Tag Archives: Union with Christ

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.

Hope Fetches Holiness

06 Thursday Jun 2013

Posted by in 1 Peter, Election, Exodus, Hope, Isaiah, Mortification, Obedience, Praise, Sanctification, Union With Christ

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

(Some rough notes on 1 Peter 2:9)

1 Peter 2:9 (ESV)

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

The first and last clauses in 1 Peter 2:9 come from Isaiah 43:21:

Isaiah 43:18–21 (ESV)

            18         “Remember not the former things,

nor consider the things of old.

            19         Behold, I am doing a new thing;

now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?

                        I will make a way in the wilderness

and rivers in the desert.

            20         The wild beasts will honor me,

the jackals and the ostriches,

                        for I give water in the wilderness,

rivers in the desert,

                        to give drink to my chosen people,

            21         the people whom I formed for myself

                        that they might declare my praise.

 

In referencing Isaiah 43, Peter brings the salvation of the Christians into an eschatological focus. Young states that the “new thing” brought about God “is the wondrous redemption that was wrought for His people when the promised Messiah died upon the Cross of Golgotha” (156). That is true – but it is not the end of what God is doing.

Delitzsch writes:

He [Isaiah] knows that when the suffering of the people of God shall be brought ot an end, the sufferings of creation will terminate; for humanity is the heart of the universe, and the people of God (understanding by this the people of God according to the Spirit) are the heart of humanity (197).

This is the point of Paul in Romans 8 speaking of the adoption of the sons of God:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Romans 8:18–25 (ESV)

The redemption wrought by Christ is the beginning of the transformation of the entire physical creation. Christ has not merely wrought salvation as an escape from the world – rather, Christ’s work has utterly transformed the entire nature of everything.

Smedes comments (Union With Christ):

God wanted a new creation with people in it who were His people, and this was His election. He elected a kingdom with a King, a body with a Head, a people with  a leader, a universe with a Lord, and sinners with a Savior. He elected in the comprehensive Christ, the Christ who was – in faith – first defined as “Lord of All.” (90).

The purpose of this work – this choosing and creating – is worship:

Israel is to recount, not its own merit, but God’s praises. It is His grace and love they are to declare, not their own works and achievement. Herein is stated the purpose of Israel’s election; they are to be a people that will praise their God (Young, Isaiah, vol. 3, 158)[1].

Indeed, as Calvin notes, salvation is given to glorify God:

This people have I created for myself. The Prophet means that the Lord will necessarily do what he formerly said, because it concerns his glory to preserve the people whom he has chosen for himself; and therefore these words are intended for the consolation of the people. “Do you think that I will suffer my glory to fall to the ground? It is connected with your salvation, and therefore your salvation shall be the object of my care. In a word, know that you shall be saved, because you cannot perish, unless my glory likewise perish. Ye shall therefore survive, because I wish that you may continually proclaim my glory.”

John Calvin and William Pringle, vol. 3, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 344. Our salvation is thus anchored in God’s desire for his glory. And it is for his glory that we will persevere – and for his glory that we will exist. Thus, our salvation glorifies God – and our praises which naturally flow from the recognition of our salvation glorify God.

The middle section of 1 Peter 2:9 derives from Exodus 19 and the making of the covenant with Israel at Sinai:

Exodus 19:5–6 (ESV)

5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

It is of interest that Peter quotes a conditional promise, “If you will indeed obey my voice ….”  One great purpose of the OT is prove that Israel did not keep the command of God. Indeed, the promise of Isaiah hinges upon Israel being driven from the land due to their disobedience. How then can this promise be granted if the condition has failed?

Peter’s entire framework assumes the New Covenant. Yes, the Old Covenant failed, but God has raised Jesus from dead and granted us hope. He has redeemed us from the curse. We have been sprinkled with the blood of Christ – which recalls the sprinkling of Moses to institute Old Covenant (Exodus 24:8).

Paul’s language in Galatians 4 draws out the significance of Peter’s argument:

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Galatians 4:4–7 (ESV)

The law brought its curse – but Christ came redeemed those born under the curse of the law. And not only did he redeem those so cursed, but he even extended adoption.  In Romans 8, Paul writes that the full extent of the adoption will be the restoration of the physical order. Peter quotes Isaiah 43 which shows that the culmination of the return from exile will be the transformation of the physical order (deserts, beasts, water). And while certainly such images help us picture the spiritual restoration of redemption – there is no reason to think that spiritual restoration will not entail physical transformation of the very  stuff of creation (especially when it is explicitly so promised).

The comprehensive work of God – physical and spiritual – extends from the incarnation of Christ (note Peter’s very physical and transcendent Christ: was “made manifest”, he bled, he died, he was physically resurrected – and “he was foreknown before the foundation of the world”).  Since the transformation is not merely “spiritual” it rightly claims our entire life.

Thus the “rules” of this new life (set forth by Peter) rightly extend to our entire life. Moreover, the difficulty of the rules does not lie in the things required – but rather requiring them in a world cursed by sin.  The difficulty with the law lies (in part/in whole?)in its conflict with the present age. Certainly living as one who belongs to the age to come will create conflict with the present age (and those who are not part of the new creation).

Accordingly since the structure of life must be aligned to the dawning age, our strength to obey must be fetched from the age to come.  There can be no holiness in this age without hope of the age to come. Holiness is an eschatological orientation. Hope fetches holiness

 

[1]

This brings us back to the main proposition of the chapter, namely, that Jehovah had not only made them what they were, but had made them for the purpose of promoting His own glory, so that any claim of merit on their part, and any apprehension of entire destruction, must be equally unfounded.

 

John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Carl Wilhelm Eduard Nägelsbach et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 470.