My intention this year was to write about a post a week in this blog, detailing things I've noticed in my own studies, at church, or Bible study. For the past six weeks or so, I have been working with my father on a project that has taken up a lot of my evenings; combined with more work at my day job and other concerns at my night job, I have had a hard time writing much of anything at all, least of all in a blog no one reads and rarely contributes useful information.
Hopefully today will begin the end of the hiatus, though I expect posting will still be spotty. Lord-willing, I will play some catchup before the end of April.
This morning's sermon in Luke centered on the parable of the sower (or rather the explanation thereof). It struck me as we studied it that the parable could be used to describe the ministry of Christ, who indiscriminately scattered the seed (the word of the gospel) but explained it only to his disciples.
The purpose of parables was to hide meaning (Mt 13.11ff) rather than reveal it, and it seems to me that the fruit (which is understanding; Mt 13.23) is produced when Christ explains the meaning of the word he preaches. (I hasten to add that Jesus certainly also spoke to the people without parables; the lengthiest of his recorded sermons, such as Mt 5-7, don't seem to contain parables. I mention this parenthetically to head off objections that I'm Gnostically inclined. The Jewish nation had special revelation from antiquity about Christ.)
The major theme of the parable seems to be "hearing"; the word is used 13 times in Mt 13.9-23 and seven in Lu 8.8-15. It's worth connecting to Ro 10.14,15, I think, and I'm interested in how it would impact my understanding of regeneration (which, in brief, is that the preaching of the word regenerates us). Other relevant passages seem to be 1Co 1.18 and 2.14, both of which may help explain why the preaching of the gospel "in the clear" is not always regenerative.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Happy Easter!
Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is this King of Glory? The LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Implications of the Objective Genitive: The Resurrection
It is with some surprise I note the lapse of time between the last post and this one. I took an impromptu trip to Columbus, OH for a funeral last week. The service was done by the deceased's husband; it's a worthwhile listen, focusing pretty exclusively on who God is.
Returning to our regularly scheduled programming, I wanted to write a few notes on what it means when we talk about being justified by the faithfulness of Christ.
Justification is the legal declaration of righteousness. God instructs the Israelites in Deuteronomy to justify the righteous and condemn the wicked (25.1), and in Proverbs he says that one who justifies the wicked and condemns the godly is an abomination (17.15). We see in Luke that the people justify God (7.24), and in Romans God is justified in what he says (3.4).
In at least these cases, it's clear that justification is not the same as making someone righteous. It's true that words have shades of meaning, so it is perhaps unjustified (tongue in cheek, I swear! But it does go to the point) to cling ferociously to a single definition of the word.
So the first consequence, I think, of treating "faith in Christ" as "faith of Christ" is that we are turned to look at the resurrection. The resurrection is the proof of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and therefore the proof of his faithfulness.
We see an interesting connection between justification and faith in Romans 4 and 5:
We can easily connect righteousness (4.23-5, 5.1) in all of the verses, as well as faith (4.24, believe and 5.1, faith).
It seems to me that the justification of 4.25 is as inevitable as the trespasses. There's a parallelism here; it is because of our sin that Christ was put to death, and it is because of our justification that he was raised.
This reinforces the progression of Ro 1.17,18: "from faith to faith." From Christ's faithfulness to do the work he was sent to do to my faith in him.
A bit farther down in the passage, we read: "9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were his enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Ro 5; emph added).
The justification of 5.1 is the same justification as 5.9, and the reconciliation of 5.9 is the peace of 5.1. I am not at peace with God because of something I do, neither am I justified by my own exercise—rather it is the blood of Christ that justifies (his faithfulness) and creates peace between men and God.
[1] The condition isn't actually in the text; this could be as well translated, "to whom it shall be imputed, {to us} who believe...." Compare the ESV: "24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord...."
Returning to our regularly scheduled programming, I wanted to write a few notes on what it means when we talk about being justified by the faithfulness of Christ.
Justification is the legal declaration of righteousness. God instructs the Israelites in Deuteronomy to justify the righteous and condemn the wicked (25.1), and in Proverbs he says that one who justifies the wicked and condemns the godly is an abomination (17.15). We see in Luke that the people justify God (7.24), and in Romans God is justified in what he says (3.4).
In at least these cases, it's clear that justification is not the same as making someone righteous. It's true that words have shades of meaning, so it is perhaps unjustified (tongue in cheek, I swear! But it does go to the point) to cling ferociously to a single definition of the word.
So the first consequence, I think, of treating "faith in Christ" as "faith of Christ" is that we are turned to look at the resurrection. The resurrection is the proof of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and therefore the proof of his faithfulness.
We see an interesting connection between justification and faith in Romans 4 and 5:
23 Now it was not written for his {Abraham's} sake alone, that it {righteousness} was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe[1] on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
We can easily connect righteousness (4.23-5, 5.1) in all of the verses, as well as faith (4.24, believe and 5.1, faith).
It seems to me that the justification of 4.25 is as inevitable as the trespasses. There's a parallelism here; it is because of our sin that Christ was put to death, and it is because of our justification that he was raised.
This reinforces the progression of Ro 1.17,18: "from faith to faith." From Christ's faithfulness to do the work he was sent to do to my faith in him.
A bit farther down in the passage, we read: "9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were his enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Ro 5; emph added).
The justification of 5.1 is the same justification as 5.9, and the reconciliation of 5.9 is the peace of 5.1. I am not at peace with God because of something I do, neither am I justified by my own exercise—rather it is the blood of Christ that justifies (his faithfulness) and creates peace between men and God.
[1] The condition isn't actually in the text; this could be as well translated, "to whom it shall be imputed, {to us} who believe...." Compare the ESV: "24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord...."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)