Saturday, November 3, 2007
Rats with Pretty Tails & How to Deal With Them
Thank you, Darryl, for alerting me to this simple solution to my squirrel problem.
Bad N.T. Wright
The bishop exudes moral outrage--but not at the extremists. Wright reserves the weight of his scorn for the United States and Great Britain and their foreign policies since the attacks of 9/11.
In the address in Durham, delivered last November, Wright condemned not only the war in Iraq, but also the U.S.-led coalition that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan--a military offensive unanimously approved by the U.N. Security Council. He compared the United States to a "rogue elephant teased by a little dog," staggering along on a militaristic rampage and "imposing the will of the West" on hapless populations. A first century historian, Wright can't help but regard America as ancient Rome, nurturing similar imperial dreams: "All empires claim they possess justice, freedom and peace and that they have a duty to share these things with everybody else." Imperialism, in fact, is a recurrent theme. "We have relied on the same methods as we used in the nineteenth century," he said. "If in doubt, send in the gunboats and teach Johnny Foreigner a lesson he won't forget." And, as if the imperial metaphor weren't crude enough, Wright reached for a cartoon reference: "The Superman myth, or the Captain America complex, has been shown to underlie the implicit narratives of generation after generation of American leaders," he claimed, "generating the belief that the hero must use redemptive violence to restore the town, the country, the world to its proper state."
America as deranged elephant-cum-Caesar-cum-superhero: These hardly qualify as accusations, much less as arguments. The failures of the Bush doctrine in the Middle East are both numerous and grievous. The hubris of those who acted as if democracy-building were "a cakewalk" in broken societies like Afghanistan and Iraq boggles the mind. But can America's historic struggle against tyranny--Nazism, Communism and, now, Islamic radicalism--be denigrated as the product of a cartoon-shaped ego? It all begins to sound like the lament of an embittered utopian: the moralist who cannot reconcile his ideals with the morally ambiguous world in which he finds himself.
From N.T. Wright Gets It Wrong by Joseph Loconte.
In the address in Durham, delivered last November, Wright condemned not only the war in Iraq, but also the U.S.-led coalition that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan--a military offensive unanimously approved by the U.N. Security Council. He compared the United States to a "rogue elephant teased by a little dog," staggering along on a militaristic rampage and "imposing the will of the West" on hapless populations. A first century historian, Wright can't help but regard America as ancient Rome, nurturing similar imperial dreams: "All empires claim they possess justice, freedom and peace and that they have a duty to share these things with everybody else." Imperialism, in fact, is a recurrent theme. "We have relied on the same methods as we used in the nineteenth century," he said. "If in doubt, send in the gunboats and teach Johnny Foreigner a lesson he won't forget." And, as if the imperial metaphor weren't crude enough, Wright reached for a cartoon reference: "The Superman myth, or the Captain America complex, has been shown to underlie the implicit narratives of generation after generation of American leaders," he claimed, "generating the belief that the hero must use redemptive violence to restore the town, the country, the world to its proper state."
America as deranged elephant-cum-Caesar-cum-superhero: These hardly qualify as accusations, much less as arguments. The failures of the Bush doctrine in the Middle East are both numerous and grievous. The hubris of those who acted as if democracy-building were "a cakewalk" in broken societies like Afghanistan and Iraq boggles the mind. But can America's historic struggle against tyranny--Nazism, Communism and, now, Islamic radicalism--be denigrated as the product of a cartoon-shaped ego? It all begins to sound like the lament of an embittered utopian: the moralist who cannot reconcile his ideals with the morally ambiguous world in which he finds himself.
From N.T. Wright Gets It Wrong by Joseph Loconte.
Friday, November 2, 2007
And the Sign Said You Have to Have a Membership Card to Get Inside
Ponder this paragraph from Michael Bauman's Pilgrim Theology (Summit, 2007):
". . . young theologians are right to believe that if they write with candor, imagination, or creativity about certain theological realities many doors will close to them. They will not be able to make a living. They will not be allowed to participate in the life and activities of various important institutions and professional societies. Participation in new research and in publication programs will be denied them. Influential people will be alienated, and the opinion that a particular young theologian is unsound and unsafe will be disseminated quickly, widely, and slanderously — all under the pretense that evangelical scholarship is objective, reflective, and teachable. Pressure is exerted either to accommodate (i.e., to dissemble) or to leave: 'We'll have none of that kind of thinking around here!' they are told. Those who agree, and those who can and do accommodate, become the teachers of the next generation; and they perpetuate this sinister tyranny on those who follow. Those who do not accommodate are excluded and are believed to be the enemy. The danger to truth and to integrity can hardly be greater. In theology, as in politics, there are dictatorships it is our sacred duty to oppose, if not overthrow" (p. 40).
". . . young theologians are right to believe that if they write with candor, imagination, or creativity about certain theological realities many doors will close to them. They will not be able to make a living. They will not be allowed to participate in the life and activities of various important institutions and professional societies. Participation in new research and in publication programs will be denied them. Influential people will be alienated, and the opinion that a particular young theologian is unsound and unsafe will be disseminated quickly, widely, and slanderously — all under the pretense that evangelical scholarship is objective, reflective, and teachable. Pressure is exerted either to accommodate (i.e., to dissemble) or to leave: 'We'll have none of that kind of thinking around here!' they are told. Those who agree, and those who can and do accommodate, become the teachers of the next generation; and they perpetuate this sinister tyranny on those who follow. Those who do not accommodate are excluded and are believed to be the enemy. The danger to truth and to integrity can hardly be greater. In theology, as in politics, there are dictatorships it is our sacred duty to oppose, if not overthrow" (p. 40).
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The Extra Mile - Matt. 5:38-42
It was still dark as David approached the crest of the little ridge. The eastern horizon was not even gray. It was early. But he knew this trail well. Every morning before dawn and every evening before dark, he would walk down to the well and carry water back to his family in town. His father depended on him and he was pleased to help.
He heard them before he saw them as he crested the hill. If he hadn’t been looking at the ground and daydreaming he might have noticed the flicker of the torch before he almost walked into them.
He had never seen so much as single Roman solider on this trail before. Every day, morning-by-morning he would travel down to the stream for the morning’s water without incident.
What are soldiers doing here? What business could they have in this part of Galilee? What do they want?
The torchlight allowed him to quickly assess the situation: it was a small Roman unit, about 10 men.
Behind them he noticed what looked like a man in civilian clothes. He was pulling a small cart.
The unit was stopping.
David tried to back down the ridge slowly, but it was too late.
“You there!”
It was the man out front speaking in the common language. But he was moving to the rear to do something. He barked a few commands to his men in the Roman tongue.
If he called out to me, David wondered, why was he approaching the person in the rear? Perhaps it wasn’t me. David began to back down the hill again.
“Hey, where are you going? Come here, I said!” Now the Roman was looking at him.
His stomach leapt, his heart sank and they merged into one expanding lump in his chest. He had never been this close to Roman soldiers.
But the soldiers seemed bored, moved to sit down, and paid no attention to him. The man pulling the cart said sheepishly, “So much for my duty. 1000 paces.” His expression was plaintive. The solider in charge grunted, made a swift “don’t bother me” motion with his arm, and turned to walk toward David.
David wondered how they had found this man to pull their cart in the darkness of the evening? He didn’t want to know.
But now the Roman marching right up to him. He looked down at David, a good two heads taller. “What is in your container, boy?”
“Water for my family, sir. I am just now returning from the well.”
“Hmmm. We need it. Fill the canteens of my men.”
Oh, he thought, he prayed, Lord, if only this, just this.
“And when you are finished,” he continued, “fill the container in the cart at the rear.”
“Yes, sir.”
When he finished filling their skins and topped of their reserve water David started off down the hill to fill his jug again, but the soldier called again, “Boy, don’t go yet. Come with me.” They walked to the rear of the column.
The man who had been pulling the cart was standing tense. His eyes met David’s. He was a fellow Jew. The man looked insulted, then turned his eyes on the solider and David gasped. The hatred was unmistakable. He had seen that look before on his uncle, the zealot, and resistance leader. Put a weapon in this man’s hand, David thought, and the Roman would be dead.
But now the soldier was speaking to David: “The cart is not heavy and you are young and strong. We need you to pull the cart for a while. We’ll move out again in a moment.” The solder turned and walked toward his men.
The Jewish man began to walk back in the direction from which they soldiers came.
Need me, David thought. Ten Roman soldiers, each 5 times as strong as me and you need me? But he suppressed his angry sarcasm. Then he remembered. Isn’t this precisely what Messiah, Jesus, had encouraged them to do as disciples? He had heard his father and his pastor talk about just this.
He was disappointed. Somehow he thought the occasion might be a bit more dignified. Not something like this, back behind the village, no one at all in sight, the light of the sun just now graying the horizon. This was ridiculous. He felt neither love nor hate, only annoyance. Nor did he care at all what happened to these miserable Roman soldiers. What options do I have, he thought.
But he stood by the cart until orders were given and the troop set out again.
Well, the Roman was right: the cart was not very heavy and the path was level, so it wasn’t bad at all.
As they marched, the troopers’ armor made noise like sea shells bouncing in a wicker basket. And walking behind them, he noticed the smell. Not simply hot, unwashed soldiers, but something more. Then he remembered. That new smell he had encountered for the first time shoulder-to-shoulder with Gentiles in the mixed crowds that followed Joshua Messiah and in the assembly of the disciples every week. Shellfish, pork, and whatnot. It came out of their pores. He would have a hard time getting used to it.
He daydreamed most of the time. But when the leader commanded his men to halt, he noticed they had stopped by a small house. The soldier went to the door. He couldn’t hear the conversation, but the soldier came back to his troops with an armful of vegetables and with a man trailing him.
“Your duty is done, boy. You may return to your village.”
David looked at the man behind the soldier. The man diverted his eyes and looked as if he shrugged.
David said, “No sir, I’ll go on with you. I’m fine.”
The soldier’s eyebrows rose, and the man behind him looked shocked. “Let me guess, “the Roman said, “You are a disciple of Jesus. Right?”
“Correct, sir. I will serve you for another march.”
The Roman shook his head and winked at the other man, “I guess you can go back home. This boy is a disciple of that crucified-fellow. They are an odd lot.”
David wondered if he was mocking him. But when the Roman turned back to his troopers, he thought he saw something more than mockery in his expression. Was it curiosity? At least that, maybe more. David prayed for the man. Didn’t some Roman soldiers follow Jesus? He was sure of it. Maybe this man would be one of them some day.
When they finally stopped again, David’s arms were stiff and his feet hurt. When he set the cart down, he also sat down to rest. When the Roman finished speaking with his men, he walked to the rear.
“Go, boy. You have done your duty and more.”
Before David could respond, the soldier had turned and addressed his men in the Roman tongue. One of the men came over and stood by David. What now? David thought.
“Lucius will take the cart from here. You are free. Go home.”
“Yes, sir.” David said. “Thank you, sir.”
As he turned to go he noticed for the first time that morning how bright the new day was. The sun was well over the horizon. He surveyed the trail, following it back with his eye up and over the little hill behind him. The path back home was now quite evident. He would not get lost. He smiled. Everyone would be worried about him, but he knew when he returned his father would be pleased.
He heard them before he saw them as he crested the hill. If he hadn’t been looking at the ground and daydreaming he might have noticed the flicker of the torch before he almost walked into them.
He had never seen so much as single Roman solider on this trail before. Every day, morning-by-morning he would travel down to the stream for the morning’s water without incident.
What are soldiers doing here? What business could they have in this part of Galilee? What do they want?
The torchlight allowed him to quickly assess the situation: it was a small Roman unit, about 10 men.
Behind them he noticed what looked like a man in civilian clothes. He was pulling a small cart.
The unit was stopping.
David tried to back down the ridge slowly, but it was too late.
“You there!”
It was the man out front speaking in the common language. But he was moving to the rear to do something. He barked a few commands to his men in the Roman tongue.
If he called out to me, David wondered, why was he approaching the person in the rear? Perhaps it wasn’t me. David began to back down the hill again.
“Hey, where are you going? Come here, I said!” Now the Roman was looking at him.
His stomach leapt, his heart sank and they merged into one expanding lump in his chest. He had never been this close to Roman soldiers.
But the soldiers seemed bored, moved to sit down, and paid no attention to him. The man pulling the cart said sheepishly, “So much for my duty. 1000 paces.” His expression was plaintive. The solider in charge grunted, made a swift “don’t bother me” motion with his arm, and turned to walk toward David.
David wondered how they had found this man to pull their cart in the darkness of the evening? He didn’t want to know.
But now the Roman marching right up to him. He looked down at David, a good two heads taller. “What is in your container, boy?”
“Water for my family, sir. I am just now returning from the well.”
“Hmmm. We need it. Fill the canteens of my men.”
Oh, he thought, he prayed, Lord, if only this, just this.
“And when you are finished,” he continued, “fill the container in the cart at the rear.”
“Yes, sir.”
When he finished filling their skins and topped of their reserve water David started off down the hill to fill his jug again, but the soldier called again, “Boy, don’t go yet. Come with me.” They walked to the rear of the column.
The man who had been pulling the cart was standing tense. His eyes met David’s. He was a fellow Jew. The man looked insulted, then turned his eyes on the solider and David gasped. The hatred was unmistakable. He had seen that look before on his uncle, the zealot, and resistance leader. Put a weapon in this man’s hand, David thought, and the Roman would be dead.But now the soldier was speaking to David: “The cart is not heavy and you are young and strong. We need you to pull the cart for a while. We’ll move out again in a moment.” The solder turned and walked toward his men.
The Jewish man began to walk back in the direction from which they soldiers came.
Need me, David thought. Ten Roman soldiers, each 5 times as strong as me and you need me? But he suppressed his angry sarcasm. Then he remembered. Isn’t this precisely what Messiah, Jesus, had encouraged them to do as disciples? He had heard his father and his pastor talk about just this.
He was disappointed. Somehow he thought the occasion might be a bit more dignified. Not something like this, back behind the village, no one at all in sight, the light of the sun just now graying the horizon. This was ridiculous. He felt neither love nor hate, only annoyance. Nor did he care at all what happened to these miserable Roman soldiers. What options do I have, he thought.
But he stood by the cart until orders were given and the troop set out again.
Well, the Roman was right: the cart was not very heavy and the path was level, so it wasn’t bad at all.
As they marched, the troopers’ armor made noise like sea shells bouncing in a wicker basket. And walking behind them, he noticed the smell. Not simply hot, unwashed soldiers, but something more. Then he remembered. That new smell he had encountered for the first time shoulder-to-shoulder with Gentiles in the mixed crowds that followed Joshua Messiah and in the assembly of the disciples every week. Shellfish, pork, and whatnot. It came out of their pores. He would have a hard time getting used to it.
He daydreamed most of the time. But when the leader commanded his men to halt, he noticed they had stopped by a small house. The soldier went to the door. He couldn’t hear the conversation, but the soldier came back to his troops with an armful of vegetables and with a man trailing him.
“Your duty is done, boy. You may return to your village.”
David looked at the man behind the soldier. The man diverted his eyes and looked as if he shrugged.
David said, “No sir, I’ll go on with you. I’m fine.”
The soldier’s eyebrows rose, and the man behind him looked shocked. “Let me guess, “the Roman said, “You are a disciple of Jesus. Right?”
“Correct, sir. I will serve you for another march.”
The Roman shook his head and winked at the other man, “I guess you can go back home. This boy is a disciple of that crucified-fellow. They are an odd lot.”
David wondered if he was mocking him. But when the Roman turned back to his troopers, he thought he saw something more than mockery in his expression. Was it curiosity? At least that, maybe more. David prayed for the man. Didn’t some Roman soldiers follow Jesus? He was sure of it. Maybe this man would be one of them some day.
When they finally stopped again, David’s arms were stiff and his feet hurt. When he set the cart down, he also sat down to rest. When the Roman finished speaking with his men, he walked to the rear.
“Go, boy. You have done your duty and more.”
Before David could respond, the soldier had turned and addressed his men in the Roman tongue. One of the men came over and stood by David. What now? David thought.
“Lucius will take the cart from here. You are free. Go home.”
“Yes, sir.” David said. “Thank you, sir.”
As he turned to go he noticed for the first time that morning how bright the new day was. The sun was well over the horizon. He surveyed the trail, following it back with his eye up and over the little hill behind him. The path back home was now quite evident. He would not get lost. He smiled. Everyone would be worried about him, but he knew when he returned his father would be pleased.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Son of God - Part IX (Conclusion)
Continued from Part VIII.
What is new about the kingdom in the New Testament? When John the Baptist and Jesus proclaimed that the kingdom of God was “at hand” (Mt. 3:2; 4:17) what did they mean? In what way was it only then “at hand”? What is the content of the Good News as it relates the kingdom of God? It is surely not simply that God rules. He has always ruled over his creation. The Old Testament proclaims that God is already king, not only of Israel (Judges 8:23; 1 Sam. 8:6; Ps. 99), but also of the whole earth (Ps. 22:28, 103:19; etc.). The preaching of the kingdom of God in the New Testament is not merely that God as God is King. There’s nothing new about such an assertion. Rather, the newness of the kingdom in the New Testament has to do with the fact that now, since his resurrection and ascension, the man Christ Jesus has become Lord . This is how the reign of God has arrived, according to the apostolic kerygma. The originally intended divine order for earth, with man properly situated as ruler at God’s right hand, has been accomplished in the installation of Jesus as the Son of God.
All of these typological/symbolic images (son, image, right hand, firstborn, kingdom, ruler, house-builder, etc.) coalesce in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the one appointed Son of God with power. Jesus has ascended to his throne as both the Son of David and the Last Adam. He fulfilled not only the prophetic promises about a Davidic king, but also God’s plan for both Adam and Israel. He embodies , as the God-man, the Lord God’s intentions for both Israel and mankind in general. “For all the promises of God are Yes! and Amen! in him” (2 Cor. 1:20).
Although it is true that Jesus is called “my Son” by God the Father at a number of points in his life and “son of God” by others (at his conception/birth [Luke 1:32, 35; 3:35, 38]; baptism [Mt. 3:17; Lk. 3:22]; transfiguration [Mk. 9:7; Luke 9:35]; crucifixion [Mt. 27:54; Mk. 15:39]; and with reference to his resurrection [Acts 13:33-34; Rom. 1:4]), nevertheless, it is not accurate to say, as Craige does, that “the coronation of Jesus took place throughout his ministry” (Peter Craige, Psalms 1-50, [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983], p. 69) Such a mistake appears to be based once again on the error of thinking that “Son of God” is a technical term. This time, however, unlike the systematic theologians mentioned earlier who cannot but seem to read “son of God” without thinking “second person of the Trinity,” Craige assumes that it always refers to Jesus Davidic kingship.
There are different senses, therefore, in which Jesus is called Son. He is the Son from eternity (Jn. 1:18), the Son from his conception and assumption our human nature (the Last Adam, Luke 1:35; 3:38), the Son at his baptism as he is anointed as Messiah and commissioned as the one who will first serve (Isa. 42:1), which service is consummated at his self-sacrificial death (Mk. 15:39), and finally, the Son of God with power at his resurrection, ascension, and enthronement when he is publicly invested with the fullness of Messianic authority (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33-34; Rom. 1:4).
By assigning the title “Son of God with power” to Jesus in Rom. 1:4 Paul designates him as the fulfillment and current bearer of Israel's servant-king role in the world. Although Israel was once gifted with all of the privileges and responsibilities of God’s son(s) (Ex. 4:22, 23; Deut. 14;1; 32:6, 18; Jer. 31:9, 19; Hos. 11:1) and in her Davidic kings this royal status was individually embodied, nevertheless, all such filial arrangements are now, with the resurrection of Christ, shown to be provisional and typological. Jesus has been appointed or installed as the “Son of God with power.”
What is even more astonishing is that Jesus does not, so to speak, hold on to his Sonship for himself. The Spirit of the “Son” is the Spirit of adoption (Gal. 4:5), so that together with the Son as the “firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29) are the sons, who are “called to belong to him” and thereby “loved by God” (Rom. 1: 6-7; Gal. 4:7) and as such are “heirs” in union with him (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7). We are gifted with the privilege of sonship by grace only in union with the incarnate Son. The word "son" is used 12 times in Romans (1:3, 4, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 14, 19, 29, 32; 9:9, 26, 27), which is by far the largest number of references to Jesus sonship in any of Paul’s epistles. Moreover, the distribution of references to sonship, both Jesus’ and the Christian’s, reveal two clusters—one in Paul’s introduction, where he summarizes the basic kerygmatic content of the Gospel (Rom. 1:1-17) and the other in Romans 8 (vss. 3, 14, 19, 29, 32), where our sonship is particularly in view.
What is new about the kingdom in the New Testament? When John the Baptist and Jesus proclaimed that the kingdom of God was “at hand” (Mt. 3:2; 4:17) what did they mean? In what way was it only then “at hand”? What is the content of the Good News as it relates the kingdom of God? It is surely not simply that God rules. He has always ruled over his creation. The Old Testament proclaims that God is already king, not only of Israel (Judges 8:23; 1 Sam. 8:6; Ps. 99), but also of the whole earth (Ps. 22:28, 103:19; etc.). The preaching of the kingdom of God in the New Testament is not merely that God as God is King. There’s nothing new about such an assertion. Rather, the newness of the kingdom in the New Testament has to do with the fact that now, since his resurrection and ascension, the man Christ Jesus has become Lord . This is how the reign of God has arrived, according to the apostolic kerygma. The originally intended divine order for earth, with man properly situated as ruler at God’s right hand, has been accomplished in the installation of Jesus as the Son of God.Dan G. McCartney, “Ecce Homo: The Coming of the Kingdom as the Restoration of Human Vicegerency,” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 2. McCartney qualifies this by noting that Jesus enthronement “is not just a reinstatement of the original prelapsarian order, but the original order brought to fulfillment. It is an advance over the Adamic state” (p. 2, n.5).An examination of the Apostolic preaching bears this out. They did not simply proclaim Jesus to be the divine Son of God, but the incarnate Son of God, resurrected and exalted to the right hand of the Father as man for us. In every recorded sermon given to us by Luke in Acts, the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as Lord occupies the apex of Gospel’s content (Acts 2: 21, 24, 32; 3:15, 22, 26; 4:2, 10, 33; 5:30; 10:40; 13: 22, 30, 34, 37; 17:18, 32; 23:6; 24:21).
All of these typological/symbolic images (son, image, right hand, firstborn, kingdom, ruler, house-builder, etc.) coalesce in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the one appointed Son of God with power. Jesus has ascended to his throne as both the Son of David and the Last Adam. He fulfilled not only the prophetic promises about a Davidic king, but also God’s plan for both Adam and Israel. He embodies , as the God-man, the Lord God’s intentions for both Israel and mankind in general. “For all the promises of God are Yes! and Amen! in him” (2 Cor. 1:20).
Although it is true that Jesus is called “my Son” by God the Father at a number of points in his life and “son of God” by others (at his conception/birth [Luke 1:32, 35; 3:35, 38]; baptism [Mt. 3:17; Lk. 3:22]; transfiguration [Mk. 9:7; Luke 9:35]; crucifixion [Mt. 27:54; Mk. 15:39]; and with reference to his resurrection [Acts 13:33-34; Rom. 1:4]), nevertheless, it is not accurate to say, as Craige does, that “the coronation of Jesus took place throughout his ministry” (Peter Craige, Psalms 1-50, [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983], p. 69) Such a mistake appears to be based once again on the error of thinking that “Son of God” is a technical term. This time, however, unlike the systematic theologians mentioned earlier who cannot but seem to read “son of God” without thinking “second person of the Trinity,” Craige assumes that it always refers to Jesus Davidic kingship.
There are different senses, therefore, in which Jesus is called Son. He is the Son from eternity (Jn. 1:18), the Son from his conception and assumption our human nature (the Last Adam, Luke 1:35; 3:38), the Son at his baptism as he is anointed as Messiah and commissioned as the one who will first serve (Isa. 42:1), which service is consummated at his self-sacrificial death (Mk. 15:39), and finally, the Son of God with power at his resurrection, ascension, and enthronement when he is publicly invested with the fullness of Messianic authority (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33-34; Rom. 1:4).
By assigning the title “Son of God with power” to Jesus in Rom. 1:4 Paul designates him as the fulfillment and current bearer of Israel's servant-king role in the world. Although Israel was once gifted with all of the privileges and responsibilities of God’s son(s) (Ex. 4:22, 23; Deut. 14;1; 32:6, 18; Jer. 31:9, 19; Hos. 11:1) and in her Davidic kings this royal status was individually embodied, nevertheless, all such filial arrangements are now, with the resurrection of Christ, shown to be provisional and typological. Jesus has been appointed or installed as the “Son of God with power.”
What is even more astonishing is that Jesus does not, so to speak, hold on to his Sonship for himself. The Spirit of the “Son” is the Spirit of adoption (Gal. 4:5), so that together with the Son as the “firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29) are the sons, who are “called to belong to him” and thereby “loved by God” (Rom. 1: 6-7; Gal. 4:7) and as such are “heirs” in union with him (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7). We are gifted with the privilege of sonship by grace only in union with the incarnate Son. The word "son" is used 12 times in Romans (1:3, 4, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 14, 19, 29, 32; 9:9, 26, 27), which is by far the largest number of references to Jesus sonship in any of Paul’s epistles. Moreover, the distribution of references to sonship, both Jesus’ and the Christian’s, reveal two clusters—one in Paul’s introduction, where he summarizes the basic kerygmatic content of the Gospel (Rom. 1:1-17) and the other in Romans 8 (vss. 3, 14, 19, 29, 32), where our sonship is particularly in view.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Just for Fun
Black or white?
French Reformed liturgical scholar Richard Paquier: "The Genevan gown, this anti-liturgical, secular vestment, which appears in the color of the shades of darkness, this clothing which is comparable to the sack cloth and ashes of mourning in the old covenant, is the negation of the right of the church to rejoice and be consoled in the presence of the heavenly Bridegroom. Perhaps for the synagogue, in its tribulation, to wear such a vestment would be the normal thing. But in modern Protestantism it is a depressing sign that we are not more aware of the nuptial joy of the Eucharist and that we do not believe in the victorious struggle Christ led against the world." (Dynamics of Worship: Foundations and Uses of Liturgy [Fortress Press, 1967], p. 142).
Check us out.
Just for the record, Paquier's book is really, really good. If you can find a copy, buy it.
French Reformed liturgical scholar Richard Paquier: "The Genevan gown, this anti-liturgical, secular vestment, which appears in the color of the shades of darkness, this clothing which is comparable to the sack cloth and ashes of mourning in the old covenant, is the negation of the right of the church to rejoice and be consoled in the presence of the heavenly Bridegroom. Perhaps for the synagogue, in its tribulation, to wear such a vestment would be the normal thing. But in modern Protestantism it is a depressing sign that we are not more aware of the nuptial joy of the Eucharist and that we do not believe in the victorious struggle Christ led against the world." (Dynamics of Worship: Foundations and Uses of Liturgy [Fortress Press, 1967], p. 142).
Check us out.
Just for the record, Paquier's book is really, really good. If you can find a copy, buy it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Nothing But Photos This Time
We didn't have much luck this year during the two-day firearms youth season. We didn't see a single deer on Saturday.
But we did shoot off some pretty cool fireworks Friday night.
But we did shoot off some pretty cool fireworks Friday night.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes In Context - Part 1
This is a section from my commentary on Ecclesiates A Table in the Mist. What? You haven't read it yet? Shame on you.
Israel's Upbringing: Stage 1, Priesthood
Before we go all the way back to Adam and Eve and the beginning of the story – a move we must make eventually if we are to appreciate wisdom's role in mankind's progress toward maturity – let us begin with something fairly straightforward and easy to see. Think about the narrative of Israel's history. There are at least three fairly obvious stages in Israel's development. Think of these as stages in God's process of educating or training his people. This is one of the ways Paul encourages us to meditate on the story of God's interaction with his people Israel in the old world (Galatians 4:1-7). They were being trained or educated as God's new humanity. The three stages can be outlined as follows:
At this stage in the story of Israel she is charged with guarding and maintaining the Lord's special "house." She is granted this charge to serve the nations. What we call the Tabernacle is Yahweh's special "tent of meeting," the appointed place to which he invites his people to draw near and commune with him. This meeting place is a place of food and feasting, which is why so much of the content of the Mosaic regulations have to do with clean and unclean foods, animals that are appropriate for Yahweh's food, and the appointed times and places for such festival banquets.
As the Lord's priests his people serve as inspectors and servants at his communion table (what we call the "altar'). The special priests (Levites and the sons of Aaron) inspect, prepare, and distribute the Lord's food. I wish that our translations would make this clearer. Every animal that is brought near (the Hebrew verb is qrb, "to draw near") becomes "food" (lechem, "bread") for God. Speaking to the Aaronic priests in Leviticus 21:6, Yahweh says,
So much of what we call "the law" or "the torah" is like this. Do this, do that, don't do this, and don't do that. Israel begins her corporate life with relatively simple, straightforward rules to follow. The same is true for the laws that regulate her social and governmental existence. Of course, it is true that for us modern readers this legal system often seems hopelessly complex. But that's only because we are so far removed from the life of Israel and the old world of animal sacrifices. As others have pointed out, however, for an Israelite to acquire expertise in these matters was not much different than the way a car mechanic today learns the "rules" that govern the replacement and repair of auto parts. Most of us would be lost until we spent the necessary hours memorizing the manuals necessary for this kind of work. And the laws governing animal sacrifice are a lot simpler than those that apply to modern car maintenance and repair.
My point is this: Israel begins her life in Yahweh's house learning the rules explicitly laid out by him for her priestly duties. She is like a child who is governed by specific "dos and don'ts" unmistakably expressed by her parents. She begins in God's house serving at his Table. All of this is not to deny that there are "deeper" dimensions to the Mosaic law. There certainly are. We will get to that in a moment. But for now simply notice that Israel's early relation to God is very childlike. She was called to obey even if she didn't fully understand. She will need to mature as she obeys God's law in order to appropriate the "wisdom" embodied in the Law.
Israel's Upbringing: Stage 1, Priesthood
Before we go all the way back to Adam and Eve and the beginning of the story – a move we must make eventually if we are to appreciate wisdom's role in mankind's progress toward maturity – let us begin with something fairly straightforward and easy to see. Think about the narrative of Israel's history. There are at least three fairly obvious stages in Israel's development. Think of these as stages in God's process of educating or training his people. This is one of the ways Paul encourages us to meditate on the story of God's interaction with his people Israel in the old world (Galatians 4:1-7). They were being trained or educated as God's new humanity. The three stages can be outlined as follows:
Priests → Kings → ProphetsThis ordered sequence is important. As a nation covenanted to Yahweh, Israel begins her corporate life as priests. What we call the mosaic covenant, which Yahweh graciously inaugurates with Israel at Mt. Sinai, is largely concerned with regulating his people's priestly role in the world at large. A "priest" is a household servant of Yahweh. Israel is granted the privilege of drawing near to God and therefore of serving in his house (the tabernacle). I hardly need to amass proof texts to demonstrate that the Mosaic covenant and the revelation associated with that covenant largely concerns priestly and "sacrificial" regulations.
At this stage in the story of Israel she is charged with guarding and maintaining the Lord's special "house." She is granted this charge to serve the nations. What we call the Tabernacle is Yahweh's special "tent of meeting," the appointed place to which he invites his people to draw near and commune with him. This meeting place is a place of food and feasting, which is why so much of the content of the Mosaic regulations have to do with clean and unclean foods, animals that are appropriate for Yahweh's food, and the appointed times and places for such festival banquets.
As the Lord's priests his people serve as inspectors and servants at his communion table (what we call the "altar'). The special priests (Levites and the sons of Aaron) inspect, prepare, and distribute the Lord's food. I wish that our translations would make this clearer. Every animal that is brought near (the Hebrew verb is qrb, "to draw near") becomes "food" (lechem, "bread") for God. Speaking to the Aaronic priests in Leviticus 21:6, Yahweh says,
They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God. For they bring near (qrb) Yahweh's fire-cooked food ('isheh), the bread (lechem) of their God.Much more could be said about these priestly duties, of course, but this is enough to get the general thrust of Israel's priestly duties. What we must pay careful attention to now is that priestly regulations are very detailed and do not require a great deal of discernment to administer. The law (torah) is quite meticulous. To be faithful priests Israel simply had to follow the law very carefully. If an animal is brought near for the Lord's table, the priests simply had to remember God's explicit instruction and discern whether an animal was clean and unclean, blemished or unblemished, and so on.
So much of what we call "the law" or "the torah" is like this. Do this, do that, don't do this, and don't do that. Israel begins her corporate life with relatively simple, straightforward rules to follow. The same is true for the laws that regulate her social and governmental existence. Of course, it is true that for us modern readers this legal system often seems hopelessly complex. But that's only because we are so far removed from the life of Israel and the old world of animal sacrifices. As others have pointed out, however, for an Israelite to acquire expertise in these matters was not much different than the way a car mechanic today learns the "rules" that govern the replacement and repair of auto parts. Most of us would be lost until we spent the necessary hours memorizing the manuals necessary for this kind of work. And the laws governing animal sacrifice are a lot simpler than those that apply to modern car maintenance and repair.
My point is this: Israel begins her life in Yahweh's house learning the rules explicitly laid out by him for her priestly duties. She is like a child who is governed by specific "dos and don'ts" unmistakably expressed by her parents. She begins in God's house serving at his Table. All of this is not to deny that there are "deeper" dimensions to the Mosaic law. There certainly are. We will get to that in a moment. But for now simply notice that Israel's early relation to God is very childlike. She was called to obey even if she didn't fully understand. She will need to mature as she obeys God's law in order to appropriate the "wisdom" embodied in the Law.
Friday, October 26, 2007
A Trinitarian Wedding Meditation
“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1Cor. 13:4-7).
What family would you identify as a model for your marriage and future household? In terms of this reading, where have you seen or where will you see the love of 1 Cor. 13 lived out? Is there a couple or a family that you would name as exemplifying the kind of life together that you would experience?
I can’t read your minds and I’m not going to ask you to tell me of whom you are thinking, but I will wager that you are setting your sights too low, way too low.
Whatever human couple or family may have come to your mind and however radiant and attractive their relationship may be, it is but a dim reflection of the fullness of love, the eternal riches of love resident in the Holy Trinity. That’s right. The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in their shared eternal life together.
Well, I will tell you both that God himself holds the key; God himself is the key to marital happiness and fulfillment. He is the definition of, the very living embodiment of love. As the Apostle John says, "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:16). This does not mean simply that God is nice—the dear, kind God. Reduced to this, "God is love" comes dangerously close to being innocuous and sentimental nonsense.
Rather, John means that in himself, in his own inner life, God is characterized by love. Love binds Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally covenanted companions. God is in himself the fullness and perfection of love, in loving and being loved, in giving and receiving. And this eternal communal existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God is the ultimate model for every human social bond. Today, of course, that means your marriage.
Cornelius Plantinga has put it this way: “The precincts of heaven are occupied by more than one divine person. The unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is more like a marriage, or like persons bound together in a single community.”
The active movement of reciprocal love within the eternal being of God is the one ultimate source of all love in the universe. What that means for us, for you, is that the Triune God constitutes the very ground and possibility of love between human beings, not the least of which is marital love. The marriage covenant, you see, is grounded in the original covenant of love and companionship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
But wait a minute, isn’t that like telling you that Robert and Jennifer Smith possess the secret of marital happiness and love? Robert and Jennifer Smith? That would be all well and good, but who are they? Where do they live? If you have no access to their household, to their personal relationship, what good is it to you?
You might find out where the live and go and stand in front of their house and look through the windows or even bang on the door. You could park in front of their house and try to get glimpses of them as they come outside. You might even get a listening device and try to catch bits and pieces of their conversations. A telescope to see them interact. But unless they graciously invited you into their circle of love, unless they allowed you in, you would never benefit from what they had.
Similarly, we cannot know of or experience God’s love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from the outside. God as he is in himself is not open to our inspection. We cannot pry into his Three-Personed being for the purpose of examining his life.
And just as the Smith’s must invite you into their family for you to know them, so in a similar way, God himself must invite us in if we are to know him as the perfect communion of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God himself must open up himself to us and draw us into his life of communion so that we can experience and know his covenant love.
That is exactly what has happened in time and space history as the Father loves the Son so much that he finds a bride for him that will be his eternal covenanted companion. This is the wonder of God’s love. This is what God has done for us in Christ.
Jonathan Edwards puts it well: “There was, as it were, an eternal society or family in the Godhead, in the Trinity of persons. It seems to be God’s design to admit the church into the divine family as his Son’s wife.” Jonathan Edward’s again: “The end [goal] of the creation of God was to provide a spouse for his Son Jesus Christ, that might enjoy him and on whom he might pour forth his love. . . Heaven and earth were created that the Son of God might communicate his love and goodness to a spouse.”
I need to stop here to make sure that everyone has this right. God didn’t create the world to have people to dominate and manipulate. To command and control. He created the world and humanity to share his glory, to turn his eternal love outward on humanity and to bring us into the circle of his blessed fellowship.
Your life in the covenant of marriage must model that eternal covenant of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it has been revealed, manifest, uncovered for us in Jesus Christ.
Now, you may be thinking, what? He’s talking about the Trinity at our wedding? Isn’t that just some abstract, confusing ecclesiastical doctrine invented to confound simple people about the nature of God? Shouldn’t the pastor just give some pointers on how to act as husband and wife and get on with it. Some practical "how to" advice. Absolutely not!
Have you ever noticed that whenever the Apostle Paul addresses a very practical problem in one of his churches, he doesn’t offer some cute emotional story or merely quote or construct some catchy religious aphorism, rather he gets very theological.
My favorite example of this is the church at Philippi. Read Philippians 2:3-7. It was because Jesus was God that he humbled himself. It was because he was in very nature God that he emptied himself. This is God's mode of life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They live together is self-giving humility and love.
This, then, is your God! This is the one in whose image you have been created. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . in the image of God he created them, male and female, he created them. This is the image that you are being renewed in. The likeness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is love.
As Christians, we do not look primarily to an abstract impersonal idea or set of ideas for our model. We are imagers of God. We have been made to resemble God. We are to actively seek to conform ourselves as creatures to his perfect character. “Be ye holy as I am holy”
Another way to put this is that our flawless exemplar is the Person(s) of God himself, especially the Father and the Son! When we ask what does it mean to love, how can I know what it means to love, we, as Christians (who bear the name of Christ) answer: It means to imitate the Lord, Jesus Christ.
1 John 3:16, “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” John 15:12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”
Without this context, this list in 1 Cor. 13 degenerates into pious platitudes, religious mush. So substitute the word “Christ” for the noun “love” in this list and you make explicit Paul’s reason for using this literary device called personification. “Jesus Christ suffers long, Christ shows kindness, Jesus does not envy. . . .”
Here then is a positive, healthy ideal towards which to strive. Here in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 is a vivid picture of purity and spiritual health.
You know we might have settled this afternoon a fast-food, sugar-high from cute little aphorisms and sentimental sayings about marriage. Or we could have gotten a temporary emotional buzz from the current fad in psychological marital advice and techniques. But that kind of thing will never satisfy your need for lasting nourishment as a couple. As you begin your life together, do not settle for such junk food.
You’ve got something more nourishing. Something that will transform you through and through. Let me suggest to you that thinking, reflecting, meditating on your own participation in the covenantal love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as husband and wife is worth more than whatever techniques or marital slogans or psychological advice you can find in the millions of how-to-books on marriage.
As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:18, "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."
If you have experienced the love of God in Christ, if your marriage is going to be rooted and grounded in love, then you will have to this life-long goal of making progress towards understanding what is the width and length and depth and height of the love of God in Christ which surpasses human comprehension.
By means of the marriage covenant God permits you both to taste something of the inexpressible bliss of the personal intimacy and companionship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
You are called upon this afternoon to begin a life of love towards one another just as God is love.
"For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height – to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:14-19). Amen.
What family would you identify as a model for your marriage and future household? In terms of this reading, where have you seen or where will you see the love of 1 Cor. 13 lived out? Is there a couple or a family that you would name as exemplifying the kind of life together that you would experience?
I can’t read your minds and I’m not going to ask you to tell me of whom you are thinking, but I will wager that you are setting your sights too low, way too low.
Whatever human couple or family may have come to your mind and however radiant and attractive their relationship may be, it is but a dim reflection of the fullness of love, the eternal riches of love resident in the Holy Trinity. That’s right. The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in their shared eternal life together.
Well, I will tell you both that God himself holds the key; God himself is the key to marital happiness and fulfillment. He is the definition of, the very living embodiment of love. As the Apostle John says, "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:16). This does not mean simply that God is nice—the dear, kind God. Reduced to this, "God is love" comes dangerously close to being innocuous and sentimental nonsense.
Rather, John means that in himself, in his own inner life, God is characterized by love. Love binds Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally covenanted companions. God is in himself the fullness and perfection of love, in loving and being loved, in giving and receiving. And this eternal communal existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God is the ultimate model for every human social bond. Today, of course, that means your marriage.
Cornelius Plantinga has put it this way: “The precincts of heaven are occupied by more than one divine person. The unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is more like a marriage, or like persons bound together in a single community.”
The active movement of reciprocal love within the eternal being of God is the one ultimate source of all love in the universe. What that means for us, for you, is that the Triune God constitutes the very ground and possibility of love between human beings, not the least of which is marital love. The marriage covenant, you see, is grounded in the original covenant of love and companionship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
But wait a minute, isn’t that like telling you that Robert and Jennifer Smith possess the secret of marital happiness and love? Robert and Jennifer Smith? That would be all well and good, but who are they? Where do they live? If you have no access to their household, to their personal relationship, what good is it to you?
You might find out where the live and go and stand in front of their house and look through the windows or even bang on the door. You could park in front of their house and try to get glimpses of them as they come outside. You might even get a listening device and try to catch bits and pieces of their conversations. A telescope to see them interact. But unless they graciously invited you into their circle of love, unless they allowed you in, you would never benefit from what they had.
Similarly, we cannot know of or experience God’s love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from the outside. God as he is in himself is not open to our inspection. We cannot pry into his Three-Personed being for the purpose of examining his life.
And just as the Smith’s must invite you into their family for you to know them, so in a similar way, God himself must invite us in if we are to know him as the perfect communion of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God himself must open up himself to us and draw us into his life of communion so that we can experience and know his covenant love.
That is exactly what has happened in time and space history as the Father loves the Son so much that he finds a bride for him that will be his eternal covenanted companion. This is the wonder of God’s love. This is what God has done for us in Christ.
Jonathan Edwards puts it well: “There was, as it were, an eternal society or family in the Godhead, in the Trinity of persons. It seems to be God’s design to admit the church into the divine family as his Son’s wife.” Jonathan Edward’s again: “The end [goal] of the creation of God was to provide a spouse for his Son Jesus Christ, that might enjoy him and on whom he might pour forth his love. . . Heaven and earth were created that the Son of God might communicate his love and goodness to a spouse.”
I need to stop here to make sure that everyone has this right. God didn’t create the world to have people to dominate and manipulate. To command and control. He created the world and humanity to share his glory, to turn his eternal love outward on humanity and to bring us into the circle of his blessed fellowship.
Your life in the covenant of marriage must model that eternal covenant of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it has been revealed, manifest, uncovered for us in Jesus Christ.
Now, you may be thinking, what? He’s talking about the Trinity at our wedding? Isn’t that just some abstract, confusing ecclesiastical doctrine invented to confound simple people about the nature of God? Shouldn’t the pastor just give some pointers on how to act as husband and wife and get on with it. Some practical "how to" advice. Absolutely not!
Have you ever noticed that whenever the Apostle Paul addresses a very practical problem in one of his churches, he doesn’t offer some cute emotional story or merely quote or construct some catchy religious aphorism, rather he gets very theological.
My favorite example of this is the church at Philippi. Read Philippians 2:3-7. It was because Jesus was God that he humbled himself. It was because he was in very nature God that he emptied himself. This is God's mode of life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They live together is self-giving humility and love.
This, then, is your God! This is the one in whose image you have been created. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . in the image of God he created them, male and female, he created them. This is the image that you are being renewed in. The likeness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is love.
As Christians, we do not look primarily to an abstract impersonal idea or set of ideas for our model. We are imagers of God. We have been made to resemble God. We are to actively seek to conform ourselves as creatures to his perfect character. “Be ye holy as I am holy”
Another way to put this is that our flawless exemplar is the Person(s) of God himself, especially the Father and the Son! When we ask what does it mean to love, how can I know what it means to love, we, as Christians (who bear the name of Christ) answer: It means to imitate the Lord, Jesus Christ.
1 John 3:16, “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” John 15:12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”
Without this context, this list in 1 Cor. 13 degenerates into pious platitudes, religious mush. So substitute the word “Christ” for the noun “love” in this list and you make explicit Paul’s reason for using this literary device called personification. “Jesus Christ suffers long, Christ shows kindness, Jesus does not envy. . . .”
Here then is a positive, healthy ideal towards which to strive. Here in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 is a vivid picture of purity and spiritual health.
You know we might have settled this afternoon a fast-food, sugar-high from cute little aphorisms and sentimental sayings about marriage. Or we could have gotten a temporary emotional buzz from the current fad in psychological marital advice and techniques. But that kind of thing will never satisfy your need for lasting nourishment as a couple. As you begin your life together, do not settle for such junk food.
You’ve got something more nourishing. Something that will transform you through and through. Let me suggest to you that thinking, reflecting, meditating on your own participation in the covenantal love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as husband and wife is worth more than whatever techniques or marital slogans or psychological advice you can find in the millions of how-to-books on marriage.
As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:18, "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."
If you have experienced the love of God in Christ, if your marriage is going to be rooted and grounded in love, then you will have to this life-long goal of making progress towards understanding what is the width and length and depth and height of the love of God in Christ which surpasses human comprehension.
By means of the marriage covenant God permits you both to taste something of the inexpressible bliss of the personal intimacy and companionship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
You are called upon this afternoon to begin a life of love towards one another just as God is love.
"For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height – to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:14-19). Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)