Passover and the "New Covenant in My Blood"

I was thinking again recently about Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper (read about it in Mark 14:22-25, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-26). What did he mean when he said "the new covenant in my blood" in the midst of him celebrating the Passover with his disciples? It seems to me that the Passover for the Jew is the remembrance of them becoming the people of God. It is the symbol of the exodus, and the preparation for Sinai. Even though the promise was to Abraham, it is the Passover the brings it to fruition. The Passover remembers how they were rescued out of slavery in Egypt, through the death of a firstborn lamb in the place of their firstborn sons, to be constituted the official new people of God in the covenant at Sinai. It seems that Jesus is saying that he is the reality of what the Passover pointed to. He is the lamb that was slain to rescue us from slavery to sin and the devil. And through his shed blood and death, we become the new people of God, united in the one body of Christ, after having been redeemed from the death that awaited us. In Christ we have become the new people of God, indeed the new humanity, united in him. It is the new covenant just as the Passover remembered what was then the new covenant as Abraham's physical descendants became the people of God. For some we can get caught up in the legalities of what it means to change from "old covenant" to "new covenant". But perhaps this misses the bigger picture emphasis of being one new people of God in Christ, through his blood shed for us (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17, Eph. 2:11-16). The challenge is how to live out that new unity as a true expression of new covenant life...

Iain Murray on what Presbyterians can learn from John Wesley

A while ago I read some of Iain Murray's book called Old Evangelicalism - Old Truths for a New Awakening. Below are some excerpts I found challenging, particularly in regard to having a too convenient view of ministry...

"The system Wesley inaugurated, instead of reviving debate on whether churches should be Episcopal, Independent, Presbyterian or whatever, aimed first at spreading the gospel by every available means. And the Methodist structure was flexible enough to operate effectively across the world - whether in England, or among the black slaves of the American South, or in Fiji, Tonga and other islands of the Pacific. What is beyond dispute is that in gospel effectiveness Wesleyan Methodism often outstripped other bodies; it reached slaves, soldiers, convicts and cannibals; it gave birth to vibrant churches which multiplied themselves as missionary agencies. This should at least make us cautious about dismissing the structure in terms of mere expediency... I am not about to suggest that we should all exchange our church structure for the one-time Methodist pattern. But I think Wesley prompts us to re-examine the relationship between zeal for the salvation of souls and church practices and procedures. We are prone to think that variations and changes in church order means laxity, but could it be that we need to re-examine what is most suited for the advance of the gospel in our generation? Is it not possible we could be in danger of allowing theory to prevent the introduction of changes that could be of blessing to people who are presently lost and far from God?" [pages 148-149]

"Wesley was accused of lowering the position of the minister. It is true that men were sometimes admitted as Assistants and itinerants who were unworthy, but taking the early Methodist history as a whole, failures were not the norm. The men who constituted the norm were often men of a standard which puts us to shame. The life of the itinerant preacher was a far harder one than the life of a man settled quietly to minister just to the needs of a local congregation. The itinerant had to find a pulpit wherever he could, whatever the weather, whatever the hostility. He was far more on horseback than ever he was at a fireside. Self-denial and sacrifice were a regular part of his existence, and, being married, he could not continue unless he had a wife of equal spiritual determination. We might think that they sometimes carried self-discipline too far, but there is no denying that they came closer than most to Paul's description of the gospel ministry in 2 Corinthians 6:4-9: 'In all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distress, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in distresses ... By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying and behold we live.'" [pages 149-150]

John Calvin on the primacy of Christ's work vs our faith regarding our salvation and justification

I like these words of Calvin, which highlight the primacy of what God has done in Christ, rather than our faith, as the ground of our justification:

We see that the first place is assigned to the love of God as the chief cause or origin, and that faith in Christ follows as the second and more proximate cause. Should any one object that Christ is only the formal cause [Note: The French adds, “C’est a dire, qui n’emporte en soy vrai effect;”—that is to say, which in itself produces no true effect], he lessens his energy more than the words justify. For if we obtain justification by a faith which leans on him, the groundwork of our salvation must be sought in him. This is clearly proved by several passages: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” (1 John 4:10). These words clearly demonstrate that God, in order to remove any obstacle to his love towards us, appointed the method of reconciliation in Christ. There is great force in this word “propitiation”; for in a manner which cannot be expressed, God, at the very time when he loved us, was hostile to us until reconciled in Christ. To this effect are all the following passages: “He is the propitiation for our sins;” “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;” “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;” “He has made us accepted in the Beloved,” “That he might reconcile both into one body by the cross.” The nature of this mystery is to be learned from the first chapter to the Ephesians, where Paul, teaching that we were chosen in Christ, at the same time adds, that we obtained grace in him. How did God begin to embrace with his favour those whom he had loved before the foundation of the world, unless in displaying his love when he was reconciled by the blood of Christ? As God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:21). He intimates, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and by sin estranged from him. This distinction is also noted whenever the grace of Christ is connected with the love of God (2 Cor. 13:13); whence it follows, that he bestows upon us of his own which he acquired by purchase. For otherwise there would be no ground for the praise ascribed to him by the Father, that grace is his, and proceeds from him. (Institutes, 2.17.2)

Circumcision and Keeping the Law

I've been working through 1 Corinthians in four different settings this year, and here is another comment related to chapter 7, having looked at it again recently. But this post is about 7:19. I think the verse has significant relevance to distinguishing between ceremonial and other aspects of the "Law" (e.g. threefold or tripartite division of the Law), and reminds me of of Romans 2:26-27. Here are the two references in full:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19; NKJV)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (Romans 2:26-27; NKJV)

What is significant is that Paul distinguishes between being circumcised and keeping the commandments of God, or fulfilling the requirements of the law. Someone can be said to keep God's commandments and law, without having to be circumcised. Yet, in other places, such as Galatians 5:3, circumcision seems to be identified as a part of the law. Hence Paul can sometimes speak of "the law", not including particularly Jewish markers like circumcision. Sounds a bit like distinguishing between "ceremonial" and "moral" aspects, doesn't it? There are those those who don't like dividing up or distinguishing between different aspects of the law, treating it as all or nothing, saying that is more "Biblical". But in doing so they are not actually being true to Paul's own non-simplistic references to the law (Torah)...

Eternal Life and the Age to Come?

As I have reflected over the phrase translated as "eternal life" (ZWH AIWNIOS), I am strongly inclined to agree with the note N. T. Wright makes in The Climax of the Covenant, p39n77, "I regard ZWH AIWNIOS as denoting not just indefinite continuing existence after death but the now-inaugurated 'age to come' of Jewish eschatalogical expectation"

Similarly, Don Carson notes in his commentary, The Gospel According to John, regarding the phrase in John 3:15, pp202f, "Properly it means 'life of the age (aion) to come' and therefore resurrection life. But in John's Gospel that life may in some measure be experienced before the end, just as in the Synoptics the kingdom dawns before the end. Moreover, those who have read the Prologue will recall that life resides in the Word: 'in him was life' (1:4). The eternal life begun by the new birth is nothing less than the eternal life of the eternal Word."

My Take on 1 Cor 7:14

For various reasons I have been looking again at 1 Corinthians 7, and thought I would post something here regarding my take on 7:14. So here is a rehash of something I wrote in 2004 for another forum...

I think an understanding of this verse should (at least) address the following issues:

[A] 7:14 begins with GAR ('for'), and so there is a connection with the preceding. How is that the issue of 'holiness'

[B] What relationship (if any) does Paul's use of 'holy'/'sanctified' and 'unclean' have to do with the similar language used in 6:9-20 (also with context of sexual union)?

[C] What is the relationship between the second part of 7:14 ('otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy') and the first (that the unbelieving spouse has been sanctified in the believing spouse)?

[D] The unbelieving spouse is said to be 'sanctified' and the child is 'holy'. Does Paul then mean the same thing concerning both spouse and child, or not?

Regarding [A], 7:14 is an argument or explanation as to why the believer should not initiate divorce against the unbelieving spouse. Some might understand it as saying in effect, "stay married because that will create a better opportunity for the spouse to know the gospel". While that makes sense as a reason against divorce, to use the term 'sanctified' seems an unusually round-a-bout way of saying it. Is there any precedent elsewhere of using 'sanctified' in that sense? Perhaps there is, the Bible is a big book :-)

In my estimation, I think the answer to [A] may have to do with [B]. Perhaps we should try to answer the question, 'Why would they want to leave the unbelieving husband?' Perhaps it could merely be that they don't particularly like the spouse, and just want to get out. If that were the case, perhaps the suggestion about evangelistic opportunity would be an appropriate answer (sacrifice for the sake of the gospel, etc). However, I think that the reason for wanting a divorce may have more to do with incorrect doctrinal understanding than mere convenience. Given the issues they had with proper sexual relations (e.g. aspects of 1 Cor 5-7) and also about right relationships with unbelievers (cf. also 2 Cor 6-7), I suspect that for some reason or other, the Corinthians might have thought it unholy, perhaps contaminating, to be in close and sexual relations with an unbelieving spouse (cf. some Jewish views of contact with Gentiles). Certainly after Paul's words in 1 Cor 6:9-20, a Christian married to a non-Christian might wonder if it would be a defiling of the temple of the Holy Spirit etc when they enter into sexual union with the unbelieving spouse. If the issue is something along those lines, it makes for a reasonable answer to say that actually the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer, rather than the believer being contaminated by the spouse. Of course the question then is, what exactly does it mean that the unbeliever is sanctified? Perhaps it merely has something to do with the Lord somehow through the covenant of marriage, sufficiently 'cleansing' the spouse, such that entering into such intimate sexual union does not somehow defile the Christian (cf. the opposite in 1 Cor 6:15-20; or Matt 23:17,19 how the holy sanctifies that which it comes into contact with, or 1 Tim 4:5 how food is sanctified before entering our bodies). Maybe this sounds too airy-fairy, or maybe we are just too modernistic :-)

So onto [C], why does Paul even mention the children? If Paul just means that the children also should be in close contact with the gospel, again, the terms 'unclean' and 'holy' seem a very strange way to state it. Also, what does that have to do with divorce? The children may well have stayed with the believing parent. Instead, I think the way it reads 'otherwise...' (the whole construction in Greek is "EPEI ARA... NUN DE..") means that if the unbelieving spouse was not sanctified, then the children would be unclean. Notice also how it reads 'but now they are holy'. The emphasis seems to be that the children are indisputably holy. Paul is saying 'If what you Corinthians thought was true, then actually your children are unclean, but we all know that really they are holy, therefore your thinking is wrong'. It seems that Paul mentions the holiness of the children to bolster his argument for not initiating divorce. He says they should not initiate divorce, because the unbelieving spouse is actually sanctified afterall. How do we know the spouse is sanctified? Well, obviously it must be the case, because it is clear that the child is holy. I think that is called a posteriori argumentation. Why is it so? I expect the reasoning is that if the spouse was so defiling as to defile the believer, then one would also expect the fruit of such a union to be defiled. On the contrary, the children are holy, therefore the unbelieving spouse must not be so defiling as they had supposed.

Well, what about [D]? I don't think they necessarily have to mean the same thing. The verb used with regard to the unbelieving spouse is hAGIAZW, the adjective describing the child is hAGIOS. Obviously the two words are closely related, and I suppose that generally speaking it is true that the act of hAGIAZW-ing something will make it hAGIOS. Yet I am sure Paul could have used the verb for both child and spouse, or the adjective for both. But he didn't. Perhaps there is some significance in his choice to make a distinction. To put it crudely, I suspect that really it is the child that is holy (hAGIOS), and the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (hAGIAZW) 'enough', to ensure that neither the believer nor the child should become unholy. Perhaps there is the sense that Paul is comfortable to label children as 'holy', as included by God in God's covenant people, whereas he would be hesitant to call an adult unbeliever 'holy'. Yet he is comfortable to use the perfect verb form in that the unbelieving spouse is sufficiently consecrated or cleansed (hAGIAZW-ed) to bring them to a state such that they should not defile the believer or children, yet not enough to label them as 'holy' (hAGIOS). (Perhaps an analogy might be seen in with the verb AGAPAW 'to love' and the adjective AGAPHTOS 'beloved'. There are those that might loved, which we might be hesistant to call 'beloved'.)

In summary then, I think the sense is this:

"You think you must separate from your unbelieving spouse, because you are holy and they are not. Maybe you even think they will contaminate you. In fact, this is not the case. For your spouse has actually been sanctified in/by you. How do I know that? It must be the case. If they were not, your children would be unclean. But it is evident that your children are holy. (So we know that your spouse must not be as corruptingly unholy as you had supposed.)"

Or in other words, "we know your children are holy, therefore your spouse must be sanctified to some extent, otherwise they would be unclean. Therefore the unbelieving state of your spouse is not so bad as you cannot be in union with him."

So, perhaps that is a possible way to understand 1 Cor 7:14 (which naturally supports paedo-baptism, that being my position!).

The Spirit in the OT vs NT

What is the significance of the coming of the Holy Spirit in the NT, and how does it differ from the way God worked in the OT? One thing I find helpful in thinking about this question is to distinguish between the corporate body and the individual. In the NC the Spirit is given corporately, so that every member has the Spirit (cf Acts 2:17-18, Heb 8:10-11), and as a body they have the Spirit. In the OT, only some individuals had the Spirit, but as a whole, Israel was bereft of the Spirit and unfaithful, generally they were unregenerate (cf Deut 5:29, Deut 31:27-29). The promise and hope of the NC is for a people who were no longer stiff-necked, and who had circumcised hearts (cf Deut 30:6). This awaited the giving of the Spirit (cf Ezekiel 36:24-27; also note Luke 11:13 and Luke's general perspective on the coming of the Spirit and how that coming is linked to the solution to Israel's problem of deep-seated wickedness and unfaithfulness).

Of course, this doesn't mean that every individual in the "visible church" has the indwelling of the Spirit. I think that has to do with "inaugurated eschatology", in that the Spirit has indeed come upon God's people, but perfection still awaits the consummation...

John Owen and Future Justification?

I was reading some John Owen and came across this intriguing reference to future justification, where he seems to distinguish between present and future justification. Given some of the current controversies about future justification, it caught my eye. The context is Owen interacting with Baxter concerning the intention of Christ's death. Owen is arguing that one should distinguish between the right of justification purchased by Christ's death, though justification is not possessed except by faith. Baxter apparently wants to say that the right to justification and its possession are one and the same thing. In the midst of this argumentation Owen seems to bring up the idea of future justification by way of analogy, to bolster his point in distinguishing between right and possession. Here is the quote:

If he shall say, that a right to a future justification at the day of judgment is the same with the possession of present actual justification, it is neither true nor any thing to the business in hand. [from Of the Death of Christ in Works, Vol. 10, p.476]

Jesus vs Apostles on the Future

One helpful illustration in trying to understand OT prophecy is the idea of two mountains, one behind the other. When pointed to these mountains, and standing in front of the first mountain, the second is completely concealed, not clear to us. But when we come to the peak of the first, we realise there is another mountain before us, which was previously hidden from view behind the first. Sometimes a prophecy may have an immediate or superficial fulfillment (the first mountain), but at the same time it may point to a further or ultimate fulfillment in the times of Jesus' first or second coming (the second mountain). Because of this kind of 'layered' or 'multiple' fulfillments, it can be difficult to properly appreciate OT prophecy and its relation to the NT. I think the same can be said of some of Jesus' prophetic teaching. In many ways, Jesus speaks like an OT prophet, to the Jews, before his death and resurrection, and before the real beginning of the apostolic church. Hence there may be a difficulty with understanding his teaching, if we try to distinguish whether he is speaking of his death and resurrection or his return at the end, all of which were still future at the time of his teaching. In this sense he taught like an OT prophet looking towards future events (not that it may not have been clear in his own mind, but that such clarity may not have been so intelligible to his listeners). On the other hand, the apostles taught in between Jesus' first and second comings. They clearly looked back to his death and resurrection, and forward to his return, and so it is not surpising that these can more easily be distinguished in their teaching. The lived and taught as ones between two great mountains, the two comings of Jesus, a vantage point with a clearer perspective on the complete landscape. Perhaps this helps us to understand why sometimes it is less clear whether Jesus is talking about his first or second coming, but the apostles speak more clearly about the return of Christ. For Jesus, as with the OT prophets, he could speak of the two events as one, while the apostles of course distinguished them.