John Owen on the Lord's Supper (Philippians 3:10)

For some brief tastes of John Owen (1616-1683), his discourses are great, short and also solid and thoughtful. I just read one of his discourses relating to the Lord's Supper, based on Philippians 3:10, particularly about us being conformed to Christ's death. Below are some excerpts...

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death."

The cause of the death of Christ was sin... He died for sin; he died for our sin; our iniquities were upon him, and were the cause of all the punishment that befell him...

Our hope and faith is, in and through him, that we shall never die for sin. No mortal man can be made like unto Christ in suffering for sin... our conformity unto the death of Christ with respect unto sin lies in this, — that as he died for sin, so we should die unto sin, — that that sin which he died for should die in us... Here is our conformity to Christ, as he suffered in the flesh, — that we should no longer live to our lusts, nor unto the will of man, but unto the will of God. And, brethren, let me tell you, he who approacheth unto this remembrance of the death of Christ, that hath not laboured, that doth not labour, for conformity to his death in the universal mortification of all sin, runs a hazard to his soul, and puts an affront upon Jesus Christ. O let none of us come in a way of thankfulness to remember the death of Jesus Christ, and bring along with us the murderer whereby he was slain! To harbour with us, and bring along with us to the death of Christ, unmortified lusts and corruptions, such as we do not continually and sincerely endeavour to kill and mortify, is to come and upbraid Christ with his murderer, instead of obtaining any spiritual advantage.

There is no such sermon to teach, mortification of sin, as the commemoration of the death of Christ. It is the greatest outward instruction unto this duty that God hath left unto his church; and, I am persuaded, which he doth most bless to them who are sincere. Do we see Christ evidently crucified before our eyes, his body broken, his blood shed for sin? and is it not of powerful instruction to us to go on to mortify sin? He that hath not learned this, never learned any thing aright from this ordinance, nor did he ever receive any benefit from it...

And I would beg of you all, brethren, that not one of us would pass through or go over this ordinance, this representation of the death of Christ, without a fresh obligation to God to abide more constant and vigorous in the mortification of sin: we all need it.

And lastly; a spiritually beholding of Christ by faith is the means to change us into the image and likeness of Christ. Beholding the death of Christ by faith, as represented to us in this ordinance, is the means to change us into his image and likeness, and make us conformable unto his death, in the death of sin in us.

[Source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/discourses.i.xvii.html]

John Owen on Christ as our Heavenly High Priest

Often as Evangelical Protestants we can struggle in understanding the significance of Christ's resurrection, and more so in his ongoing incarnate life in heaven, at the right hand of God. The atoning death is highly meaningful to us, but Jesus' resurrection and ongoing life can seem merely icing on the cake or some such. The letter to the Hebrews spends significant time dwelling on Christ's ongoing work as our High Priest in heaven. Here are some excerpts from John Owen touching on this matter, taken from Volume 5 of the Goold edition of his commentary on Hebrews...

(p520f) “The perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ, as unchangeably exercised in his own person, is a principal part of the glory of that office. His discharge of this office for the church in his own person, throughout all generations, is the glory of it. 1. Hereon depends the church’s preservation and stability. There is neither a ceasing nor any the least intermission of that care and providence, of that interposition with God on its behalf, which are required thereunto. Our high priest is continually ready to appear and put in for us on all occasions. And his abiding for ever manifests the continuance of the same care and love for us that he ever had. The same love wherewith, as our high priest, he laid down his life for us, doth still continue in him. And every one may with the same confidence go unto him with all their concerns, as poor, diseased, and distempered persons went unto him when he was upon earth ; when he never showed greater displeasure than unto those who forbade any to come unto him, whatever their pretences were. 2. Hereon depend the union and communion of the church with itself in all successive generations. For whereas he is their head and high priest, in whom they all centre as unto their union and communion, and hath all their graces and duties in his hand, to present them unto God, they have a relation unto each other, and a concernment in one another. We that are alive in this generation have communion with all those that died in the faith before us ; as shall be declared, if God will, on chap. xii. 22-24. And they were concerned in us, as we are also in the generations that are to come. For all the prayers of the church from first to last are lodged in the hand of the same high priest, who abides for ever; and he returns the prayers of one generation unto another. We enjoy the fruits of the prayers, obedience, and blood of those that went before us; and if we are faithful in our generation, serving the will of God, those shall enjoy the fruits of ours who shall come after us. Our joint interest in this our abiding priest gives a line of communication unto all believers, in all generations. And, 3. The consolation of the church also depends hereon. Do we meet with troubles, trials, difficulties, temptations, and distresses ? hath not the church done so in former ages ? What do we think of those days wherein prisons, tortures, swords, and flames, were the portion of the church all the world over? But did any of them miscarry ? was any one true believer lost for ever ? and did not the whole church prove victorious in the end? Did not Satan rage and the world gnash their teeth to see themselves conquered and their power broken, by the faith, patience, and suffering, of them whom they hated and despised ? And was it by their own wisdom and courage that they were so preserved ? did they overcome merely by their own blood? or were they delivered by their own power? No;  but all their preservation and success, their deliverance and eternal salvation, depended merely on the care and power of their merciful high priest. It was through his blood, “ the blood of the Lamb,” or the efficacy of his sacrifice, that they “overcame” their adversaries, Rev. xii. 11. By the same blood were “their robes washed, and made white,” chap. vii. 14. From thence had they their righteousness in all their sufferings. And by him had the church its triumphant issue out of all its trials. Now, is he not the same that he ever was, vested with the same office? and hath he not the same qualifications of love, compassion, care, and power, for the discharge of it, as he always had? Whence, then, can any just cause of despondence in any trials or temptations arise? We have the same high priest to take care of us, to assist and help us, as they had, who were all of them finally victorious. 4. This gives perpetual efficacy unto his sacrifice, etc.”

(p528f) “1. He is able to save also EIS TO PANTELES. The word may have a double sense ; for it may respect the perfection of the work or its duration… Take the word in the first sense, and the meaning is, that he will not effect or work out this or that part of our salvation, do one thing or another that belongs unto it, and leave what remains unto ourselves or others ; but “ he is our Rock, and his work is perfect.” Whatever belongs unto our entire, complete salvation, he is able to effect it. The general notion of the most that are called Christians lies directly against this truth. In the latter sense two things may be intended : (1.) That after an entrance is made into this work, and men begin to be made partakers of deliverance thereby, there may great oppositions be made against it, in temptations, trials, sins, and death, before it be brought unto perfection ; but our Lord Christ, as our faithful high priest, fainteth not in his work, but is able to carry us through all these difficulties, and will do so, until it be finished for ever in heaven. (2.) That this salvation is durable, perpetual, eternal, Isa. xlv. 17. “Salvare in seternum;” to procure “salutem seternam.” But “ favores sunt ampliandi,” and there is nothing hinders but that we may take the words in such a comprehensive sense as to include the meaning of both these interpretations. He is able to save completely as to all parts, fully as to all causes, and for ever in duration.”

(p529) “Whatever hinderances and difficulties lie in the way of the salvation of believers, whatever oppositions do rise against it, the Lord Christ is able, by virtue of his sacerdotal office, and in the exercise of it, to carry the work through them all unto eternal perfection.”

(p531) “The salvation of all sincere gospel worshippers is secured by the actings of the Lord Christ in the discharge of his priestly office.”

(p535f) “But herein lieth the life of the church's consolation, that he continues to live a mediatory life in heaven for us also. It is not, I fear, so considered nor so improved as it ought to be. That Christ died for us, all who own the gospel profess in words; though some so explain their faith, or rather their infidelity, as to deny its proper use, and to evacuate its proper. ends. That so he lived for us here in this world, as that his life was some way or other unto our advantage, at least thus far, that he could not have died if he had not lived before, all men will grant, even those by whom the principal end of this life, namely, to fulfil the law for us, is peremptorily denied; but that Christ now lives a life of glory in heaven, that most men think is for himself alone. But the text speaks to the contrary: “He liveth for ever to make intercession for us.” Neither is this the only end of his present mediatory life in heaven, though this only be here expressed. Should I undertake to show the ends of the present mediatory life of Christ for the church, it would be too great and long a decursion from the text. However, the whole of the work of this life of his may be reduced into these three heads : 1. His immediate actings towards the church itself, which respects his prophetical office. 2. His actings for the church in the world, by virtue and power of his kingly office. 3. His actings with God the Father in their behalf, in the discharge of his sacerdotal office.”

(p538f) “The actual intercession of Christ in heaven, as the second act of his sacerdotal office, is a fundamental article of our faith, and a principal foundation of the church s consolation. So is it asserted to be, 1 John ii. 1, 2. And it is expressed by our apostle as that whereby the death of Christ is made effectual unto us, Rom. viii.34; for it compriseth the whole care and all the actings of Christ, as our high priest, with God in the behalf of the church. This, therefore, is the immediate spring of all gracious communications unto us. For hereby doth he act his own care, love, and compassion; and from thence do we receive all mercy, all supplies of grace and consolation needful unto our duties, temptations, and trials. Hereon depends all our encouragement to make our application unto God, to come with boldness of faith unto the throne of grace, Heb. iv. 15, 16, x. 21, 22. Wherefore, whatever apprehensions we may attain of the manner of it, the thing itself is the centre of our faith, hope, and consolation.”

(p541) “The safest conception and apprehension that we can have of the intercession of Christ, as to the manner of it, is his continual appearance for us in the presence of God, by virtue of his office as the “high priest over the house of God,” representing the efficacy of his oblation, accompanied with tender care, love, and desires for the welfare, supply, deliverance, and salvation of the church. Three things, therefore, concur hereunto : [1.] The presentation of his person before the throne of God on our behalf, Heb. ix. 24. This renders it sacerdotal. His appearance in person for us is required thereunto. [2.] The representation of his death, oblation, and sacrifice for us; which gives power, life, and efficacy unto his intercession. Thence he appears “ in the midst of the throne as a Lamb that had been slain,” Rev. v. 6. Both these are required to make his intercession sacerdotal. But, [3.] Both these do not render it prayer or intercession; for intercession is prayer, 1 Tim. ii. 1, Rom. viii. 26. Wherefore there is in it, moreover, a putting up, a requesting, and offering unto God, of his desires and will for the church, attended with care, love, and compassion, Zech. i. 12.”

(p542f) “So great and glorious is the work of saving believers unto the utmost, that it is necessary that the Lord Christ should lead a mediatory life in heaven, for the perfecting and accomplishment of it : “He liveth for ever to make intercession for us.” It is generally acknowledged that sinners could not be saved without the death of Christ ; but that believers could not be saved without the life of Christ following it, is not so much considered. See Rom. v. 10, viii. 34, 35, etc. It is, it may be, thought by some, that when he had declared the name of God, and revealed the whole counsel of his will ; when he had given us the great example of love and holiness in his life ; when he had fulfilled all righteousness, redeemed us by his blood, and made atonement for our sins by the oblation of himself; confirming his truth and acceptation with God in all these things by his resurrection from the dead, wherein he was “ declared to be the Son of God with power;” that he might have now left us to deal for ourselves, and to build our eternal safety on the foundation that he had laid. But, alas! when all this was done, if he had only ascended into his own glory, to enjoy his majesty, honour, and dominion, without continuing his life and office in our behalf, we had been left poor and helpless; so that both we and all our right unto a heavenly inheritance should have been made a prey unto every subtle and powerful adversary. He could, therefore, no otherwise comfort his disciples, when he was leaving this world, but by promising that “he would not leave them orphans” John xiv. 18 ; that is, that he would still continue to act for them, to be their patron, and to exercise the office of a mediator and advocate with the Father for them. Without this he knew they must be orphans ; that is, such as are not able to defend themselves from injuries, nor secure their own right unto their inheritance.”

(p545f) “The intercession of Christ is the great evidence of the continuance of his love and care, his pity and compassion, towards his church. Had he only continued to rule the church as its king and lord, he had manifested his glorious power, his righteousness, and faithfulness. “ The sceptre of his kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.” But mercy and compassion, love and tenderness, are constantly ascribed unto him as our high priest. See Heb. iv. 15, v. 1, 2. So the great exercise of his sacerdotal office, in laying down his life for us, and expiating our sins by his blood, is still peculiarly ascribed unto his love, Gal ii. 20 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Rev. i. 5. Wherefore these properties of love and compassion belong peculiarly unto the Lord Christ as our high priest. All men, who have any spiritual experience and understanding, will acknowledge how great the concernment of believers is in these things, and how all their consolation in this world depends upon them. He whose soul hath not been refreshed with a due apprehension of the unspeakable love, tenderness, and compassion of Jesus Christ, is a stranger unto the life of faith, and unto all true spiritual consolation. But how shall we know that the Lord Christ is thus tender, loving, and compassionate, that he continueth so to be; or what evidence or testimony have we of it ? It is true he was eminently so when he was upon the earth in the days of his flesh, and when he laid down his life for us. We know not what change may be wrought in nature itself, by his investiture with glory; nor how inconsistent these affections are, which in us cannot be separated from some weakness and sorrow, with his present state and dignity. Nor can any solid satisfaction be received by curious contemplations of the nature of glorified affections. But herein we have an infallible demonstration of it, that he yet continueth in the exercise of that office with respect whereunto all these affections of love, pity, and compassion, are ascribed unto him. As our high priest, DUNATAI SUMPAQHSAI, he is “able to suffer,” to “condole with,” to have “compassion on” his poor tempted ones, Heb. iv. 15. All these affections doth he continually act and exercise in his intercession. From a sense it is of their wants and weaknesses, of their distresses and temptations, of their states and duties, accompanied with inexpressible love and compassion, that he continually intercedes for them. For he doth so, that their sins may be pardoned, their temptations subdued, their sorrows removed, their trials sanctified, and their persons saved; and doing this continually as a high priest, he is in the continual exercise of love, care, pity, and compassion.”

The use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12...Who is speaking to whom?

At first glance the way the author of Hebrews 1 uses Psalm 102:25-27 may seem perplexing. Continuing from 1:8 ("But to the son..."), he seems to be quoting Psalm 102:25-27 as words directed by God to the Son, the Christ or Messiah. Yet when we first read the words of the Psalm, they may seem more like they are directed towards God rather than the Messiah, especially as much of the rest of the Psalm seems to be the words of someone, say the Messiah, speaking to God, rather than the other way around (cf the opening words in verse 1, "Hear my prayer, O LORD, let my cry come to you!"). So how do we make sense of the use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12?

Here are the main options I have found:

1. The author of Hebrews boldly and matter-of-fact-ly takes a clear reference to God, the LORD, and attributes it to Jesus. While it may seem like a misuse of Scripture, the argument goes that it is done on sound theological basis and logical syllogism: since Jesus is God, even LORD (= YHWH), therefore any reference to God or LORD in the Old Testament can be legitimately also transferred to Jesus. It doesn't matter at all whether there are any specific indicators for the quotation that it has reference to the Christ, because the basis of usage is not on the "Messiah-ship" of Jesus, but rather just to do with his "LORD-ship". It can also take its lead from the argument of Jesus in John 10:35-36. This is a position we see in the commentary by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (pp.67-68).
2. The author of Hebrews attributes to Jesus a reference to God because the reference also has Messianic indicators. This option is a bit more focused and nuanced than the first option, but includes the argument of the first option. Not only does the author feel free to use a reference to God on the basis of the divinity of Christ, but also because the Psalm is referring to God in ways that should also be considered Messianic or relating to the work and coming of the Christ. Calvin's commentary takes this approach. He says, "I indeed allow that Christ is not named in any part of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is so pointed out, that no one can doubt but that his kingdom is there avowedly recommended to us. Hence all the things which are found there, are to be applied to his person; for in none have they been fulfilled but in Christ...".
3. The author of Hebrews understands the quotation to actually be words of God addressed to the Messiah. This option sees Psalm 102:25-27 as words spoken by God addressed to the Psalmist (or perhaps some other person), understood to be the Messiah. The beginning of the quotation of God's address starts in the middle of verse 23, according to the LXX translation, and this option understands the author of Hebrews as following the same reading as does the LXX. (The difference between the LXX and traditional Hebrew rendering is accounted for by the question of what Hebrew vowels to use in a certain word.) This option also finds strength in accounting for the general Messianic nature and recognition of the Psalm, as well as less awkwardly assimilating into the presentation of the author Hebrews, since it straight-forwardly takes Psalm 102:25-27 as words of God addressed to the Son (if we accept the meaning of the LXX translation, and then we have all the quotations of 1:5, 1:6, 1:8-9, 1:10-12 and 1:13 as words of God to the Son). This is an approach espoused by Don Carson in his devotional reading notes. Also in an article by Stephen Voorwinde in Vox Reformata. It still has a little awkwardness in that it may seem anachronistic for God to address the Messiah as "God" and "YHWH". However, this is not insurmountable, for similar reasons as in the options above. Also, anachronistic reading is mainly an issue if we have problems with the divine authorship of the Scriptures.

In thinking about this question, I also toyed with another option. Perhaps the author of Hebrews was making a more oblique reference, or that this quotation was not meant to be taken on its own merits, but in combination with the other quotations. Perhaps he did understand that Psalm 102 was referring to God, but that the same things are transferred by inheritance to the Son, since the Son sits at the right hand of God, being exalted to the same authority (cf 1:4 and 1:13). Such an option squares more naturally with the traditional Hebrew reading of Psalm 102 while avoiding the difficulties of not sufficiently distinguishing between God and the Son (which the author clearly does distinguish in chapter 1). However, on balance, given that it is a somewhat convoluted option, it is probably best to go with option 3 above, as a more straight-forward and very acceptable option.

Chris Wright on the significance of Christ's resurrection

I have been reading through some of Chris Wright's book, Salvation Belongs To Our God. Among many other good thoughts, I thought this point could be laboured, as we too often understate the resurrection:

It is is important not to say things like 'Jesus died and came back to life' -- as if he were merely resuscitated to a prolonged spell of earthly life before dying in the end. Jesus did not die and 'come back'. Jesus died and went forward--forward into the new resurrection life of the age to come. He is the firstfruits of the new creation. So his resurrection is the guarantee of ours, and of the whole new creation life we will enjoy with him, when he 'will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body' (Phil. 3:21). 

And of course it is the risen Christ who has sent his Spirit, as he promised, whose primary work... is to apply God's salvation in our hearts, bearing witness to our sonship, bearing fruit in our lives, strengthening and comforting us in our witness to Christ.

So the woman left her water jar (John 4:28)

I think the apostle John likes to use historical detail and physical realities to illustrate, emphasise and point to divine realities and spiritual truth. For example, he notes that the jars used to turn water into wine were for Jewish rites of purification (John 2:6), I think alluding to the true purification that will come through Jesus' blood, when his hour has come. Or when the healing of the blind man leads to discussion of spiritual blindness (John 9). Or the simple statement, "And it was night" (John 13:30), as Judas departs to betray the Christ. We might also think of the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11) or other instances.

When we were reading through John 4 on Thursday night, I was struck by how the Samaritan woman, after hearing Jesus speak of "living water" (4:10) he can give, which, if someone drinks of it, that person "will never be thirsty again", and it "will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (4:14), after hearing these words, she "left her water jar" (4:28) and told others about the Christ, directing them to him, so that they too could hear and meet "the Saviour of the world" (4:42). While John doesn't explicitly tell us that the woman received eternal life, or that she drank of those living waters, I think the note that she "left her water jar", which was to carry the kind of water of which if we drink, we "will be thirsty again", is meant to show us that she has indeed drunk of the living waters that only Christ can give, that she herself now has that spring in her, so that through her, others also may hear the words of Christ and drink as well.

Have we left our water jars, or do we still need to listen to the One who can satisfy our real thirsts?

Conduct yourselves with fear, knowing that you were ransomed with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:17-19)

"And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."  (1 Peter 1:17-19; ESV)

What you think about a thing determines what you do with it.

If I showed you a cup that had become a family heirloom, which I explained to you had both intense nostalgic value, and which after becoming lost, my grandfather paid thousands of dollars to retrieve it, and I presented it to you to handle, what would you do with it? I think the way you handled it would be vastly different than if you thought that cup was simply bought for a dollar at the local supermarket. You would handle that cup with carefulness, with reverence, and with fear, knowing how much value it had been given, because of the price that was paid for it.

In 1 Peter 1:17 we are told to "conduct yourselves with fear", and following immediately after speaking of our Father who "judges impartially according to one's deeds", we might assume Peter is speaking of that kind of terror of judgement, that trembling of appearing in the holy court room, which we have commonly heard about. However, Peter's sentence doesn't stop at verse 17, but he further explains why we are to conduct ourselves with fear, because we know God has ransomed us with the precious blood of Christ. I think it is the kind of fear which is more like the handling of that cup given a value beyond obvious comprehension. We do not flee in terror, but are drawn to it in marvel and awe, and yet very carefully, very hesitantly. As we think about our lives, redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, we handle ourselves with great care. Because we know that if God would judge us only on our own merits, we would suffer deservedly his terrible wrath. And yet, nevertheless, he gave his one and only Son, that Christ's death--his precious blood--was the ransom-price to redeem as from our slavery in sin.

If that is what we think about our life, what will we do with it?

Why the green grass when Jesus feeds the 5000 (Mark 6:30-56)?

Recently I was preparing to lead a Bible study on Mark 6:30-56, including the miracle of feeding the five thousand and also Jesus walking on water. Especially because we are told that "they did not understand about the loaves", I thought that there must be something more to the significance of the feeding of the five thousand than simple a display of power, another kind of miracle to add to Jesus' repertoire. There must be some common theme or thread that runs through the whole text, linking the accounts together.

With the help of some commentators, I saw that Jesus' compassion toward the people because "they were like sheep without a shepherd" (Mark 6:34) was not coincidental to the following miracle that was performed. This same expression (more or less) is used a number of times in the Old Testament, eg in these passages: Numbers 27:12-23; 1 Kings 22:17, Ezekiel 34:1-31; Zechariah 10:1-12. There is the emphasis that the people needed a shepherd, sometimes that shepherd is a human leader (eg Moses or Joshua or Davidic king), and other times the LORD himself is their shepherd.

And what is one of the significant tasks of the shepherd, if not to feed his sheep (cf Ezekiel 34:2, 34:3, 34:8, 34:13, 34:14, 34:23, etc, also John 21:15-17)? And here the green grass comes in. In the midst of a miracle of Jesus feeding the people, Mark records for us that Jesus "commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass" (Mark 6:39). Although the commentators I read didn't mention it, I couldn't help but be reminded of Psalm 23, where the LORD my shepherd "makes me to lie down in green pastures" (Psalm 23:2; cf also Ezekiel 34:14-15). While the mention of green grass could just be a detail of fact, that is what it was and where they were, within a whole context of Jesus as shepherd feeding the people, how could there not be a connection?

So what then should we "understand about the loaves"? Mark shows us Jesus the shepherd who feeds his sheep (first through teaching, Mark 6:34, since "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God", Matthew 4:4/Deuteronomy 8:3), and that Jesus is the Christ, in one person the successor to Moses, the Davidic King, and the LORD God himself. This is what we need to understand by the miracle of the loaves.

Throughout the passage there seems to be a question of identity. Who is this Jesus, really? In the walking on water, again the closest Old Testament referent must be the crossing of the sea in Exodus, with the waters parted, a signature miracle of the LORD. So when Jesus says, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid" (Mark 6:50), whether directly or indirectly, he is saying that he is the "I AM", he is the LORD their shepherd. (Cf also the connection between shepherding and walking through the waters in Zechariah 10:1-12 and Psalm 77:7-20.)

So that is why the grass is green!

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the state of the Christian Church (Ephesians 5:2)

Quote from D Martyn Lloyd-Jones from her sermon on Ephesians 5:2 (preached sometime between 1954 and 1962):

I can tell you why the Christian Church is as she is. She has been evacuating the biblical doctrine of the cross from the death of the cross, and has been describing it as some vague manifestation of love. Then she has been weeping in sorrow and in sympathy for Him. But he said to the women of Jerusalem, "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves"; do not be sorry for Me, he said, I have come to do this. "I am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." All the Scriptures, from beginning to end, emphasise the same thing, that it is in Christ's sacrificial work that we see the love of God; that God sent, and gave Him up even to the death of the cross, and laid upon Him, His only begotten Son, the sins of men. "God so loved the world that he gave" - to the shame, the agony, the suffering, the separation between His Son and Himself when He was made sin - "He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". That is the measure of the love!
["Darkness and Light: An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17-5:17", The Banner of Truth Trust (1982), pp309-310]

Paul's formula, of Christ's love and giving of himself

There is a phrase Paul uses three times in the New Testament, almost like a formula, and I can't help but think it is a favourite phrase or expression of his, something he loved to dwell-on, and a "game-changer" for his life. It is simple but profound, and occurs these three times:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me [Galatians 2:20]

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Ephesians 5:2]

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her [Ephesians 5:25]

Often the Scriptures speak of God giving his one and only Son, and also of the those evil men who gave Jesus over to be crucified. But in Paul's expression he makes clear that Jesus gave himself, and that was a measure of his great love for sinful, undeserving people. The LXX uses some similar wording in Isaiah 53:12, and perhaps Paul's phrase arose out of a meditation upon that verse, as well as a consideration of Jesus' own words in John 10:18 etc. Whatever the origin may have been in Paul's thinking, it is a truth that God has recorded in the Scriptures to change our lives. How much are we willing to give to him who loved us so?

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)

The Apostles at Jerusalem?

In Acts 8:1 it says "At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles" (NKJV). Why did the apostles stay at Jerusalem, while the rest of the Christians scattered?

Within the book of Acts, Jerusalem seems to remain as the base of operations for the Twelve Apostles (cf. 8:14, 15:2, 15:4, 16:4). Luke doesn't seem to explicitly criticize the apostles for staying in Jerusalem.

With recent discussions about eschatology and millennialism, it got me thinking. I wonder if the Luke's portrayal of the apostles in Jerusalem is meant to be symbolic of the new Israel with its centre in Jerusalem, reminding us of the OT prophecies about the future glory of Jerusalem/Zion (the twelve apostles seeming to be the equivalent representation of the twelve tribes of Israel).

It is a common theme in the OT Prophets that Jerusalem will be restored as part of the Messianic age, after its destruction in judgement. Jerusalem will be the focal point and centre of the new kingdom to come, reigning over all the earth. Consider some of these as samples:

• "For the LORD will comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste places; He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness will be found in it, thanksgiving and the voice of melody... So the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing, with everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness; sorrow and sighing shall flee away... Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of His fury; you have drunk the dregs of the cup of trembling, and drained it out... Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city! For the uncircumcised and the unclean shall no longer come to you. Shake yourself from the dust, arise; sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!... How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings glad tidings of good things, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” Your watchmen shall lift up their voices, with their voices they shall sing together; for they shall see eye to eye when the LORD brings back Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, you waste places of Jerusalem! For the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD has made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." (from Isaiah 51-52, NKJV; note how it leads into the proclamation of the Suffering Servant who will accomplish these things)
• "For ZionÂ’s sake I will not hold My peace, and for JerusalemÂ’s sake I will not rest, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burns. The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will name. You shall also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God." (Isaiah 62:1-3, NKJV)
• "Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORDÂ’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion the law shall go forth, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." (Micah 3:12-4:2, NKJV)
• "“Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD. “Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. And the LORD will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!”" (Zechariah 2:10-13, NKJV)

The rebuilding of Jerusalem in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah when they returned from the Exile may have been a partial fulfillment of prophecies, but it seems to fall short of the fullness of the prophetic imagery. There is no king, and the 'kingdom' is still a pale reflection of its former days, the remaining legacy of the split between the North and the South. Some might still look forward to a literal restoration of the old Israel (such as the premillenialists and Zionists), perhaps even including the physical temple at Jerusalem, but this would seem like a going backwards, a downgrade, from what has happened already in Christ.

For now, in the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom of God has come and begun, and something greater than the OT Jews could have visualised has been inaugurated, things the prophets and angels desired to know about (1 Peter 1:10-12). Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), and sits at the right hand of the throne of God (Acts 2:30-36; Ephesians 1:19-23; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22), ruling as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14). And the NT emphasis speaks of a new Israel (cf. Hebrews 8:8-13) and a new Jerusalem (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24). So in Revelation we see a new Jerusalem replacing the one that is to be destroyed (Revelation 21-22). Certainly we still await the consummation of the kingdom, but it has nonetheless already begun.

So it seems (at least to me!) quite fitting to have the Apostles symbolically based in the earthly Jerusalem, to show that the OT prophecies are being fulfilled in Christ and the Kingdom he has brought into being, with the Apostles being his representatives of that reality.

John Owen on Justification

I've been reading a little of John Owen, and so here are some quotes I'd like to remember :-)

"This, therefore, is that which herein I affirm:— The righteousness of Christ (in his obedience and suffering for us) imputed unto believers, as they are united unto him by his Spirit, is that righteousness whereon they are justified before God, on the account whereof their sins are pardoned, and a right is granted them unto the heavenly inheritance... The foundation of the imputation asserted is union. Hereof there are many grounds and causes, as has been declared; but that which we have immediate respect unto, as the foundation of this imputation, is that whereby the Lord Christ and believers do actually coalesce into one mystical person. This is by the Holy Spirit inhabiting in him as the head of the church in all fulness, and in all believers according to their measure, whereby they become members of his mystical body. That there is such a union between Christ and believers is the faith of the catholic church, and has been so in all ages. Those who seem in our days to deny it, or question it, either know not what they say, or their minds are influenced by their doctrine who deny the divine persons of the Son and of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will grant the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least, that there is such a peculiar ground for it as is not to be exemplified in any things natural or political among men." [The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Ch9; note the emphasis on union with Christ]
"Christ and believers are one mystical person, one spiritually-animated body, head and members. This, I suppose, will not be denied; to do so, is to overthrow the church and the faith of it. Hence, what he did and suffered is imputed unto them. And it is granted that, as the surety of the covenant, he paid all our debts, or answered for all our faults; and that his righteousness is really communicated unto us. “Why, then,” say some, “there is no need of repentance; all is done for us already.” But why so? Why must we assent to one part of the gospel unto the exclusion of another? Was it not free unto God to appoint what way, method, and order he would, whereby these things should be communicated unto us?
"... Not only, therefore, the thing itself, or the communication of the righteousness of Christ unto us, but the way, and manner, and means of it, do depend on God’s sovereign order and disposal. Wherefore, although Christ did make satisfaction to the justice of God for all the sins of the church, and that as a common person (for no man in his wits can deny but that he who is a mediator and a surety is, in some sense, a common person); and although he did pay all our debts; yet does the particular interest of this or that man in what he did and suffered depend on the way, means, and order designed of God unto that end. This, and this alone, gives the true necessity of all the duties which are required of us, with their order and their ends
"... [Answering like objections that faith is also unnecessary:] the whole fallacy of this objection lies in the opposing one part of the design and method of God’s grace in this mystery of our justification unto another; or the taking of one part of it to be the whole, which, as to its efficacy and perfection, depends on somewhat else. Hereof we warned the reader in our previous discourses. For the whole of it is a supposition that the satisfaction of Christ, if there be any such thing, must have its whole effect without believing on our part; which is contrary unto the whole declaration of the will of God in the gospel... Wherefore, on the only making of that satisfaction, no one for whom it was made in the design of God can be said to have suffered in Christ, nor to have an interest in his satisfaction, nor by any way or means be made partaker of it antecedently unto another act of God in its imputation unto him. For this is but one part of the purpose of God’s grace as unto our justification by the blood of Christ, — namely, that he by his death should make satisfaction for our sins; nor is it to be separated from what also belongs unto it in the same purpose of God. Wherefore, from the position or grant of the satisfaction of Christ, no argument can be taken unto the negation of a consequential act of its imputation unto us; nor, therefore, of the necessity of our faith in the believing and receiving of it, which is no less the appointment of God than it was that Christ should make that satisfaction... And what he underwent and suffered, he underwent and suffered in our stead. But yet the act of God in laying our sins on Christ conveyed no actual right and title to us unto what he did and suffered. They are not immediately thereon, nor by virtue thereof, ours, or esteemed ours; because God has appointed somewhat else, not only antecedent thereunto, but as the means of it, unto his own glory. These things, both as unto their being and order, depend on the free ordination of God. But yet
"... It cannot be said that this satisfaction was made for us on such a condition as should absolutely suspend the event, and render it uncertain whether it should ever be for us or no. Such a constitution may be righteous in pecuniary solutions. A man may lay down a great sum of money for the discharge of another, on such a condition as may never be fulfilled; for, on the absolute failure of the condition, his money may and ought to be restored unto him, whereon he has received no injury or damage. But in penal suffering for crimes and sins, there can be no righteous constitution that shall make the event and efficacy of it to depend on a condition absolutely uncertain, and which may not come to pass or be fulfilled; for if the condition fail, no recompense can be made unto him that has suffered. Wherefore, the way of the application of the satisfaction of Christ unto them for whom it was made, is sure and steadfast in the purpose of God
"... God has appointed that there shall be an immediate foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ unto us; whereon we may be said to have done and suffered in him what he did and suffered in our stead, by that grant, donation, and imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interested in it, that it may be made ours: which is all we contend for. And this is our actual coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith. Hereon does the necessity of faith originally depend. And if we shall add hereunto the necessity of it likewise unto that especial glory of God which he designs to exalt in our justification by Christ, as also unto all the ends of our obedience unto God, and the renovation of our natures into his image, its station is sufficiently secured against all objections. Our actual interest in the satisfaction of Christ depends on our actual insertion into his mystical body by faith, according to the appointment of God." [The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Ch9; answering objections that the necessary conclusion of Owen's view would be that of 'eternal justification', where faith and repentance are unnecessary]