There is no better time to be preaching through Romans 11 than during a Middle East crisis - NOT! There are always Christians whose focus is too much on the 1948 state when you say "Israel", although they to my mind often merely balance the outrageous bias the other way of others. Neither those in Hamas who happily force children into martyrdom (what can a seven year old do with 72 virgins anyway?) nor those in Israel who accept the temptation to cause such (oh hateful phrase) "collateral damage" are to be condoned, nor can we sympathise greatly with anyone except the suffering, although empathy (which is different - check your dictionary) with tiny Israel surrounded by hostile powers does not seem unreasonable to my mind.
But the great thing about Romans 11 is that is simply off topic. I don't need to preach Israel next Sunday. Here's something that got my spiritual juices flowing as I prepared the text using e-sword (which explains some font failure for Greek and Hebrew quotes.) Feel free to correct errors - you have until Friday, when I write the sermon!
For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you might not be understanding to yourselves, that hardening in part has come to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved, as is written,
Out of Zion comes the Deliverer,
He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
And this to them the covenant I have made,
When I forgive their sins.
These three theologically packed verses hang on the correct interpretation of the word "Israel". A quick search on the use of "Israel" in Romans shows that it is used frequently in opposition to the elect or to the Gentiles in Romans 9-11 and only in Rom_9:6 is it used in any other sense, being used here to distinguish Israel, the descendants of the patriarchs from Israel from Israel the elect line counted descendants of Abraham and so receivers of the promise (note the parallelism in Rom_9:6-7).
Therefore the bringing in of the Gentiles serves the purpose of bringing in Israel! All Israel will be saved because in fact the mission to the Gentiles will make the Jews jealous of the nations who serve their Messiah (Rom_11:13-14).
Paul does not want the Romans to be ignorant of the mystery he is about to reveal because the alternative to revelation is παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι, that is, speculation, literally, being insightful or understanding to or for ourselves, rather than turning to God for insight and understanding. These words stand out as a clear call to revelation based theology. Where we speculate, we are being exactly that which the NIV and ESV accuse us of being - conceited. For the danger with speculation is that as soon as we arrogate to ourselves the right to do theology rather than listen to it, we then end up with a theology that glorifies us rather than glorifying God.
Israel's hardening is to be put in the context of a plan, a plan conceived in heaven, in which the bringing in of the fullness of the Gentiles not only works out God's purpose to save from among the nations, it being too little for Messiah only to save Israel (Isa_49:6), but in which His very calling the Gentiles serves His Israel plan. In this sense, the Gentile plan serves the Israel plan: Gentiles are brought to God in order to bring in Israel.
That naturally has implications for mission to the Jews: firstly, the clear teaching here that God's plan has two distinctive parts tells us that Jewish mission must be part of the ministry of God's people, yet secondly all mission serves the aim of Jewish evangelism, for whatever we do to bring in the fullness of the Gentiles serves the purpose of bringing in Israel.
The Isaiah quote underlines the Jewishness of the saving work of God: from Zion, to turn ungodliness from Jacob, according to the covenant. Romans has unpacked the gospel of the forgiveness of sins by way of the justification of the ungodly by Jesus Christ. To expect this gospel not to be fully effective for the ancient covenant purposes of God would be most strange. This new David, from David's city, must surely not just rule the nations but save Israel and bring them to godliness.
The phrase ἡ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη is quite striking, as Paul has not chosen the simpler ἡ διαθήκη ἐμοῦ. The genitive attribute παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ underlines the active nature of God in this covenant (see Bauer on παρά I4a). It accurately reflects the LXX of Isa 59:20-21, which translates presumably the extra emphasis of אני in the Hebrew. The passage is insistent on the activeness of God: He is the saving covenant actor.
Hence overall in these verses we here the voice of the Sovereign God challenging us: who gets to decide our theology? Who gets to decide who gets saved how (one thinks further of Isa_45:1-13 and particularly God's response to those who challenge the use of a pagan king to save; but we could also consider the Gentiles who don't like seeing their salvation as in any sense secondary)? The answer is found in the answer to this question: who is the author and executor of the covenant? He decides.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Friday, 2 January 2009
Magnificat 2.0
The first time I preached the Magnificat, it was a traditional English Carol Service, with a chance to pitch the message at the congregation in just 15 minutes. This time I had double that, even more if I'd wanted, and I was preaching at a congregation that would generally want more depth. What I've tried to here is preach the gospel to the converted - that is, give depth and clarity that will strengthen the believer and clarify their understanding of the gospel.
At the same service the song was sung that I posted around this time last year in my first Magnificat post. It was a joy to serve God's people in this double fashion.
I also think that this sermon show the progress that God is making in granting me a proper understanding of the gospel: just how much it centres on Him and His ways.
The text below is scarcely edited and is clearly a script to be spoken.
Magnificat – Luke 1:46-55
Before we look at these famous words together, I want to read them from the English Standard Version.
And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for He has looked on the humble estate of His servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His Name. And His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever."
On Wednesday, an atheist in my Philosophy of Religion class raised the big question. We're reading Descartes. Descartes describes God as “infinite, eternal, unchangeable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, which created myself and anything else which may exist.” “There may be such a being, but I don't accept Christianity, God being Jesus, born in a manger and dying on a cross. If there is such a being, why would He bother with tiny little insignificant human beings.” I don't suppose Descartes would have made much sense to Mary. But I suspect had she been with us on Wednesday morning, she would have agreed. That student is right. If there is such a being as God, why would He bother with tiny little insignificant human beings? It makes no sense. But she knew something he doesn't. There is such a being as God. And He has bothered. We don't find Mary pondering the implications of her pregnancy for philosophy of religion. She sings. Down in verse 46: My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour. Mary's words are not the result of human reflection on the divine. They are the response of a soul that has met God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And what has she discovered? That God does bother. God bothered with her. She discovered the mercy of God. The word is in verses 50 and 54. I want to consider these famous words under three headings. Mercy is a blessing. Mercy is for the Needy. Mercy implies Sacrifice.
Mercy is a Blessing.
Let's read verses 46 to 49 again. I'll read them out as you have it in the NIV. My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me – Holy is His Name. Why does Mary say we shall call her blessed? Her answer is clear: beginning of verse 49. For the Mighty One has done great things for me. That's her explanation. She is blessed because He has done great things for her. God is the cause of her being blessed. The cause of the cake on the tables over there is someone baking. The cause of Mary's being blessed is God doing great things for her. Why did He do great things for her? She can't answer that. She just blurts out praise, and I think the NIV is great here with the dash – can you see that dash in verse 49? For the Mighty One has done great things for me
Why? I can't think. Oh! Dash. Blurt of praise Holy is His Name. In other words, He's done great things for me because that's the unique, utterly different way of doing things of God. She doesn't get it. It's just His wonderful way of doing things. So what is this great blessing He has poured out on her? What is this great thing He has done. Verse 48, first half. He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. The ESV is better here: He has looked on the humble estate of His servant. If we look at the Old Testament reading, we'll find more of what Mary means. Psalm 113, verses 4 to 9. The Lord is exalted over all the nations, His glory is above the heavens. Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, Who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; He seats them with princes, with the princes of their people. He settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children. Praise the Lord. You can see the parallel to Mary's song. I want to draw particular attention to verses 5 and 6. Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, Who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth? To stoop is to dive down, like an eagle diving from its flight high above the earth down to the rabbit on the field below. To find Mary, God has stooped down – stooped down low. But when God stoops, He stoops in mercy to be with us. Look back to Luke, our reading in chapter 1, verse 48. She declares herself of humble state – she's no one special. Luther translates here in his exposition of the Magnificat er hat die Nichtigkeit seiner Magd angesehen. She's nothing, insignificant. We'll see more of what she means in a moment. But for now, we are to see God stooping down, stooping down low to meet her. And that is exactly what He did when He came among us in the person of Christ. God stooped, stooped down low. Stooped down to an occupied and oft vilified people. Stooped down to a family from the backwater of Nazareth. Stooped down to a human body, to being born a baby. Stooped down to a manger and no proper bed. Mercy is God stooping down, coming down from His heavenly height to be with us. That makes it a blessing. It's not something we earn. The language of God in the height is a powerful metaphor. It shows us just how far away God in His holiness is. How do we get to God? Do we climb up or does He climb down to get us? Is heaven for spiritual climbers, full of good works? The answer lay in Bethlehem's manger. God stooped down to come and get us.So who does He stoop down to?
Mercy is for the Needy.
Let's read verses 50 to 53 again. As I read, spot the pairs of opposites. His mercy extends to those who fear Him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. Did you spot the pairs? These are the people God stoops to: Verse 50: those who fear Him. Verse 52: the humble. Verse 53: the hungry. Others find Him most unwelcoming. Verse 51: those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. Verse 52: rulers. Verse 53: the rich. How shall we understand these contrasts? My first point is very simple: these are statements of how God works. Mary is praising the God whom she has experienced. The words the humble at the end of verse 52 is the same word as she uses of herself in verse 48 when she says the humble state of His servant. Note that humble does not here refer to character. It refers to status. It the opposite of rulers. The rulers are the top of society. The humble here are the insignificant mass of ordinary people. The way God has dealt with her is His normal way of doing things. After all, the words we read in Psalm 113 make a similar point. He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap;He seats them with princes, with the princes of their people. He settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children. What shall we make of this? Is God simply on the side of the poor and underprivileged? Well, the contrasts between the rich and the hungry and between rulers and the humble seem to make that point. But remember the first contrast, between those who fear God and those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. That's not a contrast between the poor and the rich. Throughout Luke's Gospel, we see Mary's point made again and again. It's the peasants, fishermen and farmers of Galilee who follow Jesus, not the priests and princes of Jerusalem. It's the lepers, the blind, the deaf, those with bleeding, those about to bury their dead come to Jesus, not those for whom all is well. It's the tax collectors and prostitutes who follow Jesus, not the Pharisees. Remember the parable of the Pharisees and the tax collector? Who was proud in his inmost thoughts like the Pharisee? God, I thank you that I am not like other men – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get. Who feared God – knew his terrible need before the Holy One – like the tax collector? God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Have mercy on me – stoop down to me. The tax collector in the parable was needy. And mercy is for the needy. Let's consider another contrast: the rich and hungry. Look carefully at what Mary says: both come to God. But they get treated differently. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. Let's go meet them in Luke chapter 21 verses 1 to 4. As He looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “I tell you the truth,” He said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All the others gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” Both the rich and the widow come to God in His temple. But Jesus dismisses the rich and accepts the widow. The rich no doubt thought themselves great benefactors – without them, God would not have such a wonderful and well-maintained temple. But she came, gave all she had – and where would her next meal come from? Only God knows the answer to that question. And she was certain as the coins rang in the treasury that His plan was good. The rich gave to do God a favour. The widow gave confident in God's favour to her. On this evidence, I think we can synthesise what Mary means with her contrasts. Let me illustrate her point this way. Imagine you are stooping down with God as He comes to show mercy. As you look on human society, what do you see? You can't see the faces of the proud, the rulers and the rich: they are looking down on others. If they are looking your way, they seem to expect God to be grateful for their assistance. Those faces are ugly with pride. Other faces are looking up: the hungry and the humble. Remember, the humble here are simply the ordinary, socially insignificant people. Many are looking up at the rich and rulers. They want their riches and their status. Their faces are twisted by jealousy, even hate. But they aren't looking up to God. Yet there are faces looking up to God. They are the hungry and humble who fear God. Their faces are open, pleading, dependent on God. As you descend, it is those faces God heads for. Mercy is for them. Mercy is for the needy.
Mercy implies Sacrifice.
Back in Luke 1, verses 54 and 55. He has helped His servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants for ever even as He said to our fathers. Why does God show mercy? Mary has answered that question. Holy is His Name! That's the startling truth about God. He's so unlike us in our sinfulness. And in His Holiness, He promised Abraham that He would show mercy to him and to his descendants for ever. This holy mercy is not simply bolt from the blue. God doesn't stoop down without telling us. He promises it. That promise, from the High and Holy King to humble, hungry, God-fearing people is His covenant. The King has promised and committed Himself to mercy. That's that. But there's an implication to that. When Habakkuk pleads with God to keep His covenant promises, he prays: In your wrath remember mercy. Here Mary says that He is remembering mercy – verse 54. But that does not mean He's forgotten His wrath. In mercy, God does not forget His wrath. Consider the first time God stooped in mercy. He had just scattered the proud of the Tower of Babel. Then he stooped down to Abraham. He promised Abraham a great land and a great nation of descendants. That mercy began to be shown when Abraham was miraculously given a son. What mercy, to stoop to an ageing nomad and his wife and give them a son. But then what happens? God requires that Isaac be sacrificed. And whenever we hear of sacrifice in the Bible, we are to think of God's anger. God's anger against our sin. That is, our living in His world as if it were ours, as if He wasn't there. Being proud in our inmost thoughts. Being our own rulers. Considering ourselves capable of making ourselves rich. And in all that forgetting the hungry and humble. And supremely not fearing Him, honouring Him as God. God cannot overlook the sin of the family of Abraham. So Isaac the first-born son must die. Abraham takes him up the mountain of Moriah. And we know the story. The ram takes the place of Isaac. In His mercy to Abraham, God does not forget His wrath. But He turns it aside onto the ram. Again, God remembered His covenant and mercy when He saw Israel enslaved in Egypt. But He did not forget His wrath. His anger was again to fall on the first-born son. But not in Israel. Once again, there was one to take the place of the son. This time, a lamb. Again, when God had brought Israel to the bottom of Sinai to make them His covenant people, what happens? He provides a whole system of sacrifice. As long as He shows mercy to Israel, from Exodus to Exile, there is a tabernacle or a temple where sacrifice is offered. Because in His mercy, God does not forget His wrath. Rather, he turns it aside to the sacrifice. So now, as we read of God remembering to be merciful, we ask, where is the sacrifice? Famous words of the Lord Jesus from Luke 22. He's speaking 24 hours before His death, sharing the Passover meal with His closest followers. He takes the cup of wine and says: This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Here is mercy indeed. God stoops, stoops low. And becomes Himself, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the sacrifice. Once again wrath is not forgotten. Once again the first-born, in fact all God's people are free to know God's mercy. At the price of the blood of God the Son. As He poured out His blood on that cross, Jesus bore the wrath of God against our sin. Wrath has not been forgotten. It has turned from us to one who takes our place. There has been a sacrifice. We receive only mercy.
As we close, let's consider where we stand.
What shall we make of Mary's song? She has sung of the mercy of the God who stoops. He stoops low to the hungry, the humble, those who fear God. How can we know this mercy? The wrong answer is this: be a Mary. Or be humble. Or be hungry. Or fear God. This song is not about what we do or are. It is about who God is and what He has done. Mary is not a role model here to strive to emulate. Mary is not a role model –she is a realist. We are not to look up to her, put her on a pedestal. Rather, we are to realise she stands right here with us. Because before this Holy and Merciful God, we don't need to become hungry, or become humble. We are of humble state – nothing, insignificant, even sinful. We have no status or anything before God. We are hungry – hungry for mercy, hungry for Him to stoop to us – whether we realise it or not. That's why Jesus put a table in our churches. Whenever we gather around it He testifies to our hunger and His ability to fill us with good things. And we fear God. Oh, we may suppress that truth. But we are all totally dependent on Him every second. His word decides our fate every moment of our lives. One glimpse of His majesty would break us. Mary is not the super spiritual one over there we try to emulate. No, she stands among us, singing. She sings of our true state, that we might recognise it. Her song calls us to sees things as they really are. We are hungry, of humble state, God is to be feared. But supremely she sings of sweet mercy. Of the sweet mercy that stoops low to lift us. Of the sweet mercy that invites us to His table to fill us. Of the sweet mercy that never fails those who fear Him. Of the sweet mercy that was born among us and died for us.
At the same service the song was sung that I posted around this time last year in my first Magnificat post. It was a joy to serve God's people in this double fashion.
I also think that this sermon show the progress that God is making in granting me a proper understanding of the gospel: just how much it centres on Him and His ways.
The text below is scarcely edited and is clearly a script to be spoken.
Magnificat – Luke 1:46-55
Before we look at these famous words together, I want to read them from the English Standard Version.
And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for He has looked on the humble estate of His servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His Name. And His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever."
On Wednesday, an atheist in my Philosophy of Religion class raised the big question. We're reading Descartes. Descartes describes God as “infinite, eternal, unchangeable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, which created myself and anything else which may exist.” “There may be such a being, but I don't accept Christianity, God being Jesus, born in a manger and dying on a cross. If there is such a being, why would He bother with tiny little insignificant human beings.” I don't suppose Descartes would have made much sense to Mary. But I suspect had she been with us on Wednesday morning, she would have agreed. That student is right. If there is such a being as God, why would He bother with tiny little insignificant human beings? It makes no sense. But she knew something he doesn't. There is such a being as God. And He has bothered. We don't find Mary pondering the implications of her pregnancy for philosophy of religion. She sings. Down in verse 46: My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour. Mary's words are not the result of human reflection on the divine. They are the response of a soul that has met God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And what has she discovered? That God does bother. God bothered with her. She discovered the mercy of God. The word is in verses 50 and 54. I want to consider these famous words under three headings. Mercy is a blessing. Mercy is for the Needy. Mercy implies Sacrifice.
Mercy is a Blessing.
Let's read verses 46 to 49 again. I'll read them out as you have it in the NIV. My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me – Holy is His Name. Why does Mary say we shall call her blessed? Her answer is clear: beginning of verse 49. For the Mighty One has done great things for me. That's her explanation. She is blessed because He has done great things for her. God is the cause of her being blessed. The cause of the cake on the tables over there is someone baking. The cause of Mary's being blessed is God doing great things for her. Why did He do great things for her? She can't answer that. She just blurts out praise, and I think the NIV is great here with the dash – can you see that dash in verse 49? For the Mighty One has done great things for me
Why? I can't think. Oh! Dash. Blurt of praise Holy is His Name. In other words, He's done great things for me because that's the unique, utterly different way of doing things of God. She doesn't get it. It's just His wonderful way of doing things. So what is this great blessing He has poured out on her? What is this great thing He has done. Verse 48, first half. He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. The ESV is better here: He has looked on the humble estate of His servant. If we look at the Old Testament reading, we'll find more of what Mary means. Psalm 113, verses 4 to 9. The Lord is exalted over all the nations, His glory is above the heavens. Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, Who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; He seats them with princes, with the princes of their people. He settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children. Praise the Lord. You can see the parallel to Mary's song. I want to draw particular attention to verses 5 and 6. Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, Who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth? To stoop is to dive down, like an eagle diving from its flight high above the earth down to the rabbit on the field below. To find Mary, God has stooped down – stooped down low. But when God stoops, He stoops in mercy to be with us. Look back to Luke, our reading in chapter 1, verse 48. She declares herself of humble state – she's no one special. Luther translates here in his exposition of the Magnificat er hat die Nichtigkeit seiner Magd angesehen. She's nothing, insignificant. We'll see more of what she means in a moment. But for now, we are to see God stooping down, stooping down low to meet her. And that is exactly what He did when He came among us in the person of Christ. God stooped, stooped down low. Stooped down to an occupied and oft vilified people. Stooped down to a family from the backwater of Nazareth. Stooped down to a human body, to being born a baby. Stooped down to a manger and no proper bed. Mercy is God stooping down, coming down from His heavenly height to be with us. That makes it a blessing. It's not something we earn. The language of God in the height is a powerful metaphor. It shows us just how far away God in His holiness is. How do we get to God? Do we climb up or does He climb down to get us? Is heaven for spiritual climbers, full of good works? The answer lay in Bethlehem's manger. God stooped down to come and get us.So who does He stoop down to?
Mercy is for the Needy.
Let's read verses 50 to 53 again. As I read, spot the pairs of opposites. His mercy extends to those who fear Him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. Did you spot the pairs? These are the people God stoops to: Verse 50: those who fear Him. Verse 52: the humble. Verse 53: the hungry. Others find Him most unwelcoming. Verse 51: those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. Verse 52: rulers. Verse 53: the rich. How shall we understand these contrasts? My first point is very simple: these are statements of how God works. Mary is praising the God whom she has experienced. The words the humble at the end of verse 52 is the same word as she uses of herself in verse 48 when she says the humble state of His servant. Note that humble does not here refer to character. It refers to status. It the opposite of rulers. The rulers are the top of society. The humble here are the insignificant mass of ordinary people. The way God has dealt with her is His normal way of doing things. After all, the words we read in Psalm 113 make a similar point. He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap;He seats them with princes, with the princes of their people. He settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children. What shall we make of this? Is God simply on the side of the poor and underprivileged? Well, the contrasts between the rich and the hungry and between rulers and the humble seem to make that point. But remember the first contrast, between those who fear God and those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. That's not a contrast between the poor and the rich. Throughout Luke's Gospel, we see Mary's point made again and again. It's the peasants, fishermen and farmers of Galilee who follow Jesus, not the priests and princes of Jerusalem. It's the lepers, the blind, the deaf, those with bleeding, those about to bury their dead come to Jesus, not those for whom all is well. It's the tax collectors and prostitutes who follow Jesus, not the Pharisees. Remember the parable of the Pharisees and the tax collector? Who was proud in his inmost thoughts like the Pharisee? God, I thank you that I am not like other men – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get. Who feared God – knew his terrible need before the Holy One – like the tax collector? God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Have mercy on me – stoop down to me. The tax collector in the parable was needy. And mercy is for the needy. Let's consider another contrast: the rich and hungry. Look carefully at what Mary says: both come to God. But they get treated differently. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. Let's go meet them in Luke chapter 21 verses 1 to 4. As He looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “I tell you the truth,” He said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All the others gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” Both the rich and the widow come to God in His temple. But Jesus dismisses the rich and accepts the widow. The rich no doubt thought themselves great benefactors – without them, God would not have such a wonderful and well-maintained temple. But she came, gave all she had – and where would her next meal come from? Only God knows the answer to that question. And she was certain as the coins rang in the treasury that His plan was good. The rich gave to do God a favour. The widow gave confident in God's favour to her. On this evidence, I think we can synthesise what Mary means with her contrasts. Let me illustrate her point this way. Imagine you are stooping down with God as He comes to show mercy. As you look on human society, what do you see? You can't see the faces of the proud, the rulers and the rich: they are looking down on others. If they are looking your way, they seem to expect God to be grateful for their assistance. Those faces are ugly with pride. Other faces are looking up: the hungry and the humble. Remember, the humble here are simply the ordinary, socially insignificant people. Many are looking up at the rich and rulers. They want their riches and their status. Their faces are twisted by jealousy, even hate. But they aren't looking up to God. Yet there are faces looking up to God. They are the hungry and humble who fear God. Their faces are open, pleading, dependent on God. As you descend, it is those faces God heads for. Mercy is for them. Mercy is for the needy.
Mercy implies Sacrifice.
Back in Luke 1, verses 54 and 55. He has helped His servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants for ever even as He said to our fathers. Why does God show mercy? Mary has answered that question. Holy is His Name! That's the startling truth about God. He's so unlike us in our sinfulness. And in His Holiness, He promised Abraham that He would show mercy to him and to his descendants for ever. This holy mercy is not simply bolt from the blue. God doesn't stoop down without telling us. He promises it. That promise, from the High and Holy King to humble, hungry, God-fearing people is His covenant. The King has promised and committed Himself to mercy. That's that. But there's an implication to that. When Habakkuk pleads with God to keep His covenant promises, he prays: In your wrath remember mercy. Here Mary says that He is remembering mercy – verse 54. But that does not mean He's forgotten His wrath. In mercy, God does not forget His wrath. Consider the first time God stooped in mercy. He had just scattered the proud of the Tower of Babel. Then he stooped down to Abraham. He promised Abraham a great land and a great nation of descendants. That mercy began to be shown when Abraham was miraculously given a son. What mercy, to stoop to an ageing nomad and his wife and give them a son. But then what happens? God requires that Isaac be sacrificed. And whenever we hear of sacrifice in the Bible, we are to think of God's anger. God's anger against our sin. That is, our living in His world as if it were ours, as if He wasn't there. Being proud in our inmost thoughts. Being our own rulers. Considering ourselves capable of making ourselves rich. And in all that forgetting the hungry and humble. And supremely not fearing Him, honouring Him as God. God cannot overlook the sin of the family of Abraham. So Isaac the first-born son must die. Abraham takes him up the mountain of Moriah. And we know the story. The ram takes the place of Isaac. In His mercy to Abraham, God does not forget His wrath. But He turns it aside onto the ram. Again, God remembered His covenant and mercy when He saw Israel enslaved in Egypt. But He did not forget His wrath. His anger was again to fall on the first-born son. But not in Israel. Once again, there was one to take the place of the son. This time, a lamb. Again, when God had brought Israel to the bottom of Sinai to make them His covenant people, what happens? He provides a whole system of sacrifice. As long as He shows mercy to Israel, from Exodus to Exile, there is a tabernacle or a temple where sacrifice is offered. Because in His mercy, God does not forget His wrath. Rather, he turns it aside to the sacrifice. So now, as we read of God remembering to be merciful, we ask, where is the sacrifice? Famous words of the Lord Jesus from Luke 22. He's speaking 24 hours before His death, sharing the Passover meal with His closest followers. He takes the cup of wine and says: This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Here is mercy indeed. God stoops, stoops low. And becomes Himself, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the sacrifice. Once again wrath is not forgotten. Once again the first-born, in fact all God's people are free to know God's mercy. At the price of the blood of God the Son. As He poured out His blood on that cross, Jesus bore the wrath of God against our sin. Wrath has not been forgotten. It has turned from us to one who takes our place. There has been a sacrifice. We receive only mercy.
As we close, let's consider where we stand.
What shall we make of Mary's song? She has sung of the mercy of the God who stoops. He stoops low to the hungry, the humble, those who fear God. How can we know this mercy? The wrong answer is this: be a Mary. Or be humble. Or be hungry. Or fear God. This song is not about what we do or are. It is about who God is and what He has done. Mary is not a role model here to strive to emulate. Mary is not a role model –she is a realist. We are not to look up to her, put her on a pedestal. Rather, we are to realise she stands right here with us. Because before this Holy and Merciful God, we don't need to become hungry, or become humble. We are of humble state – nothing, insignificant, even sinful. We have no status or anything before God. We are hungry – hungry for mercy, hungry for Him to stoop to us – whether we realise it or not. That's why Jesus put a table in our churches. Whenever we gather around it He testifies to our hunger and His ability to fill us with good things. And we fear God. Oh, we may suppress that truth. But we are all totally dependent on Him every second. His word decides our fate every moment of our lives. One glimpse of His majesty would break us. Mary is not the super spiritual one over there we try to emulate. No, she stands among us, singing. She sings of our true state, that we might recognise it. Her song calls us to sees things as they really are. We are hungry, of humble state, God is to be feared. But supremely she sings of sweet mercy. Of the sweet mercy that stoops low to lift us. Of the sweet mercy that invites us to His table to fill us. Of the sweet mercy that never fails those who fear Him. Of the sweet mercy that was born among us and died for us.
Saturday, 13 December 2008
"What's hell like and who's going there?"
A question posed to the Archbishop of Canterbury at a pub in Cardiff - see more here. His answer: "Hell is being by yourself for ever. Who's going there? God knows."
Well, if Psalm 88 portrays a vision of hell - which is my view of the text, then verse 8 tells us that the ABC is spot on. This is a good news story about our Archbishop.
Only God knows who's going there? Yes, again, that's true. But His knowledge takes nothing away from our responsibility. The entire point of this season is that God took to Himself in the person of the Second of the Trinity a body, a body He sacrificed on the Cross, that He might say to all who by their rebellion against His rule march steadily toward hell:
"Over My Son's dead body."
Well, if Psalm 88 portrays a vision of hell - which is my view of the text, then verse 8 tells us that the ABC is spot on. This is a good news story about our Archbishop.
Only God knows who's going there? Yes, again, that's true. But His knowledge takes nothing away from our responsibility. The entire point of this season is that God took to Himself in the person of the Second of the Trinity a body, a body He sacrificed on the Cross, that He might say to all who by their rebellion against His rule march steadily toward hell:
"Over My Son's dead body."
Saturday, 22 November 2008
A British Obama?
I'm not thinking about the question posed in the media, concerning whether we'll see in Britain or any European country a black leader soon (note - the German Greens have elected a man of Turkish origin to their dual leadership - but that's the nearest we have right now).
It's the hype thing. Could a political leader ever be so hyped, ever have so much hope associated with him, ever be such a rhetorical star turn in Europe?
Well, yes.
He was elected in 1997 in Britain.
Look where that got us.
It's the hype thing. Could a political leader ever be so hyped, ever have so much hope associated with him, ever be such a rhetorical star turn in Europe?
Well, yes.
He was elected in 1997 in Britain.
Look where that got us.
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
What is the BBC playing at (2)?
When the BBC does stuff like the Brand-Ross prank call, you know that rock bottom has been hit.
What was most interesting in the coverage I've seen is that although there have been thus far 10 000 complaints, the younger generation phoning in to Radio 1 seem generally supportive.
The answer as to what is going on is all too simple. Brand and Ross know exactly to whom they are appealing: the generation that happy-slaps. For that is exactly what it was: it was public, on air happy-slapping. They are appealing to the generation that thinks nothing of dropping litter and beating up policemen who ask for it to be picked up: for Brand's defending himself by saying it was funny indicates that he clearly thinks he did nothing wrong, and it's the rest of us who are being pompous by standing by common standards of decency.
Common standards of decency brings us ultimately to the point: common standards of decency flow ultimately from shared convictions concerning right and wrong. And whether it's Roger Bolton (see previous post) or Brand and Ross, common standards of decency and their religious underpinning are what is under attack.
If either Mr Brand or Mr Ross finds themselves on the receiving end of youth violence, we must all feel sorry for them. Because as decent people, we are on the side of the victim. They however must not push for prosecutions. They must laugh it off, extend a hand to their tormentors and say, "funny one, guys."
What was most interesting in the coverage I've seen is that although there have been thus far 10 000 complaints, the younger generation phoning in to Radio 1 seem generally supportive.
The answer as to what is going on is all too simple. Brand and Ross know exactly to whom they are appealing: the generation that happy-slaps. For that is exactly what it was: it was public, on air happy-slapping. They are appealing to the generation that thinks nothing of dropping litter and beating up policemen who ask for it to be picked up: for Brand's defending himself by saying it was funny indicates that he clearly thinks he did nothing wrong, and it's the rest of us who are being pompous by standing by common standards of decency.
Common standards of decency brings us ultimately to the point: common standards of decency flow ultimately from shared convictions concerning right and wrong. And whether it's Roger Bolton (see previous post) or Brand and Ross, common standards of decency and their religious underpinning are what is under attack.
If either Mr Brand or Mr Ross finds themselves on the receiving end of youth violence, we must all feel sorry for them. Because as decent people, we are on the side of the victim. They however must not push for prosecutions. They must laugh it off, extend a hand to their tormentors and say, "funny one, guys."
What is the BBC playing at (1)?
Roger Bolton's piece on the BBC News website, no doubt linked to the radio show he presented, is a classic example of low-grade journalism and bias dressed up as research. It is excellent that the Codex Sinaiticus is being digitised and put online: the Christian Church has always been scholarly and willing to learn at its best, and it is to be welcomed.
The problems start here:
"For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible."
No there won't. Or at least, there are no new questions, as Codex Sinaiticus brought to the attention of the academic community in 1844 by Count Tischendorf, a Leipzig-based adventurer-scholar (let's not think Indiana Jones, though). A basic summary of what you need to know can be found at the website of the digitisation project here, including the unusual story of how he got it out of the monastery at Sinai, more details of which can be found in a fairly good article on Wikipedia, from what I can judge.
The simple fact is, Mr Bolton, that the scholarly community simply won't make the fuss you did. Because to us, Codex Sinaiticus is nothing new. I have a critical edition of the NT (GNT 4th ed., the type face of which I prefer over Nestle-Aland 27), and am perfectly aware of transmission issues and the differences between the texts. Whereby your thousands needs to be relativised by pointing out that the overwhelming majority are easily recognised copying errors, some of which have been corrected even in the manuscripts themselves (see intro to N-A 27 or GNT 4th ed.)
So why write the article? Very simple, I'm afraid. Bias, and a willingness to distort and misrepresent the state of research for the sake of bias. It's a classic case of a media cheap-shot at religious believers, intellectually on a par with what Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross did to Andrew Sachs (see next post).
The problems start here:
"For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible."
No there won't. Or at least, there are no new questions, as Codex Sinaiticus brought to the attention of the academic community in 1844 by Count Tischendorf, a Leipzig-based adventurer-scholar (let's not think Indiana Jones, though). A basic summary of what you need to know can be found at the website of the digitisation project here, including the unusual story of how he got it out of the monastery at Sinai, more details of which can be found in a fairly good article on Wikipedia, from what I can judge.
The simple fact is, Mr Bolton, that the scholarly community simply won't make the fuss you did. Because to us, Codex Sinaiticus is nothing new. I have a critical edition of the NT (GNT 4th ed., the type face of which I prefer over Nestle-Aland 27), and am perfectly aware of transmission issues and the differences between the texts. Whereby your thousands needs to be relativised by pointing out that the overwhelming majority are easily recognised copying errors, some of which have been corrected even in the manuscripts themselves (see intro to N-A 27 or GNT 4th ed.)
So why write the article? Very simple, I'm afraid. Bias, and a willingness to distort and misrepresent the state of research for the sake of bias. It's a classic case of a media cheap-shot at religious believers, intellectually on a par with what Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross did to Andrew Sachs (see next post).
Saturday, 27 September 2008
Our Two Intercessors
Continuing reflection on Romans 8 and particularly the intercession of the Spirit.
Romans 8 is a passage about eschatological tension, and our groaning flows out of looking forward to the glorious hope of the revelation of the sons of God.
The groans of the Spirit are an acceptable prayer to the Father, because they express our eschatological yearning, for Christ to return, for our adoption, for our freedom and for our redeemed bodies. It is a forward looking prayer, concerning ultimately the work of the Spirit Himself, namely our uniting to Christ, our sanctification and the renewal of all things. It is a prayer from earth, because the Spirit is with and in us.
Contrast that with the heavenly intercession of Christ: not on earth, but before heaven's throne. Although I can't find where John Owen gets it from, he argues that it is also unspeaking, the showing of His Calvary wounds; that would be an interesting half-similarity, half-difference to the Spirit's groans. Christ's intercession is also not forward, but backward-looking, looking back to Calvary, to redemption not future but past and complete. And like the Spirit's intercession concerned the Spirit's work, so Christ's intercession concerns His own work.
In this intercession we see therefore the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each in their common cause and in their genuine trialogue concerned for their own ministry to bring glory to the unity. And we see how dependent we are on a sovereign Trinity to save us: for without Christ's intercession, why should we benefit from His Cross, and given that we don't know how to pray in line with God's will (Romans 8:26), without the Spirit's intercession, how would we make any progress in the Christian life?
Praise God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, our saving Trinity, for their pursuit of their own glory in the demonstration of their saving grace and power!
Romans 8 is a passage about eschatological tension, and our groaning flows out of looking forward to the glorious hope of the revelation of the sons of God.
The groans of the Spirit are an acceptable prayer to the Father, because they express our eschatological yearning, for Christ to return, for our adoption, for our freedom and for our redeemed bodies. It is a forward looking prayer, concerning ultimately the work of the Spirit Himself, namely our uniting to Christ, our sanctification and the renewal of all things. It is a prayer from earth, because the Spirit is with and in us.
Contrast that with the heavenly intercession of Christ: not on earth, but before heaven's throne. Although I can't find where John Owen gets it from, he argues that it is also unspeaking, the showing of His Calvary wounds; that would be an interesting half-similarity, half-difference to the Spirit's groans. Christ's intercession is also not forward, but backward-looking, looking back to Calvary, to redemption not future but past and complete. And like the Spirit's intercession concerned the Spirit's work, so Christ's intercession concerns His own work.
In this intercession we see therefore the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each in their common cause and in their genuine trialogue concerned for their own ministry to bring glory to the unity. And we see how dependent we are on a sovereign Trinity to save us: for without Christ's intercession, why should we benefit from His Cross, and given that we don't know how to pray in line with God's will (Romans 8:26), without the Spirit's intercession, how would we make any progress in the Christian life?
Praise God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, our saving Trinity, for their pursuit of their own glory in the demonstration of their saving grace and power!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)