Tag Archives: Union with Christ

Edward Taylor, Meditation 37.3 My soul, Lord, quails

10 Thursday Mar 2022

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The previous post on this poem may be found here.

Stanza Three

What is my title but an empty claim?

Am I a fading flower within thy knot?

A rattle, or a gilded box, a flame

Of painted fire, a glorious weedy spot?

The channel ope of union, the ground

Of wealth, relation: yet I’m barren found?

Notes

This stanza presents a series of images to set up an apparent contrast between appearance and realty in the Christian life. This contrast raises a conundrum of the Christian faith how can one right with God and have such remnants of sin? How can I be positionally right with God in Jesus Christ and at the same time have a time which does not fully conform to that reality?

This begins with the proposition that righteousness Christ’s righteousness which is received as a gift:

“DOCTRINE. Christ’s righteousness, received by faith, is the sinner’s only security to be depended upon before God. It is the sinner’s only shield, shelter and defence, from the wrath of God.”

Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: Sermons, Part 2, ed. Samuel M’Millan, vol. 4 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1849), 188. Now that righteousness is to work out a transformation, it is not supposed to be a bare name without reality:

“The apostle having shewed his desire of Christ’s righteousness, now comes to shew his desire also of having communion with Christ in his sufferings; shewing that whosoever brags of justification, he must shew it in his sanctification.”

Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 5 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson, 1863), 96. To hold that grace, that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, was aptly termed by Bonhoeffer “cheap grace”:

“Cheap grace means grace as bargain-basement goods, cut-rate forgiveness, cut-rate comfort, cut-rate sacrament; grace as the church’s inexhaustible pantry, from which it is doled out by careless hands without hesitation or limit. It is grace without a price, without costs. It is said that the essence of grace is that the bill for it is paid in advance for all time. Everything can be had for free, courtesy of that paid bill. The price paid is infinitely great and, therefore, the possibilities of taking advantage of and wasting grace are also infinitely great. What would grace be, if it were not cheap grace?”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, ed. Martin Kuske et al., trans. Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss, vol. 4, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 43.

The state of perfection will not be had in this life. As John Owen writes, “Indwelling sin always abides whilst we are in this world.” John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 10. This conflicting status creates an enduring conflict in the life of the Christian:

“We have a “body of death,” Rom. 7:24; from whence we are not delivered but by the death of our bodies, Phil. 3:21. Now, it being our duty to mortify, to be killing of sin whilst it is in us, we must be at work. He that is appointed to kill an enemy, if he leave striking before the other ceases living, doth but half his work, Gal. 6:9; Heb. 12:1; 2 Cor. 7:1.

2. Sin doth not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still labouring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh. When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it to be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion. Sin doth not only abide in us, but “the law of the members is still rebelling against the law of the mind,” Rom. 7:23; and “the spirit that dwells in us lusteth to envy,” James 4:5. It is always in continual work; “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit,” Gal. 5:17; lust is still tempting and conceiving sin, James 1:14; in every moral action it is always either inclining to evil, or hindering from that which is good, or disframing the spirit from communion with God.”

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 10–11.

This conflict and contrast is the background for Taylor’s despair. Does my life show the life of a true believer? He is not saying that he must be perfect, but he does ask do I show evidence of that fight, of that life?

He does this is a quick series of six images:

Title:

What is my title but an empty claim?

A title would give one the right to a status or property. I have the title of Knight, or title to some parcel of land. But what if I’m just parading a title which was not truly issued? What if the King did not actually make me a knight? What if the title to property bad title and someone else holds good title?

What if I only have a name without substance? This is the basic problem: Do I only pretend to be a Christian?

A dead flower

Am I a fading flower within thy knot?

A “knot” is a bouquet of flowers.  God has a bouquet of flowers, his true believers who have received life and righteousness. But me? Maybe I’m in the church physically as a flower in the knot, but I have no life.

An empty toy

A rattle,  A rattle makes a sound, it is merely a toy; it also has no reality of substance to the sound. It’s just an empty sound. Is my profession just a sound?

A gilded box

or a gilded box,

A gilded box would give the appearance of containing something precious, such as a jewel. But in this case it would be only the box without the contents.

A painting

a flame

Of painted fire,

Coleridge will more famously write

As idle as a painted ship

Upon a painted oceaen.

A fire would be burn; would give heat. A painted fire looks like a fire but has no reality beyond the appearance.

A ruined palace

a glorious weedy spot?

The location has been set aside for great works (a glorious … spot), but rather than a beautiful garden, or a palace, there are weeds. Am I someone who has been called and placed to this honor which is now a place of dishonor? A place which was called to be glorious and is in fact a pit? Weeds will appear by way of allusion in the following question.

And then a question

The channel ope of union, the ground

Of wealth, relation: yet I’m barren found?

He raises here the doctrine of the Union with Christ:

“The union that believers have with Christ in this life is perhaps nowhere more clear than in Christ’s reference to the vine and its branches: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” (John 15:1–2). How are we to interpret this passage of Scripture? All of our spiritual life, if we have any, must come from the Lord Jesus Christ. It flows from Him to us, as believers, by the gracious activity of His Holy Spirit. The evidence of our having this relationship of union with Christ is the fruit which is seen in our lives. This fruit is not measured in worldly terms, like success in business or commerce, but is to be recognized by the measure of our conformity to the character of Christ Himself: “Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22–23). To have a character and life which reflect these fruits is a sure evidence that we are “in Christ” and are being inwardly transformed into His likeness “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18).”

Roberts, Maurice. Union and Communion with Christ . Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.

Roberts explication of the doctrine lays out the problem of Taylor clearly: if I am in this union and if this union produces life, if there is a spiritual vigor which flows from the vine to the branch, where is that life?

Taylor expands the image slightly by including the relationship of wealth: I have a royal relationship. A Christians are said to be, “heirs of God and fellow heirs of Christ.” Rom. 8:17. If this royal status is true, then where is the reality of that status?

It seems I am barren.

The barren field raises a far more troubling possibility. The preceding images of one who has taken on the appearance of being a Christian, who claims the relationship, and yet there is no reality, is addressed in a related manner in a chilling “warning passage” of Hebrews which ends with the weedy – or barren – field:

“4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.”

Hebrews 6:4–8 (AV)

Am I the field which will be burned?

Edward Taylor, The Daintiest Draft.1

19 Saturday Dec 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Union With Christ

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Meditation 30, First Series

2 Cor. 5:17

This poem contains an interesting ambiguity in the way in the precise focus of poem is in places difficult to find. The overall thrust of the poem is a prayer that the Lord would repair the ruined palace of the human being. It is a prayer that the Lord would make the poet into something new

Lord, make me thy new creature. (line 45). Which comes from the text for the meditation, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature.” 2 Cor. 5:17.

The “palace” in need of repair is the human being. The ambiguity comes about by the unclear focus as to whether it is the poet or Christ who is immediately in view. To call the poet himself “the stateliest palace angels e’er did view” (3) seems wrong. That would necessarily be Christ, himself.  

It would also be appropriate to write that the palace had been spoiled by an enemy. In Isaiah 52:14, the prophet writes that “his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of man.”

In the second stanza, the poet writes

Thou wast more glorious than glory’s wealth. (8)

Again, this would be more appropriately addressed to Christ, than to read this as the poet writing thus of himself fin the second person. 

But then in line 26, Taylor writes

My Lord, repair thy palace. 

And the remainder of the poem unambiguously reckons the poet to be the palace to be repaired, with the prayer to be made a new creature being the sum of that prayer. The deliberate use of the word “palace” then brings us back to the first stanza and the reference to “the stateliest palace”. It is possible the move referenes to two separate palaces. 

But I suspect that Taylor is doing something else. The palace is the image of God which is the purpose and the created nature of each human being (“the image of thyself”). Jesus is the perfect representation of that image; human beings who were created to accurately reflect that image are now spoiled and need to be remade to display that image.

The ambiguity which runs in this poem in his moving between apparent references to Christ and then to the poet can be sorted by using Colossians 3:10 as a key:

And we have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. 

In Colossians 1:16 Paul identifies the creator as Christ, “For by him all things were created.” And in verse 15, Paul identified Christ as “the image of the invisible God.” 

The ambiguity in the poem as to the reference of the palace being renewed lies in the identification of the Christian with Christ. I think that Taylor is playing off of this identification and purposefully creating an ambiguity of a dual reference. This is inherent in text for the poem. Consider:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.

To be “in Christ” is to be the “new creature”. What appertains to Christ becomes in a manner impressed upon the creature in Christ. This identification of the individual believer with Christ lies at the heart of this poem. 

The first stanza sets up the problem:

The daintiest draft thy pencil ever drew

The finest vessel, Lord, thy fingers framed

The stateliest palace angels e’er did view

Under thy hatch betwixt decks here contained

Broke, marred, spoiled, undone, defiled doth lie

In rubbish ruined by thine enemy. 

It begins with a series of three parallel descriptions of the object of the poem: “The daintiest draft”, “the finest vessel,” “the stateliest palace.” Dainty no longer carries the same connotation as it did for Taylor, but the meaning is apparent by looking at the parallel construction: This is the finest which could be. To call a human being a “draft” (a drawing) is an interesting play on the concept of “image.”

A vessel and palace likewise make sense as that bears or displays something greater. 

As we have previously considered, the reference is ambiguous in that it appears to refer to Christ (who would be the greatest of all examples) and yet the reference in the end will be to Taylor and his prayer to be remade.

The fourth line creates a nearly impossible combination of metaphors: this draft, vessel, palace, is now stowed between the decks of a ship. A draft could easily fit below deck, but to put a ship or even more strangely a palace below deck is impossible. Perhaps the use of the word “vessel” in line 2 suggested a return to a ship in line 4.

This for Taylor must have been a vivid image, when we realize that he had taken a ship from England to New England in the 17th century, which would have been a couple of months in a cramped tiny ship in the middle of the Atlantic. That many things must be been spoiled below decks on these trips in the salt water and bilge I take for granted. 

And it is there in the depths of the vessel, churning on the sea, something of surpassing value. An enemy has thrown it into the bilge where is now ruined and sloshing in the half light.

a bilge pump

This is an apt image for the fallen human race; and for the head of the redeemed race, the Second Adam Christ as he was struck down at the cross. 

And before leaving this stanza we should know the alliteration:

The daintiest draft thy pencil ever drew

The finest vessel, Lord, thy fingers framed

The stateliest palace angels e’er did view

Under thy hatch betwixt decks here contained

Broke, marred, spoiled, undone, defiled doth lie

In rubbish ruined by thine enemy. 

Edward Taylor, My Shattered Fancy.4

22 Sunday Nov 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Puritan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

These two stanzas go together. Each stanza begins with “I being graft in thee.” From that follows the nature of the relationship which now exists between the two. The first of these stanzas speaks of the particular relationships which have come into being. The poet primarily takes on the feminine role; the Lord the masculine. Hence he is sister, mother, spouse. Dove is neutral but in the allusion to Canticles, dove is feminine:

Song of Solomon 6:9 (KJV 1900)
9 My dove, my undefiled is but one;
She is the only one of her mother,
She is the choice one of her that bare her.
The daughters saw her, and blessed her;
Yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

The ESV translates “undefiled” here as “my perfect one.”

The one characteristic which is unambiguously male is “son”. But in this context, it is the diminutive position, because the Lord is “father.”

Sister is likewise from Canticles (or Song of Solomon). Before reading this it should be noted that “sister” carries the emphasis of the intense closeness of the relationship is not meant to suggest something untoward:

Song of Solomon 4:9–12 (KJV 1900)
9 Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse;
Thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes,
With one chain of thy neck.
10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse!
How much better is thy love than wine!
And the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
11 Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb:
Honey and milk are under thy tongue;
And the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.
12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse;
A spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

As for “mother”, one may ask how the poet could be in the position of “mother” toward the Lord. The answer is from the Lord himself. When Jesus’ family heard he was in a house teaching, “his family heard of it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, ‘He is out of his mind.’” Mark 2:20-21.

As the family pressed for admittance, the matter came to Jesus’ attention:

Mark 3:31–35 (KJV 1900)
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

This also being another reference to “sister.”

As spouse:

Isaiah 54:5 (KJV 1900)
5 For thy Maker is thine husband;
The Lord of hosts is his name;
And thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel;
The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

The most extensive discussion of marriage in the New Testament, Ephesians 5:21-33, speaks directly of human marriage and then applies the same to Christ and the church.

I being graft in Thee, there up do stand
In us relations all that mutual are.
I am Thy patient, pupil, servant, and
Thy sister, mother, dove, spouse, son, and heir.
Thou art my priest, physician, prophet, king,
Lord, brother, bridegroom, father, everything.

The relationship of prophet, priest, king are considered to be the formal offices of Christ, as set forth in the Westminster Confession.

It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man,1 the Prophet,2 Priest,3 and King;4 the Head and Saviour of his Church,5 the Heir of all things,6 and Judge of the world;7 unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed,8 and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.9
As for Father, there is the refrain made famous in Messiah:

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV 1900)
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
And the government shall be upon his shoulder:
And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

In the next stanza on relationship, Taylor says that by being brought into relationship with Christ, he is brought into all of Christ’s relationships. Being in Christ, the relationships an angel has toward Christ are now Taylor’s relationship:
“I thy relations my relations name.”

I being graft in Thee I am grafted here
Into Thy family, and kindred claim
To all in heaven, God, saints, and angels there.
I Thy relations my relations name.
Thy father’s mine, Thy God my God, and I
With saints and angels draw affinity.

The relating of my God-your God, my Father, your Father comes Jesus’s words as he takes leave of Mary Magdalene following the Resurrection:

John 20:17 (KJV 1900)
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And so these two stanzas work out the nature of the new relationships gained by the poet upon his union with Christ. First, there are the transformation of the relationships between himself and Christ; and then the transformation of his relationships to others, because he is in Christ.

It cannot be developed here, but at the Fall in Genesis 3, the totality of relationships between the humans and Creation have fundamentally changed for the worse. But here, in God’s Garden, by being brought into relationship in Christ, there is a complete restoration of relationship between God and human; human and all other creatures.

Richard Sibbes Sermon on Canticles 7.5 (Union With Christ)

24 Thursday Oct 2019

Posted by in Richard Sibbes, Union With Christ

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Sibbes now moves on to the paradox of the church in this age. How can we be both simultaneous a saint and a sinner? “My undefiled.’ Undefiled is a high word to be applied to the church of God here; for the church, groaning under infirmities, to be counted perfect and undefiled.”

First argument: we cannot judge correctly. Only God is in a position to judge our state

But Christ, who judgeth aright of his church, and knows best what she is, he yet thus judgeth of her.

Second, on way basis does God make that judgement?

But, how is that? The church is undefiled, especially in that it is the spouse of Christ, and clothed with the robes of his righteousness.

Sibbes takes this from the doctrine of penal substitution atonement, such as set forth in

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor. 5:21

For there is an exchange so soon as ever we are united to Christ. Our sins are upon him, and his righteousness is made ours; and therefore in Christ the church is undefiled.

Since the church bears Christ’s righteousness, the church is undefiled. The Christian’s righteousness is gifted. The beauty of the Son is the greatest worth:

Christ himself the second person is the first lovely thing next the Father; and in Christ all things as they have relation to him are loved, as they are in him. Christ’s human nature is next loved to the second person. It is united, and is first pure, holy, and beloved.

He then comes back to the basis of the church’s righteousness: the righteousness of Christ is possessed by the church on the basis of the union between Christ and the church. “Christ mystical” means not a shadowy idea; but rather the spiritual union between Christ and his people:

Then, because the church is Christ mystical, it is near to him; and, in a manner, as near as that sacred body of his, both making up one Christ mystical. And so is amiable and beloved even of God himself, who hath pure eyes; yet in this respect looks upon the church as undefiled.

Christ and his church are not to be considered as two when we speak of this undefiledness, but as one. And the church having Christ, with all that is Christ’s, they have the field, and the pearl* in the field together. And Christ giving himself to the church, he gives his righteousness, his perfection, and holiness; all is the church’s.

Richard Sibbes Sermons on Canticles, Sermons 2.4

14 Friday Jun 2019

Posted by in Richard Sibbes, Song of Solomon, Uncategorized, Union With Christ

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The previous post on this sermon may be found here:

The next branch is,
III. Christ’s acceptation.

Sibbes here considers the words:

I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have gathered my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.’

Sibbes takes the general sense of the words to mean that Christ comes to his garden to gather the fruit raised upon by his own grace. Christ has engendered the profit of the Church. But he does not merely to receive, but he comes to bestow comfort and grace upon his people. This creates desire for even more Christ in his people

Whence we observe,
That God accepts of the graces of his children, and delights in them.

He then states three reasons why God accepts the graces of his children. First, because of the relationship he bears:

First, Because they are the fruits that come from his children, his spouse, his friend. Love of the person wins acceptance of that which is presented from the person. What comes from love is lovingly taken.

We far too often undervalue the nature of our relationship to God. He calls us by the closest and most enduring of relationships: son, wife, friend. The church is called, family, household, people and body. These are relationships which overcome difficulties.

The second reason God values the graces is due to their source:

Second, They are the graces of his Spirit. If we have anything that is good, all comes from the Spirit, which is first in Christ our husband, and then in us.

As Paul explains in 2 Corinthians 3:18, we are transformed into the glory of Christ by seeing the glory of Christ. And as it says 1 John 3:2, we will become like Christ when we see him as he is:

Christ sees his own face, beauty, glory, in his church; she reflects his beams; he looks in love upon her, and always with his looks conveys grace and comfort; and the, church doth reflect back again his grace. Therefore Christ loves but the reflection of his own graces in his children, and therefore accepts them.

This is precisely the purpose of being made in the image of God: it is to reflect God.

Finally, he accepts our graces due to his own gracious nature:

Third, His kindness is such as he takes all in good part. Christ is love and kindness itself. Why doth he give unto her the name of spouse and sister, but that he would be kind and loving, and that we should conceive so of him? We see, then, the graces of Christ accepting of us and what we do in his strength.

Sibbes then explains what we offer in light of what Christ has done in making an offering to God on our behalf:

Both we ourselves are sacrifices, and what we offer is a sacrifice acceptable to God, through him that offered himself as a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour, from which God smells a savour of rest. God accepts of Christ first, and then of us, and what comes from us in him.

Because of Christ has done, we may come to God:

We may boldly pray, as Ps. 20:3, ‘Lord, remember all our offerings, and accept all our sacrifices.’ The blessed apostle St Paul doth will us ‘to offer up ourselves,’ Rom. 12:1, a holy and acceptable sacrifice to God, when we are once in Christ. In the Old Testament we have divers manifestations of this acceptation. He accepted the sacrifice of Abel, as it is thought, by fire from heaven, and so Elijah’s sacrifice, and Solomon’s, by fire, 1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chron, 21:26.

He then concludes:

So in the New Testament he shewed his acceptation of the disciples meeting together, by a mighty wind, and then filling them with the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:3. But now the declaration of the acceptation of our persons, graces, and sacrifice that we offer to him, is most in peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Ghost, and from a holy fire of love kindled by the Spirit, whereby our sacrifices are burned. In the incense of prayer, how many sweet spices are burned together by this fire of faith working by love; as humility and patience in submitting to God’s will, hope of a gracious answer, holiness, love to others, &c.

Martin Lloyd-Jones, The Glorious Thing About Salvation

26 Saturday Aug 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized, Union With Christ

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

I argue, therefore, that we are not evangelizing truly unless we present this truth — that in salvation we are not merely forgiven and not only justified; the doctrine of salvation includes the base truth that we were in Ada but now are in Christ, that we are taken out of the one position and put into another. That is primitive evangelism, that is one of the basic elements in the presentation of the gospel; and therefore if we do not give it due emphasis we are not evangelizing truly. Evangelism is not simply saying ‘Come to Christ; He will do this or that and the other for you.’ No! The glorious thing about salvation is that I am taken out of Adam and that I have finished with him, and am dead to sin. I am in Christ, and all the blessings that come to me come because of my union with Christ. I want to emphasize this. ‘Know ye not.” Haven’t you realized, haven’t you grasped, haven’t you understood.

Martin Lloyd Jones, The New Man, Romans 6:3

Edward Taylor: Raptures of Love.1

29 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by in 2 Corinthians, Ascension, Christology, Edward Taylor, Jonathan Edwards, Joy, Literature, Love, Meditation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Raptures of love, surprising loveliness,
That burst through heavens all, in rapid flashes,
Glances guilt o’re with smiling comeliness!
Wonders do palefac’d stand smit by such dashes.
Glory itself heartsick of love doth lie
Bleeding out love o’re loveless me and die.

Line 1:
Rather than begin with the expected iamb, the poem begins with an accented syllable: Raptures. (One might have expected something like “Now raptures”.) Taylor intends to convey the sensation of being startled.

Rapture is an interesting word because it means to grab something and transport it elsewhere. The love which Taylor sees does not merely stand before him like picture: it grabs hold of him. He does not merely see the “flashes” (line 2), he is being transported.

The Scripture makes plain that God’s love does stand idly outside of the human being, but rather the love of God in Jesus Christ must transform us:

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 2 Corinthians 5:17.

Taylor puns on the word “love” by using it as a noun and as an adjective. The effect is to make “loveliness” mean more than mere delight — it is something which is attractive because it contains and conveys love.

Line 2:
“Heavens all”: Since the word “heaven” refers to the atmosphere, “outer space” and the place of God beyond the physical creation [heaven is not simply “far away”], the biblical writers will use the word “heavens” to refer to all three.

Jesus Christ at this time sits at the right hand of majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3). He is communicated to us by operation of the Holy Spirit.

Line 3
“Guilt o’re” covered in gold. The accented first syllable forces the movement forward in rapid fashion, thus the structure mirrors the content.

Line 4:
“Wonders” are looking on at the beauty of Christ the High Priest and feel shame and wonder.

Line 5:
Glory personified looks at the glory of Christ and falls lovesick. The image seems to be suggested by Canticles 5:8, “I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of love.”

Line 6:
Taylor expresses the conflict of the saint who knows more than he feels. He knows that he should be as enraptured with the beauty of Christ as Wonder and Glory, but also sees that his affections are cold–thus, he is “loveless”.

It is strange and unfair that Puritans are thought to be dour, passionless people. While they openly condemned sin it was because sin is the cheat of joy and passion. Taylor, in full accord with Puritan teaching, hopes for greater passion and more love. The desire for passion and joy lay at the heart of Puritan teaching. Go to edwards.yale.edu and search for the words “beauty” (2480 entries) “joy” (3379).

Taylor will look upon his loveless in the 7th stanza (What strange congealed heart have I).

The last verb “die” is a bit ambiguous because the form is first person singular (die) not third person (dies). However, it seems best to understand Glory which is bleeding with love to be the subject who dies. The “wrong” form was dictated by the rhyme.

John Flavel, The Method of Grace.6

23 Sunday Jun 2013

Posted by in 2 Corinthians, Adoption, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Ephesians, Glorification, John Flavel, Justification, Sanctification, Union With Christ

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous entry will be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/john-flavel-the-method-of-grace-5/

Prop. 8. Lastly, Although the several privileges and benefits before mentioned are all true and really bestowed with Christ upon believers, yet they are not communicated to them in one and the same day and manner; but differently and divers, as their respective natures do require.

Christians have often been perplexed by the relationship between grace and holiness: other making the relationship with God solely a one paying a mountainous, unpayable debt; or one of a God who forgives and forgets.  One person strives for perfection and thinks all others vicious scoff-laws. Another thinks any effort at all makes one a “legalist”. Flavel shows that both are dangerously wrong.

Flavel explains that in union with Christ we gain a whole – not a partial Christ:

That the lord Jesus Christ, with all his precious benefits, becomes ours, by God’s special and effectual application.

Thus, the believer – in Union with Christ – does receive the righteousness of Christ, but also receives wisdom, sanctification, and redemption.  However, one does not receive wisdom in the same way on receives righteousness:

These four illustrious benefits are conveyed from Christ to us in three different ways and methods:

his righteousness is made ours by imputation;

his wisdom and sanctification by renovation;

 his redemption by our glorification.

Flavel’s explanation helps to make sense of the seemingly difficult balance between grace and good works, between faith and perseverance.  The difficulty comes from the seeming contradiction of

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48 (ESV)

And

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Romans 4:5 (ESV)

How can we counted righteous in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and be called onto holiness (Hebrews 12:14).

Flavel explains that we are brought into a relationship with Christ by means of imputed righteous; however, that righteousness is not the end but rather the beginning of the renovation. God does not merely impute righteous, but he also imparts a transforming holiness.

An analogy may help:  Imagine two children in a household, an adopted son and a neighboring child. Now, the son does not gain or lose his status as a son on the basis of his immediate behavior.  The father’s act of adoption created the relationship with the child: it was an initial, gracious act of love to bring the child into a household.

It is only by such adoption that we are brought in to relationship with God in Jesus Christ, “In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:4b-5a). No amount of effort in the child can ever create the initial bond of adoption. Just like the neighbor’s child can never become a son merely by being quick to obey; nor will the adopted son’s disobedience undo that relationship.

However, a loving father will not leave adopted child without attention, care, concern or love. The father will train, correct and raise up his child. For instance, let us pretend a child is adopted from a country where English is not spoken, but lives in a family in the United States. Loving parents will teach the child English. The parents will impart knowledge to the child to be able to live in his new surroundings.

Likewise, God having adopted us does not leave us as we were, but rather imparts wisdom and sanctification – change – to us:

But in conveying, and communicating his wisdom and sanctification, he takes another method, for this is not imputed, but really imparted to us by the illuminating and regenerating work of the Spirit: these are graces really inherent in us: our righteousness comes from Christ as a surety but our holiness comes from him as a quickening head, sending vital influences unto all his members.

Now these gracious habits being subjected and seated in the souls of poor imperfect creatures, whose corruptions abide and work in the very same faculties where grace has its residence; it cannot be, that our sanctification should be so perfect and complete, as our justification is, which inheres only in Christ. See Gal. 5: 17

In Union with Christ, the Holy Spirit transforms the human being who has been brought into relationship with God in Jesus Christ:

16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:16–18 (ESV)

The one for whom the veil is removed is the one who has been brought into relationship with Jesus Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit. However, the Spirit’s work does not end with merely removing the veil. The veil is removed so that the change will begin.

Now, the one who does not change gives every appearance of being one who still wears the veil. While change takes place in a combustible heart which has not been freed of all corruption, the change must take place. A child who has neither breath nor heartbeat is not alive.

Finally, one receives redemption as the capstone of adoption (Romans 8:16-22):

For redemption, that is to say, absolute and plenary deliverance from all the sad remains, effects, and consequences of sin, both upon soul and body; this is made ours, (or, to keep to the terms) Christ is made redemption to us by glorification; then, and not before, are these miserable effects removed; we put off these together with the body.

Not until our bodies are redeemed (Romans 8:22) will we receive glorification – but glorification is the end which beings with justification:

So that look, as justification cures the guilt of sin, and sanctification the dominion of sin, so glorification removes, together with its existence and being, all those miseries which it let in (as at a flood-gate) upon our whole man, Eph. 5: 26, 27.

 And thus of God, Christ is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption; namely, by imputation, regeneration, and glorification.

What Weight Should One Grant the Doctrine of Union With Christ?

16 Sunday Jun 2013

Posted by in Union With Christ

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Perhaps few of us are accustomed to view this subject in its due bearing, and to attach to it its due consideration. And yet it is indeed the very centre-piece of the Christian system, and that into which all those doctrines which relate to God’s grace towards man fit, and by which they are held together, and kept in harmony.

Charles Abel Heurtley. “The union between Christ and his people, 4 sermons.” 1842, Sermon 1.