deeply embedded.

When we examine the way that their religious system operated, we will immediately notice that for both Greeks and Romans, there was no distinction between 'politics' and 'religion'. In other words, the two were intertwined, and the ruling authorities legislated in matters of worship. As a member of that society, the plan was first to choose the right god for the right cause, the right occasion. You then had to gain their attention somehow, and present your particular request for their benevolence, in whatever way you needed it. This was a complex business. If you got it wrong - by presenting the wrong oblation, on the wrong altar, at the wrong time - you could incur wrath and blight instead of the favour you sought. And ... not only for you, but for anyone else who happened to be in the vicinity at the time your displeased deity was visiting his/her wrath on you (think Jonah in his storm-beleaguered ship). So it was expedient for the government to do whatever they could to make sure that only those who 'qualified' could actually even get to the altar. They had to 'apply', and they were called 'suppliants'.

Here is what Naiden has to say:

Supplication incorporates divine sanctions against perjury and against the expulsion of the innocent from altars and divine injunctions to allow a suppliant to approach and have his request heard.

… it also incorporates numerous regulations passed by the assembly of any given community, notably Athens. For their part, the gods endorse sanctions, injunctions and regulations. For its part, the assembly addresses every part of the practice. Besides regulating how citizens deal with one another and with the community, it regulates how the community deals with the gods."

Their application was duly considered by a Council, or an Assembly. And if they were found to be ok - guess what

- their 'supplication' was said to be 'ennoma', and they were said to be 'ennomos'! Naiden again (he is taking specific examples from Greek literature to illustrate his point):

No matter what the suppliant’s station and request, the supplication that he or she makes must be ennoma, or the suppliant must be ennomos – the Samian formulation. The moral side of these terms appears in the assertion that Dioscurides is worthy. But the legal side is larger and more complex. In regard to the first two steps, ennoma or ennomos means that the suppliant is eligible to supplicate and has done so at the right time. Ennomos in the Samian inscription supplies the first meaning, “eligible to supplicate”, and ennoma in the Attic inscriptions supplies the second meaning, which is presenting oneself at the right time. In regard to the last two steps, ennoma complements hiketeuin as a verb of speaking and means that the suppliant has made a lawful request. Finally, since the lawful request has led to the passage of a decree granting honours, annoma also means that the supplication has proved “valid”, a sense of ennoma in other legislative contexts."

Thus, we see that the word 'ennomos' has specific meaning for Paul's hearers, within the Graeco-Roman religious culture of the day. It is in common usage, and it is transparently understood.

1 Corinthians 9 vs 21 in New Light

Paul loves playing on words. And he is not averse to 'borrowing' a word or two from the current climate and making it work for him. He does it in Galatians with the Roman practice of 'paedagogue'. And it is my persuasion that he does it here too. This also explains why

a) It is done specifically with the Greek-backgrounded church of Corinth

b) He never uses this rather loaded term again elsewhere. Perhaps he can get away with it once, because these people knew what he was referring to (and now, we do!). But doesn't want to make it major.

So what is Paul doing with this word in this verse?

First we see, that this use is as an illustration of his main point, which is all about Christians foregoing their 'rights' out of love for one another. He says to the Corinthians, "and this is what I have done in my preaching of the gospel - I have 'become all things to all men'". Then follows the Jew/Gentile/weak elaboration. And he wants to emphasise that becoming like a Jew does NOT mean coming again under law. And then, that becoming like a Gentile does not mean being 'outside (the meaning of the old English word 'without') God's law'. Rather in respect of God's law, he is 'ennomos' - he has been granted 'licence', or 'legitimate status' to supplicate to Christ - to present worship and prayer to Christ. Here, then, is as much of 'law' as Paul is wanting to make claim to, and what it gives him is the right of approach; of full access. And not just to a god who is no god, but to the risen Christ.

Thus we can see that even though it makes reference to both 'law' and to 'Christ', this verse, in all probability, has nothing to do with what Paul speaks of in Galatians 6, and that to 'patch' those two verses together actually makes something of nothing.

White-erings

... And another thing! Revisiting Galatians 6:2

Galatians 6 and all that!

In Galatians 6:2 what is the law of Christ, and in what sense is it fulfilled by us bearing each others burdens?

Explain why this phrase cannot mean that in the new covenant there is a 'new law' by way of a 'suite' of commands to obey. And how does this relate to what Jesus himself said about 'keeping my words'.

The 'Law of Christ' debate revisited

Introduction

'Ennomos' in 1 Corinthians 9

Tell me about the religio in the Roman world

How did the idea of ennomos function in Roman religion, as authorised and licenced sacrifice to a god

How does this help our understanding of Paul's singular use of the word in 1 Corinthians where he describes himself as ennomos to Christ

The Lord Jesus Christ is MY Good Shepherd - Psalm 23 through new covenant eyes!

Christ Alone!

Christ Alone!

- revisiting the Law of Christ debate

'Fulfillment Theology

Illustrations

Greater Glory

In wide-eyed wonder ...

Walking on Water - or Not!

Walking on Water- or Not!

Mudeford Quay can be a dangerous place. Two rivers, the Stour and the Avon, combine here to flow into the sea just opposite The Needles on the Isle of Wight. The flowrate is scary fast. Cross-currents are treacherous. To navigate takes skill and local knowledge.

Fine Faith

Failing Faith

Future Faith

Splinters

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."

Saved!

Splinters!

God's 'Tweezers'!

"Did God Say ...?"

"Did God say...?"

On the Nature of Repentance

The Interface of the Covenants

Surpassing Glory

The Last Law Prophet

"Repent ... for ..."

Repent ... and ...

The Fruit of the Spirit

Sow to grow

The Harvest

God's multi-fruit

Non-optional attributes

Fruit, not 'works'

Complementary fruit

Who Does He Think He Is?

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 4

Surpassing, Transforming Glory

Unveiled Communication

What did Moses hide?

The 'Same Veil'

Surpassing Glory

Transmitted Glory!

Transforming Glory

The Apostolic Word

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 3

Old Glory

Two Tablets of Stone - Given Twice!

Moses' Radiant Face

The Shekinah Glory

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 2

Glory!

The Glory of God

Reflections on 2 Corinthians 3 - Part 1

Who is the 'we'?

Will the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?

The 'Men Commendments' of the New Covenant

Confidence and Competence

Bold Behaviour

Will There Be Law In Heaven?

Priesthood and Law

A New and Better Priesthood

High Priest – Forever

Eternal ‘Law’

Living for the Lord - Bareback!

On the One Hand ...

... And On The Other ...

Concessions and Allowances

On Both Hands!

Cowboys and Native Americans!

Walking on Water
- or Not!