Kuyper, Common Grace 1.27a. What is the “knowledge” of good and evil?

08 Tuesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis

Tags

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, Genesis, Genesis 3, Genesis 3:22, Knowledge of Good and Evil

The previous post on Kuyper’s Common Grace, volume 1 may be found here.

Now on to the first question of chapter

Genesis 3:22 (ESV)

²²Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

What then is meant by the statement that the tree from which Adam and Eve were not to eat was the tree of the “Knowledge of Good and Evil.” The obvious answer, at least when we consider the frequency with which it is raised, is that the knowledge is the knowledge of experience. How could Adam and Eve “know” evil without being evil? I could know about arson or embezzlement or any number of crimes, without knowing what is like to commit such crimes. And perhaps the experience of evil would give me a different knowledge of the “good.”

Kuyper says that the held this position until he faced two objections with the explanation could not meet. Before we come to the objections, I would like to stop at Kuyper’s epistemic modesty, “it is fitting that one not begin by rejecting the work of one’s predecessors but by associating oneself with it.” Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World: The Historical Section, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, Melvin Flikkema, and Stephen J. Grabill, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman and Ed M. van der Maas, vol. 1, Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press; Acton Institute, 2015), 236.

What then are the objections. The first derives from the word of God respecting the effect of Adam and Eve eating from the tree, “they have become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” God cannot have experiential knowledge of evil, therefore, the comparison does not work. Thus, the knowledge cannot mean “experiential” knowledge.

The second objection is that sinning gives us no experience of “good.” But I believe that objection can be met by merely stating experiential knowledge of evil throws experiential knowledge of good (which Adam did have prior to eating) into relief and thus one gains a sort of experience of good with could not be had before.

Kuyper suggests that the knowledge here refers to not the experience of the thing but the choice:

⁴ Let us choose what is right;

let us know among ourselves what is good.

Job 34:4 (ESV) In this passage, choose is parallel to know, as right is parallel to good. He gives as an example, “For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” Genesis 18:19 (ESV) The ESV does the work for Kuyper, because the word translated “chosen,” “For I have chosen him” is the word ydh: the verb commonly translated as “to know.” The KJV (for instance) has “For I know him.”

This at least makes the argument plausible: that we should understand ydh (commonly translated “to know”) as to choose. The next test is whether that translation makes sense of Gen. 3:22

Kuyper further clarifies this use of “know” for “choose”: I know a thing, I evaluate, I then choose. Does that make sense of Gen. 3:22? Yes, the human being – rather than accept the valuation of God as to good and evil – has appropriate this power to himself.

Thus, the probation of Adam was, Will you allow God to make the determination of what is good or evil? Will commit moral valuation to me, or will you seek to make this determination yourself.

The tree thus provokes conscience, because conscience can only have play if there is a potential conflict between moral choices.

This leads to an understanding of human psychology. First, there is the evaluation. The evaluation of a thing as good or bad then brings the will to act based upon that judgment. However, that determination is subject to a further judgment of God. Conscience rightly working concurs with God on the moral valuation of a behavior, “Conscience is a conflict between two judgments: the judgment of man himself and that of God.” (242)

Such a determination corresponds well to the use of similar language by Paul:

Romans 1:28 (ESV)

²⁸And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

The first verb in that sentence, “see fit” comes from a verb which means to test and approve [dokimazo]

δοκιμάζω^c: to regard something as genuine or worthy on the basis of testing—‘to judge to be genuine, to judge as good, to approve.’ μακάριος ὁ μὴ κρίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐν ᾧ δοκιμάζει ‘happy is the man who doesn’t cause himself to be condemned by what he judges to be good’ Ro 14:22; καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει ‘since they did not approve of retaining the knowledge of God’ or ‘… of acknowledging God’ Ro 1:28. For another interpretation of δοκιμάζω in Ro 1:28, see 30.98.

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 363.

The word translated as “debased” mind means “not” tested or approved. If you will not evaluate God correctly, you will be evaluated as condemned. By not accepting God’s evaluation of good and evil, we become evaluated as evil (or we have a mind that cannot properly evaluate). This is then matched by Romans 12:1-2

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. ²Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Romans 12:1–2 (ESV). Notice verse 2, you will be given the Spirit and thus in this transformation will begin to be able to test things to discern (by testing discern is the same verb dokimazo as used in Romans 1:28.

By eating the of the tree, Adam rejected God’s evaluation and was cast from the Garden. Romans 1:28 explains that having rejected God’s evaluation we are evaluated as debased (or we are unable to judge) and only in renewal of our mind can we begin to regain a right evaluation (by following God’s valuation).

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.26

14 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis, Glory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, Genesis 3, glory, honor, shame

Chapter 26

This chapter raises two issues, first the serpent. Kuyper takes it that Eve was surprised to hear from the Serpent. This is a disordering of nature: humans speak to and about animals, but speech moves in only one way. She should have or must have realized this was some alien power. In Genesis 2:15, God instructed Adam to “keep” the Garden. That would infer that something dangerous was about.

The verb sh-m-r, to keep, does mean (in appropriate places) an action to protect or preserve. For instance, in 1 Samuel 25:12, David speaks of “guarding” Nabal’s property. As Wenham explains, “Similarly, שׁמר “to guard, to keep” has the simple profane sense of “guard” (4:9; 30:31), but it is even more commonly used in legal texts of observing religious commands and duties (17:9; Lev 18:5) and particularly of the Levitical responsibility for guarding the tabernacle from intruders (Num 1:53; 3:7–8). Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 67.

This leads to the question, “Guard against what?” It does seem odd, at first glance, to see a command to “protect” when all is very good Adam is in Paradise. Thus, Kuyper is correct to see the implied danger in the command “to keep.” Kuyper thinks she must have known of

When a beast appears disrupting the natural order, he should have been recognized immediately as the danger previously warned against. Kuyper asserts Eve did know this was the alien power.

The second issue addressed in this chapter is the counter-factual: What if they had withstood the test? They would have known God better as their king and law giver. Their sin did open up a world of knowledge to them. It was an actual form of knowledge, because God sought to bar them from the Garden by armed Cheribum.

Adam and Eve were deluded in what they obtained: they did not actually raise to the preeminence of determining right and wrong in an absolute sense; merely in a rebellious manner refusing to accept God’s pronouncement. This disruption of the proper relationship with God has left us poor humans with a bad conscience. He refers to that status as a “holy sensation to feel shame.”

We are thus left with shame were there was once honor. It perhaps useful to note at this place that we are promise “honor” at the return of Christ (1 Peter 1:7) and we destined for “glory”. (Rom. 8:30) Such honor and glory will then replace all shame which we now experience.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 38.2, What a thing is man?

25 Friday Mar 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Edward Taylor, Job

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Edward Taylor, Job, poem, Poem Analysis, Poetry, Poetry Analysis

Second Stanza

How do thy angels lay before thine eye?

My deeds both white and black I daily do?

How doth thy court thou panellst there them try?

But flesh complains. What right for this? Let’s know

For right or wrong, I can’t appear unto’t.

And shall a sentence pass on such a suit?

How can I appear before the tribunal of God? How even do angels appear before God? This first question is a bit obscure, but I believe it an allusion to a question from Job. And that allusion provides an opening to understand this stanza.

The story of Job concerns the Accuser (“the satan”) appearing before God. He twice challenges God concerning Job saying that Job only obeys because God is good to Job. God permits the accuser to strip Job of his children, his wealth, his physical well-being. Job’s friends appear to comfort Job and tell him: You are being punished because you have sinned. You need to repent.

I have heard in a series of lectures that Job’s friends take on the position of the accuser against Job. Part of the evidence come Job 4, where the first friend Eliphaz claims to have heard a mysterious spirit tell him that God finds no one right:

Job 4:12–21 (AV)

¹²Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. ¹³In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, ¹⁴Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake. ¹⁵Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: ¹⁶It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying, ¹⁷Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? ¹⁸Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: ¹⁹How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? ²⁰They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it. ²¹Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.

The argument goes: God does not find even the elect angels pure before his eyes – which us, who are made of dust? The stanza alludes to this question: It is not as depressing as Job, the poet merely asks, What is the judgment of God on the angels (Eliphaz says God condemns the angels, which goes beyond the evidence). And if God judges the angels, what about someone like me whose actions are not all virtues: some of my acts are good, some bad.

This then leads to the development of Taylor’s thought:

But flesh complains. What right for this? Let’s know

For right or wrong, I can’t appear unto’t.

And shall a sentence pass on such a suit?

Stated vernacularly: “how is this fair?” How can God judge when: I’m flesh, what I am I to do? This also is Job’s question in response to the condemnation of his friends:

Job 9:1–12 (AV)

1 Then Job answered and said, 2 I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? 3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. 4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? 5 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. 6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. 7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. 8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. 9 Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. 10 Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number. 11 Lo, he goeth by me, and I see him not: he passeth on also, but I perceive him not. 12 Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?

What we have in this stanza is an abbreviation of Job’s quandary: Who can stand before God’s judgment? And if that is so, then what can I do? Taylor does not go as far as Job’s friends, but he does see the ultimate judgment which is coming and asks, how will I survive this judgment?

As Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress says to Evangelist:

He answered, “Sir, I perceive, by the book in my hand, that I am condemned to die, and after that to come to judgment, Heb. 9:27; and I find that I am not willing to do the first, Job 16:21, 22, nor able to do the second.” Ezek. 22:14.

Love and Nothing

17 Thursday Mar 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Love

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 13, J.D. Jones, love

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul begins his discourse on love with a reference to a series of wonderous actions. But each of these marvels, Paul says the action counts for nothing if it is not done in love:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ²And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1–3. It is easy to take Paul’s language of “nothing” as a mere rhetorical flourish.

But this illustration by a once well-known preacher J.D. Jones provides a well-constructed illustration which makes plain the substance of the Apostle’s argument. This illustration works first by referencing a commonplace which is instantly comprehensible by audience (a “naught” is a zero). Second, the illustration maps back onto Paul’s argument of “nothing”. These things without love are actually nothing.

Jones uses the symbol of “nothing” to illustrate his point:

“Love” is no “adjunct” to the Apostle. It is no “minor interest.” It is not something that competes for place with work and politics and play. It is the thing that gives everything else value. It is the thing that confers upon everything else its worth. The gifts Paul mentions in these verses were not insignificant and commonplace gifts. They were the greatest and most coveted of gifts. And what he says of them all is that they are valueless without love. They are like a row of ciphers without a digit in front to give them value. Write down a row of noughts. Write down a dozen of them, and what do they amount to? Exactly nothing! And if you were to write a thousand of them they would be nothing still. But put a figure in front of those noughts and they at once become significant. They stand for something, they mean much. Put three noughts down and they amount to just nothing. Just a “I” in front of them and they mean a thousand. And it is like that with gifts and powers, says the Apostles. They count for nothing without love. Life itself is nothing without love. It is no mere “adjunct,” no mere “minor interest.” It is that which makes life significant and worth while; it is that which lends to every gift its worth.

J. D. Jones, The Greatest of These: Addresses on the Thirteenth Chapter of First Corinthians (London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1925), 39–40.

The first reference to “love” in the Bible

16 Wednesday Mar 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Genesis, Love

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Abraham, Genesis 22, Isaac, love

(These are some initial observations on the various aspects of love which have their genesis in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac)

Genesis 22 contains one of the strangest stories in the Bible. God has called Abraham to the land of Canaan and has promised that the land will be left to Abraham’s “seed”. God makes plain that Abraham will have a son by Sarah and that this son will inherent. God then gives a perplexing commandment:

Genesis 22:1–6 (ESV)

22 After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” ²He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” ³So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. ⁴On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar. ⁵Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” ⁶And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together.

This passage is remarkable also for the fact that it is the first place in the Bible which mentions “love.” And the first love mentioned in the Bible is the love of a father for his son. This does not mean that there was not love between spouses or anything of the sort. But it is interesting in terms of the function of the Bible as a whole.

There is another strange thing: What is Abraham thinking: not merely the perplexity of killing one’s own son; but also the end of the promise of God which has controlled Abraham’s entire life. The book of Hebrews provides this insight into Abraham’s decision:

Hebrews 11:17–19 (ESV)

¹⁷By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, ¹⁸of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” ¹⁹He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

Abraham does take his son up the mountain only to have him rescued by a substitute:

Genesis 22:7–14 (ESV)

⁷And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” ⁸Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

⁹When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. ¹⁰Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. ¹¹But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” ¹²He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” ¹³And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. ¹⁴So Abraham called the name of that place, “The Lord will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”

Thus, Isaac’s life is spared by God providing a substitute for the death to which God has sentenced Isaac.

This first reference to love thus brings together many different strands of love which will be developed over the course of the Bible to culminated in Christ.

First, there is the love of a Father for a Son. As Jesus says:

John 10:17

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

The Father loves the Son – and also that love is in the context of the Son laying down his life.

Second, this love takes place in the context of a covenant, the covenant between God and Abraham. God is sworn to fulfill a promise to Abraham by means of this son. The concept of God’s love being expressed by covenant is a theme which will be developed at length in the rest of the Bible. For those who have heard some Hebrew, this is the matter of “hesed”, covenant or loyal love.

Third, there is the love of the substitute:

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

God shows love for us by providing the substitute to save us from death:

John 3:16

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Fourth, this love foreshadows the resurrection which will make even the death of the substitute “right.”

Fifth, the love of the substitute for us, becomes the predicate of our love:

John 15:9

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.

Sixth, that love which has for us, becomes the basis for another command:

John 15:17

These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

Hence,

John 14:15

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Solomon’s Prayer for Wisdom 1 Kings 3:9

12 Saturday Mar 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Kings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Kings, Christ, Genesis 3, Prayer, Solomon, temptation, The Fall, Typology, Wisdom

1 Kings 3 records an appearance of God to Solomon with an interesting request, “What do you want?”

⁵At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.” ⁶And Solomon said, “You have shown great and steadfast love to your servant David my father, because he walked before you in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward you. And you have kept for him this great and steadfast love and have given him a son to sit on his throne this day. ⁷And now, O Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of David my father, although I am but a little child. I do not know how to go out or come in. ⁸And your servant is in the midst of your people whom you have chosen, a great people, too many to be numbered or counted for multitude. ⁹Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”

1 Kings 3:5–9 (ESV)

There are many peculiar things about this passage, such as it involves God asking what someone wants – rather than God providing instruction. But what interests me here is Solomon’s request, “Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”

The commentators typically emphasis the direct nature of this request, Solomon asks for the ability to govern:

“Solomon’s desire for an obedient, listening heart is based on his wish to administer justice in Israel. Justice can only emerge when the king is able “to distinguish between right and wrong” (lit., “good and evil”). Justice can become a quite complicated goal, as 3:16–28 proves. Only knowledge of what God considers fair and unfair can guide the king to act justly with any consistency. Though Solomon has already exhibited political craftiness, he knows that long-term wisdom and success reside where David found it—in an ongoing relationship with the Lord.” Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings, vol. 8, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 110–111.

“ ‘For judging thy people, discriminating between good and evil’: it is precisely the ability to distinguish good from evil, truth from falsehood, that is indispensable in the administration of justice. “For who is able to judge this thy difficult people (את־עמך הכבד הזה)”: not only was the civil life of Israel filled with strife and contention toward the end of David’s reign (cf. 2 Sam 15:1–4), but the political situation likewise continued unstable. This prayer was definitely answered in the sense that Solomon did find the means to suppress all outward show of rebelliousness to the end of his reign.” Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, 2nd ed., vol. 12, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Inc, 2003), 52–53.

The Pulpit commentary opens up an interesting cross reference to Hebrews 5:14, “That I may discern between good and bad [i.e., right and wrong, true and false; cf. Heb. 5:14).”

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Kings, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 52.

But there is another cross-reference which think is far more instructive to understand Solomon’s prayer:

¹⁶And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, ¹⁷but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 2:16–17 (ESV)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” ²And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, ³but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” ⁴But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. ⁵For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1–5 (ESV)

Peter Leithart picks up on this cross-reference:

“Solomon asks for wisdom, more specifically for “discernment of good and evil” (להבין בין־טוב לרע) (3:9), using a phrase similar to that found in Gen. 2–3 to describe the tree in the garden (עץ הדעת טוב ורע), a tree that gives wisdom (Deurloo 1989, 12). Solomon’s request can thus be described as a request for access to the tree forbidden to Adam.”

Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006), 44.

I think Mr. Leithart is correct about the reference which underscores this prayer. But I think he got the allusion backwards (I will here quickly note that no one has requested that I publish a commentary and that Dr. Leithart is far better credentialed than I (D. Phil. Cambridge).)

And thus with appropriate trepidation, I make my case.

The immediate correspondence between his prayer and Genesis is the knowledge of good and evil. With that interesting phrase, we can begin to draw a comparison:

Before the Fall	After the Fall
Approached by the Serpent	Approached by God
Speaks with Eve, Adam’s wife	Speaks with Solomon, a type pointing at Christ & Adam
God does not want your good	What can I give you?
God has forbidden the tree of good and evil	God has forbidden nothing to ask
God does not want you to have wisdom	God is pleased Solomon asks for wisdom
The temptation is you will be like God and you will be able to determine for yourself good and evil	Give me the ability to discern good and evil

Rather than Solomon asking to eat from the eat; I think it better to see this as Solomon asking to reverse the temptation of the Fall. The Serpent came to Eve and said God does not want you to have wisdom. But if you eat from this tree, you will be able to be like God and you will be able to independently exercise your moral judgment.

Solomon is approached by God. Solomon is well passed the Fall. Human beings have fully rebelled – in fact, the refrain of 1 & 2 Kings will be “he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord.” (When I read through these books with my daughter and I came to another evil King who did evil in the eyes of the Lord, she said, “Oh no, not again!”)

And the book of Judges recording the horror human sin ends with this epitath:

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Judges 21:25 (ESV)

As Paul will write summarizing the degradation of human beings:

^“21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Romans 1:21–23 (ESV)

The act of making one’s own decisions of good and evil lies there at the heart of the horror of human history. (Even the most depraved actions are always justified in the eyes of the perpetrator.)

But Solomon prays for a reversal of the noetic effect of sin: God, I am not going to strike out on my own. In fact, I recognize my inability to judge. Rather than a tree to just know good and evil; I am asking for your intervention that I may discern good and evil.

And in this we see an aspect of how Solomon typifies the Christ to come.

Why attention matters

26 Saturday Feb 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Philippians, William Spurstowe

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anxiety, Attention, Depression, Fear, Spurstowe

Paul makes an interesting command concerning our attention:

Philippians 4:8–9 (ESV)

⁸Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. ⁹What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

While not directly referencing this passage, William Spurtowe provided an illustration of the subjective effect of our attention. If we are not thinking on “these things” our attention will be the opposite direction. The effect that will be fear and depression:

Are not these genuine thoughts for a man to conceive that it is with him and with every Christian as it is with those who walk with their faces towards the sun, the dark shadow behind them; but when they turn from the sun, it forthwith changes its place comes before them. When they travel with their facts to the Sun of Righteousness, their paths are full of light and comfort; but when they turn from him, what dark images of death. What ghastly apparitions of hell and destruction go before them every step they tread. Yea, the further they wander from God, how does their terror increase, and their fears multiply, which are stretched out like the shadows of evening, until at length they be swallowed up in the black darkness of night?

Romans 12:1, First Sermon, Introduction

06 Thursday Jan 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Romans, Sermons

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Obedience, Romans 12, Romans 12:1, Sermon, Sermon Introduction

I previously posted some essays for a study on Romans 12 (currently, I am part way through “body”, but have stalled a bit to read a couple of books on the Incarnation since it is relevant to “body”). In addition to the explanatory essays I also intend to prepare sermons. I think of the essays as prose and the sermons as poetry; one as explanation, one as persuasion (although both contain both elements, the emphasis is different.)

Below is the introduction to the sermon. The most common introduction in the circles with which I am familiar involves some sort of story which introduces the main point. So if I wish to emphasis self-sacrifice for a greater good, I may tell a story about soldier who risks much for his companions. This can be quite effective, because it can make an abstract idea concrete for those who are listening. Also a story, well told, gets the attention of the listener. It also provides a porch for the listener to enter the house. Since the sermon will always be coming after something else, getting attention and preparing the listener are valuable aims.

But that is not the only way to introduce a sermon. Below, rather than introduce a story, I seek to introduce a question. In this case, why did Paul chose a particular word? The sermon then acts to answer the question.

Romans 12:1–2 (ESV)

Paul is writing a letter to people, many of whom he had never met; a letter to a church he had never attended. Throughout this letter, he has been very bold telling them what they must know; explaining to them how they are to think about the work of God in Jesus Christ. Paul is writing with the confidence and authority of an apostle of Jesus Christ.

The first 11 chapters have been development of doctrine. It is the most detailed, sustained explanation of the Christian life from a state of nature to glorification which appears in the Bible. He explains sanctification and answers questions about the deep things of election.

The final section of the letter, beginning here, sets forth practical instruction on how to live a Christian in the world, and with other Christians—which is often a far more difficult matter. He will give very precise and direct commands. The commands are often profoundly difficult, such as bless those who persecute you.

But here, when opens up this second he makes an interesting word choice. There is no word in English which has the same connotations as Paul’s word. When the word is used as a noun, it is used to the Holy Spirit, who is a Comforter in John 14. In 1 John 2, Jesus is said to be an Advocate; same word. There is also a verb with the same general meaning, and it can be translated exhort, or encourage, or beseech, or entreat.

It is not quite a command, but it is more than a suggestion. Paul is not offering opinions; he is an apostle and is giving direction. But he opens this series of direction with this interesting word. If you’re curious, it sounds something like this, parakalo.

Peter does the same thing in his first epistle. In chapter 2 and verse 11, we read

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.

1 Peter 2:11 (ESV) Peter is using the same word as Paul uses here. There are a few other uses of this word in Paul which we will have a chance to consider. Why would an apostle, such as Peter or Paul—the “greatest”, if we can use such a word in this case—of apostles; why would they begin their most urgent instructions as an appeal and not as direct requirement?

They will both follow up this introduction with direct requirements: You must do this, you must not do that. They know how to issue direct commands. Nor are they timid men. They both showed themselves to have uncommon courage. They were both willing to face the threat of certain death with great poise.

Nor were they unintelligent men who used words without thought. These were men who turned the world upside down by merely speaking. They brought no armies; they used no force. They had no political power. They did not command tremendous wealth. They were both Jews, who—to the Romans who knew about Jews—were strange people who would not eat pigs and who would not work on Saturday and who were circumcised. Their strangeness would certainly not increase their persuasive appeal. And yet, by merely speaking they transformed the world.

Their words are such that people in China and Chile, India and Indiana, Laos and Lagos, adhere to what they said and wrote. That is astounding. So, we cannot simply ignore their decision when they make a choice of words which may surprise us.

Why then does Paul, and Peter, use this word when it comes to a critical juncture. I believe there are two answers. The first answer: They are explaining to us, the nature of the obedience which a Christian should render to the command of God. The second answer: They are modeling for us, the type of leadership which should mark a Christian leader. Each of these ideas will need space to move and so there will be two sermons, one for each.

As to the nature of Christian obedience, there are three parts. The obedience of a Christian should flow from faith, hope, and love. Paul uses the word entreat, urge, beseech, because he was us to hear and see that our obedience flows from faith, hope, and love. He does not need to demand such obedience but merely stir-up our hearts and obedience will follow as a delight.

And so to the first point, The obedience of a Christian must flow from faith.

What language(s) did Jesus speak

03 Monday Jan 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Greek, New Testament Background

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jesus spoke Greek, NT Background

This article by Sanghwan Lee contends that the linguistic onment in Galilee was not exclusively and perhaps not predominately Aramaic, and that Greek was used far more widely than some scholars have contended. The basic contention of the article is as follows:

“First, the ipsissima verba of Jesus preserved in the Gospels strongly indicate that Jesus, a Gali- lean carpenter, was able to speak Greek.20 Secondly, since a conversation requires at least two parties (locutor and interlocutor), those who listened to the ipsissima verba of Jesus must have understood Greek. Thirdly, the members of the Galilean Q community who wrote down sayings of Jesus (in the 30s–40s) must have been able to write in Greek.”

The argument and evidence can be found here.

Romans 12, How to Live Together, 5.5

19 Sunday Dec 2021

Posted by memoirandremains in Church Conflict, Incarnation, Romans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Church Conflict, Church Life, incarnation, Romans, Romans 12, Romans 12:1

The Incarnation

⁵Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,

but a body have you prepared for me;

⁶ in burnt offerings and sin offerings

you have taken no pleasure.

⁷ Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,

as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ”

Hebrews 10:5–7.

There is a tendency among human beings to either deny there is a soul, or to deny the body matters and the spirit is all. But the Scripture will have none of that.

The importance of the human being is seen when consider the most spiritual topics, God. While God does not have a body like a man; the Son of God became incarnate as a man (while in manner being degraded in any manner as God). The Incarnation is a mystery beyond all mysteries. But is also the basis of how we must understand all other things:

The incarnation of God, therefore, is the supreme mystery at the center of our Christian confession, and no less at the center of all reality. Consequently, all conceptions of reality that fail to see and savor that all things hold together in Christ, and that he is preeminent in all things, can never be anything but abstract conceptions of virtual realities—that is, invariably hollow and ultimately vacuous concepts pulled away from reality.

John C. Clark and Marcus Peter Johnson, The Incarnation of God: The Mystery of the Gospel as the Foundation of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 12.

There are many things which could be said of the Incarnation, but one thing which must be understood is the profound importance of the human body. To battle on our behalf, it was first necessary for the Son of God to have the body of a human being, and that the human body was the location of that conflict. Consider this verse:

¹⁴Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, [he shares our nature]

that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, [he destroys death from the position of a human body]

Hebrews 2:14. Think of how the Scripture speaks of our Savior. His announcement into this world is an announcement of being born a human being:

³⁰And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ³¹And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. ³²He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ³³and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Luke 1:30–33. Jesus is born. He is wrapped in cloth. He is laid in a manager – and at the end of his life he will again be wrapped in cloth and this time laid in a tomb.

The crucifixion is the killing of his body. And the resurrection is the resurrection of his body. And he is Ascended, reigning forever in a body.

The proof of the Resurrection is that his body is no longer in the tomb:

⁵But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. ⁶He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. ⁷Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”

Matthew 28:5–7. When he proves to the Disciples he has risen, it is the proof of his body:

²⁴Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

²⁶Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” ²⁷Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” ²⁸Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” ²⁹Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

John 20:24–29. That body is the residence of all our blessing:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Ephesians 1:3. Indeed our salvation is bound upon with the identification of our body with his:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? ²By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ³Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

⁵For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrectionlike his. ⁶We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. ⁷For one who has died has been set free from sin. ⁸Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. ⁹We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. ¹⁰For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. ¹¹So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:1–11. Our life is a participation in the life of Christ, in his death, in his burial, in his resurrection.

The presentation of our bodies in a living sacrifice is premised upon this union with Christ. We can offer no sacrifice apart from him:

²⁴For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. ²⁵Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, ²⁶for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, ²⁸so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Hebrews 9:24–28. The sacrifice of his body is the only sacrifice for sin; a sacrifice never to be repeated. It is a sacrifice rendered “once.”

We can only understand the sacrifice of our body in light of the sacrifice of his body and our union to that sacrifice.

Indeed, it is in our union to Christ, a union which is not merely some intellectual proposition, but a sort of union which involves the body of our Ascended Incarnate Lord and our body is the premise of our sacrifice:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

John 14:6 We cannot offer something to the Father but in the life of the Son. We know the Father in knowing the Son. “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9. Now these are deep waters in which it is very easy to get lost and drown. For our purposes we need merely assert that our approach to God is only in Jesus Christ, not around him.

Jesus has made a way for his by taking our nature, by being found in a body which was offered as a sacrifice – and which was received for the forgiveness of sin. We participate in that life, that sacrifice, that resurrection. To participate in that life entails a life our body.

What you must understand, the human body is the battlefield upon which God defeated his enemies. We participate in that victory in the identification of our life in this body with the life of the Incarnate Son of God. This identification is so great, that the Church, the sum of the redeemed are referred as the Body of Christ.

The logic of Paul’s argument of how we are to live—and that manner of life is the nature of the “living sacrifice” commanded—is wholly premised upon our identification in the body of Christ.

The Incarnation makes the life of the Church possible and is the basis for that life.

Seeing more clearly how the life of our body is joined up with the life of Jesus will be the next point.