The Thrust of the Prophecy [Isaiah 7.1-17] (9 December 2012)

When I was at Fuller Seminary, I had the opportunity of being the teaching assistant to a number of the professors. One of those was Dr. John Goldingay. And the course was on the exegesis of Isaiah, which incidentally he is currently teaching. John, yes we are on first name basis, allowed me to grade the various exegesis papers that the students submitted. And through it I realized a big folly even among Christian leaders. We interpret the Old Testament as though it was written in New testament times and as a result we often do not hear the Old Testament. We rather consistently hear the New Testament in the pages of the Old. 

Christians have a fixation, or rather, an obsession. Actually, we have two. Make it three! And the text for today, reveals all three very succinctly if we would but spend some time with it. The inevitable result of these obsessions is that very often we do not truly perceive what the Old Testament is saying. I will not keep you in suspense. So allow me to reveal the three obsessions. 

First, we love miracles. And so we want to see miracles everywhere. We love things out of the ordinary, thinking perhaps that miracles somehow prove that God is working among us. 

But if we read our scriptures carefully, we will see a deep ambiguity about miracles that can be summed up in Jesus’ words, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” Miracles prove nothing to someone who is not already convinced. 

Second, we want to see Jesus all over the pages of the Old Testament. We believe that when Luke tells us, “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” it means that every page of the Old Testament has some references to Jesus. While it is definitely true that the Old Testament points to Jesus here and there, we sometimes go overboard in our zeal to identify him. 

Third, we promote gender inequality. Women are not treated with the same dignity with which we treat men despite the opening chapter of scripture telling us that God made men and women in his image. We identify men as good or bad. David was a good king; Saul a bad one. But when it comes to women, there is no good and bad. 

Rather, we see them solely in terms of their sexuality – either as chaste or as promiscuous. And this shows up in how we translate and interpret our scriptures. And unfortunately we don’t have a very good record as far as women are concerned. 

Let us deal with each of these obsessions in reverse order and we will understand what our text is saying. 

The word often translated ‘virgin’ in English bibles is the Hebrew word עַלמָה (almah). Those who reject the doctrine of the virgin conception of Jesus vehemently indicate that עַלמָה means ‘young woman’ and that there is another Hebrew word, בְּתוּלָה (betulah) that means ‘virgin’ and that, had Isaiah meant ‘virgin’ he should have used בְּתוּלָה rather than עַלמָה. Those who accept the doctrine of the virgin conception argue the reverse equally vehemently. 

So where does the truth lie? Obviously somewhere in the middle. My way of interpreting is to look at the context. 

As an example, consider the unfortunate news items we read often these days of women being molested and raped. Suppose one of the items read, “A young woman, 18, was kidnapped by a gang of men and taken to an isolated location, where she was raped.” 

What do we conclude? Are we looking at the atrocity committed? Or are we asking ourselves, “Was she a virgin?” The context is a report on a crime, not a report on the woman’s sexual experience. And we need to be mature enough to separate the two. 

If we follow this interpretive strategy, this is what we will find. In no passage for either of the two words is it required to translate the word as ‘virgin’. Using ‘young woman’ is more than enough. If you desire to check on this, and I encourage you to, I can give you the verses later by email. If you check on it, you will discover that your bible reads ‘virgin’ in most places. Replace it with ‘young woman’ and see if it makes sense. Let us take an example. 

The scripture text that comes most close to requiring the translation ‘virgin’ is Leviticus 21.13-14. Concerning priests the NIV reads, “The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people.” Putting aside the male desire to have a virgin bride, there is nothing in this context that necessitates translating בְּתוּלָה here as ‘virgin’ – ‘young woman’ will easily suffice. 

This is how it would then read: “The woman he marries must be a young woman. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a young woman from his own people.” Of course, in this passage by implication, the woman would likely be a virgin, but that does not mean the word means ‘virgin’ and that certainly does not mean we translated it as such. There is a big difference between translation and interpretation. In this place, to render the word with ‘virgin’ is interpretation, not translation. 

If we put aside the male desire to sexualize women, we will find that none of the passages that contain בְּתוּלָה or עַלמָה actually require that the word be translated as ‘virgin’ though it may be implied. That is the sole reason why each of the sparring schools is capable of debunking the other position. You argue most comprehensively against what you already oppose, while ignoring the holes in your own arguments. 

With that in mind, we can see that Isaiah 7.14 would actually read: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: This young woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” 

So now you are thinking, “Deepak does not believe in the virgin conception of Jesus. Let us throw him out of church.” Do not prejudge me. I have only addressed one of the three obsessions! Perhaps you will have more arrows in your quiver once I am through! 

So to the second obsession. In the historical context, King Ahaz of Judah is afraid because Syria and Israel were amassing troops to attack Judah. And Ahaz knew he did not have enough men. So God sends Isaiah with a word of assurance and judgment. Isaiah was to take his son, Shear-Jashub, which means ‘a remnant will return’ to a place where clothes were washed, a detail we easily ignore. 

When Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, God gives him a sign for each of the messages. Shear-Jashub points to the fact that Judah had also been unfaithful and that they would be attacked by Assyria and reduced to a remnant. Only a small portion of the soldiers would return home from the battlefield. That was the message of judgment. 

But there was also the message of assurance. Isaiah points to one of the women washing clothes and says that she will conceive and name her son Immanuel and that before he was old enough to know the difference between good and evil, the Assyrian empire would utterly destroy Israel and Syria. 

The Jews preserved the messages of Isaiah as scripture because they realized that he was a true prophet. Within a matter of years, Assyria did indeed destroy Syria and Israel. And they did indeed attack Judah, but left a vassal king there so that Judah would be a buffer between Assyria and Egypt. We can therefore conclude that the woman Isaiah pointed to did indeed bear a son and name him Immanuel. 

So now you are thinking, “Great! Deepak not only does not believe the virgin conception of Jesus; he also does not think Isaiah was prophesying about Jesus. Bring the fire and let him burn!” Hold on to your horses! There is still one more obsession to tackle. I just might give you more ammo for your cause! 

So if Isaiah was simply saying that a young woman there, who was washing clothes would become pregnant and name her son Immanuel, we can see that the passage does not speak of any miracle. 

Many women who wash clothes become pregnant. All of them, in my view, would have done so without any miracle other than the everyday miracles of conception and birth themselves. We don’t need to suppose anyone who heard Isaiah or anyone who read Isaiah in the seven centuries that intervened before Jesus’ birth ever thought, “One day, as Isaiah prophesied, a young woman will conceive miraculously without the involvement of a man.” 

To the contrary, in Jesus’ day, many young Jewish women wanted to be the mother of the promised deliverer. But they expected to become pregnant in the normal way, not by some unthinkable miracle. 

So there you are. When it was first written, our passage did not speak of a virgin conception. It spoke directly about the birth of a child everyone then living could verify. And it spoke about a birth as normal as any other. 

But. 

Yes, there is more. 

But, then comes Jesus. And in the light of Jesus’ life, Matthew goes back to the scriptures he loves in order to interpret the Jesus he loves. “Who is this Jesus?” asks Matthew. 

And the same Spirit that overshadowed Mary, then inspires Matthew to go to the prophecy of Isaiah. And Matthew realizes something that we perhaps don’t. This prophecy of Isaiah does not point forward to Jesus. Rather, it is Jesus who points back to Isaiah. For scripture is not static. It is dynamic. It might have meant something centuries back. But in the light of this new thing that God has done in and through Jesus, it takes on new meaning. 

Mary was not just a young woman, she was also a virgin, because she and Joseph had not had sexual relations. But if she had not conceived in the normal way, how did she conceive? And Matthew tells us about the role of the Spirit. And so we get to know about this miraculous conception, something unheard of, something never thought of, something never repeated. 

But even here, scripture does not encourage belief based on a miracle. We have it the wrong way round. If you had told Isaiah that one of his prophecies would be fulfilled through a virgin conception seven centuries later, he would have asked Ahaz to have you checked for mental instability. For him the sign was a natural event that would happen within a few years. 

And if you asked Matthew if Isaiah 7.14 is about Jesus, he would say, “Yes, certainly.” If you pressed him and asked if that were because of the miracle of virgin conception, he would say that you had it all wrong. The point of the prophecy was not the miracle. The miracle was just something that happened alongside the major thrust of the prophecy. 

The point of the prophecy was that in Jesus, finally God is with us. The miracle would mean nothing if Jesus were not God with us. And actually, once we realize that Jesus is God with us, the miracle pales to insignificance. Virgin conception? Yes. But that happened at one moment in the past, never before, never again. But forevermore, in the past, in the present and in the future, Jesus is God with us! 

The God Exegete [John 1.14-18] (30 September 2012)

Sermon Recording
          _________________________________________________________________

In the course of biblical interpretation – called exegesis, there is no greater peril than etymological exegesis. Etymology is the study of the history of words and their origins. And very often we hear sermons based on the etymological interpretation of a word, the preacher making his or her point based on splitting the relevant word into its constituent parts. Let me cite two common examples. 

The Greek word behind the English word ‘church’ is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). It is formed from two Greek words, the preposition ἐκ (ek), meaning ‘out’ and the verb καλέω (kaleo), meaning ‘to call’. The conclusion often reached is that ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) means ‘the called out ones’. However, the way the word is used in the New Testament and in the Septuagint and in Greek literature contemporaneous to the New Testament indicates that ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) referred to an assembly or gathering. 

The second example is the word παράκλητος (parakletos) used in John’s Gospel in connection with the Holy Spirit. It is formed from two Greek words, the preposition παρά (para), meaning ‘near’ or ‘beside’ and the adjective κλητός (kletos), meaning ‘called’. This often leads to the conclusion that John means that the Holy Spirit is one who is called near us at our side, from which we get the titles ‘Comforter’, ‘Counsellor’ and ‘Helper’. 

However, the word παράκλητος (parakletos) referred to the advocate for the defence in a courtroom scenario and should not be broken down arbitrarily into its components, especially when we see that John’s Gospel makes more sense if we see it as a courtroom drama with Jesus’ being the primary accused and the other characters’ being witnesses either for the prosecution or the defence. 

And now for an English example. Suppose I were a surgeon. During surgeries an intern assists me and gives me the things I ask for – scalpel, sutures, etc. Since she is handing me some things, would I be right to call her ‘handsome’? If I did I could be faulted on two counts. First, just because ‘handsome’ is indeed formed from the two words ‘hand’ and ‘some’, it does not mean that I can simply coalesce their meanings to obtain the meaning of the combination. Second, while in Victorian times calling a woman handsome was a compliment, these days most women would be offended because the word has strong masculine overtones. 

With all of this as background, we can move on to today’s text. I have spoken before from texts in the Gospel of John. And I wish to remind you of a couple of points I have made repeatedly. 

First, unlike the first three Gospels, John’s Gospel does not attempt to arrange its material in chronological manner. We see this in the prologue itself, where John jumps back and forth between Jesus and John the Baptist. 

Second, John’s Gospel reads like it has been written by some absolutely besot with Jesus. This author has experienced a love so great that it shows in the way he writes. For John, it is the person and character of Jesus that is at the heart of the universe. Everything else is a by product. And we see this in today’s text as we will soon see. 

So, let me read the text for today. I urge you to close your bibles and if necessary your eyes as well. Just focus on what you hear. This is my translation of John 1.14-18. 

"And the Speech became tangible and lived in our midst. And we perceived his radiance – the radiance of the only one at the side of the Father, brimming with grace and truth. 

John testified concerning him and pronounced, 'This is the one. He comes subsequent to me but has been placed preferentially to me because he is superior to me.' 

Now from his abundance we all are recipients of grace succeeding grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth have their cause for being in Jesus Christ. No one has ever perceived God. The only one God, who exists in the embrace of the Father has interpreted him."

Except for a few phrases, this must have sounded quite strange. In translating the passage in this manner I have tried to keep two things in balance. First, the Prologue to John’s Gospel is poetic in nature and so I have tried not to be too stodgy with the English words. Second, I have paid close attention to what the various words meant in those days rather than blindly relying on etymology. 

The aspect of etymology comes into play with regard to the Greek word μονογενής (monogenes), used twice in these 5 verses, once in v. 14 and the second time in v. 18. The word is made of two parts – the adjective μόνος (monos), meaning ‘sole’ or ‘only’ and the verb γίνομαι (ginomai), meaning ‘to cause to be’ or ‘to become’. 

The King James version and the NASB render the word as ‘the only begotten’. The NIV has ‘the one and only Son’. The Common English Bible and the Good News Bible have ‘the only Son’. And we could go on. 

The word appears 9 times in the New Testament, 3 times in the Gospel of Luke (at 7.12, 8.42 and 9.38), 4 times in the Gospel of John, once in Hebrews and once in the first Letter of John. All the uses in Luke are not in reference to Jesus. All other uses are in reference to Jesus. Inevitably the uses concerning Jesus include the idea of generation or begetting in the translations. The ones in Luke, which remember do not refer to Jesus, do not have this idea in the translations. 

So is the word μονογενής (monogenes) mainly focused on the idea of generation and begetting or is it mainly focused on the idea of uniqueness? The uses in Luke clearly indicate that the idea of uniqueness is primary. Why then, when it comes to Jesus do all the translations focus on the idea of begetting, when there is no other word in the New Testament that might even suggest such an idea? 

I think we have become hamstrung by our creeds, especially the Nicene Creed in which we find the words ‘We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds.’ The idea of begetting, whatever that means when we are speaking of God, supposedly comes from the word μονογενής (monogenes). 

Unfortunately, since everywhere else μονογενής (monogenes) stresses not the begotten-ness of the person but the uniqueness of the person we need to conclude that the etymological understanding of the word is misleading. 

So what does our passage tell us? Twice in the course of 5 verses John tells us that Jesus has a unique, one of a kind relationship to God. What is John trying to tell us? 

Many Christians decry what they call pluralism. We deny that there are different objects to which people direct their worship. However, we should know better. We see it with our own eyes, hear it with our own ears. We have neighbours offering us food items from this and that place of worship. Religiosity is all pervasive in India, even if few could give you any rationale behind the various observances. 

The same was true of the Roman Empire. Places of worship flourished all over. Farmers would ask ‘god’ to bless their crops. Animal herders would ask ‘god’ to give their cattle or sheep healthy offspring. Emperors would ask ‘god’ to give them victory over their enemies. We could go on. The words ‘god’, ‘lord’, ‘master’, ‘saviour’ etc. would have been heard all over the place. 

Just this past week my mom sent me an email. It was a forward of a blog post. Here is a short snippet: 

Our spiritual life is not multiple-choice, it is not a smorgasbord of options, it is not a variety pack we can pick and choose from based upon what looks good to us. 

The author was well intentioned. However, simply stating something does not make it true. Why, when there are so many gods out there, is spirituality not a variety pack? 

John has the answer. Twice in these 5 verses he uses the combination ‘grace and truth’. Twice he refers to Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father. And he concludes with the claim that Jesus has actually interpreted God for us. 

What does that mean? We often use the phrase ‘Jesus is God’ in conversations or while witnessing to others or while trying to explain the doctrine of the trinity. 

When we do this it is implicit that the word ‘God’ describes something we have some knowledge about. We have a box labelled ‘God’ and we are placing Jesus in that box. Ah ‘Jesus’! This belongs in that ‘God’ box. 

And John has allowed us to do this right from verse 1 in the phrase ‘and the Word was God.’ The word ‘God’ is more familiar to us than the word ‘Word’. And so we would readily conclude that we know what ‘God’ means and try to categorize ‘Word’ accordingly. 

And that works well till the end of our passage. For there John tells us that none of us really have perceived God. We are ignorant about God. It is God who is unknown. But we have perceived and experienced Jesus. 

John knows that all the options available are interpretations of what is unknown – namely God. Unlike the blog, he does not simply dismiss the other options. He is actually inviting people to test the various interpretations. 

John tells us that with Jesus we will find that God is the embodiment of grace and truth, that from him we receive grace succeeding grace. What is unsaid is that all the other interpretations will fail in this regard. In some, instead of grace we will find rules, unforgiveness or intimidation. In others, instead of truth we will find obscurantism, deceit or a denial of reality. In still others, we will find limits to the grace we can receive or conditions under which we may expect to receive grace. 

And John is asking us, “Which of these, if taken to its logical conclusion would yield a world that will flourish, a world in which love and selflessness will prevail?” 

John has no doubts. “Test all you want,” he would say. “But at the end of the day, if you are honest, you will realize that the one definitive interpretation of the person and character of God is – Jesus.” 

In other words, John’s creed would not have been ‘Jesus is God’ though quite obviously he did believe that and would expect us also to believe the same. Rather, John’s creed would have been ‘this world can be one filled with love and justice and truth and faithfulness only if God is like Jesus, for Jesus is the only one who exists constantly in the embrace of the Father and who, therefore, is the only one qualified to give us a portrait of God that we can both understand and trust.’ 

Jesus, in other words, is the one trustworthy God exegete.

The Seductive Prison [Genesis 11] (2 September 2012)

I remember in 1983 mom, dad, my sister and I had gone to the US for a holiday. It was a wonderful time. In a matter of days we saw many wonderful things, wonderful, that is, in my sight. From natural wonders like the Niagara Falls to human wonders like the Epcot Center near Walt Disney World in Florida. Yes, yes! To my 14 year old mind that loved science, Epcot Center made a more lasting impression than did Mickey and his buddies! 

And I remember being on the Empire State Building and looking down from heights that would be a sure test for acrophobia – the fear of heights. The Empire State Building was the tallest human structure when it was made in 1931. It no longer is. Anyone care to know which is the tallest standing humans structure today? 

So strange right? How many of us know the most powerful car today? Or the aircraft that can fly fastest? Or the longest artificial dam? But for some strange reason we know that the Burj Khalifa is the tallest human structure today. 

Humans have always been obsessed with heights. Scaling Mt. Everest was the ultimate goal for mountaineers, even though K2, also known as Mount Godwin-Austin, the second highest mountain, is considered by most mountaineers to be the toughest mountain to climb. 

Yes, humans have always been obsessed with heights. And that is probably why we might think that today’s passage is about height. And that is probably why most of our bibles might say that this passage is about the Tower of Babel. 

True the passage mentions the tower. However, to conclude that the passage is about the tower is similar to concluding that the last book of the bible is about Patmos just because the island is mentioned in the first chapter of that book. 

So what is this chapter really about? In v. 4 the people say, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” In v. 5 we read, “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building.” In both places the tower is mentioned, preceded by the city. 

However, in v. 8 we read, “they stopped building the city.” There is no mention here of the tower because it is insignificant. The result of God’s action was that they stopped building the city. We can infer that they also stopped building the tower. But abandoning the city was the important outcome. Why? 

We read in v. 4, that the people said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” 

The building of the city has an ulterior goal. They did not want to be scattered. But at the end of our passage in v. 9 we read, “From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.” 

So what we have is this: The humans wanted not to be scattered and so they decided to build a city. However, in response God did something which made them abandon building the city as a result of which they were scattered. 

The crux of the passage is not the tower, but the city. They very fact that at the end of our passage, the city is named shows us that the tower was not important. If the tower were important, why is it forgotten in the second part of our passage? 

Also, the name of the city is important. We must be careful with reading the bible too literalistic a manner. As an example, and a pre-revelation for those who come for the bible study on Wednesdays, in Revelation 11 we learn that Jerusalem can be symbolically called Sodom or Egypt. 

Here in Genesis 11 we are being told not that the city was literally called Babel, or perhaps Babylon, but that its nature was that of Babel, confusion. 

At the textual level the confusion relates to the inability of the humans to understand each other. But the reason the city is called Babel is that the city itself reveals a deeper confusion. Or more to the point, the city produces a deep confusion. 

So let me ask you a question. This is not an open book test, so no peeking into scripture. Where in the bible do we first read of a city? 

Strange that so many knew about the Burj Khalifa, but so few know about the first mention of a city in scripture. 

In Genesis 4, after Cain has murdered Abel and after God pronounces a sentence on Cain we read: 

Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 

God provided some means of protecting Cain from the consequences of murdering Abel and we who have learnt to trust God, even if feebly, can assume that the protective means were adequate. Yet, Cain went away from God’s presence, rejecting this protection. And his first recorded public act is that of building a city. 

Cain’s city, the city built away from God’s presence, soon gives rise to Lamech, under whom the escalation of violence is institutionalized. Read Genesis 4.17-24 to convince yourself. 

Now living in cities, humans became so depraved that God found no way to address this problem than with a flood. But hardly has the flood faded from memory than humans resume their city building. 

In his masterpiece, Meaning of the City, Jacques Ellul, has much to say, obviously about the city. I must give a spoiler alert here to those who attend the bible studies. Referring to our passage Ellul writes: 

Babylon, the great city, or Babylon the Great. The biggest in the world. No one can rival her, not even Rome. Not because of her historical greatness, but because of what she represents mythically. All the cities of the world are brought together in her, she is the synthesis of them all. She is the head and the standard for the other cities. When the wrath of God is loosed, she is struck first. When she is struck, all the other cities are struck in her. The blame laid on her shoulders is applicable to every city... Everything said about Babylon is in fact to be understood for the cities as a whole. 

As all the other cities, Babylon (representative of all the others) is at the hub of civilization. Business operates for the city, industry is developed for the city, ships ply the seas for the city, luxury and beauty blossoms forth in the city, power rises and becomes great in the city. There is everything for sale, the bodies and souls of men. She is the very home of civilization and when the great city vanishes, there is no more civilization, a world disappears. She is the one struck in war, and she is the first to be struck in the war between the Lord and the powers of the world. A city greater than a simple city — the finishing of a work that can in no wise be finished, which man starts over indefinitely with ever the same purpose and the same access. Babylon, Venice, Paris, New York — they are all the same city, only one Babel always reappearing, a city from the beginning mortally wounded: ‘and they left off building the city.’ 

It is important here to note that when Ellul uses the word city, he does not simply mean hugely populated regions. Any place that is primarily a consumer rather than a producer of the necessities of life – food, shelter, clothing – is called a city. Any place that promises safety is a city. In today’s world anything from a village to a town to a city to a nation is what Ellul would classify as having characteristics that are quintessentially those of the city. Keep this in mind as we proceed. 

God intended that humans should spread and fill the earth, sharing its bounty with each other and with the rest of creation. But beginning from Cain and encapsulated poignantly in today’s text, humans reject this. 

We do not believe that God’s protection is enough. We fear being scattered. We fear being so few in number at any place that other humans or animals could overwhelm us. Instead we want our walls, our gates, our gatekeepers, our guardians. The city is ultimately the attempt of humanity to protect itself from the harsh world. People travel to the city from rural areas in the hopes of having a better life. The city seduces us all into believing that we are safer here than elsewhere. 

However, we know better. The city is where danger lurks in day and night. Crime is rampant in the city. Plagues start in the city due to the high population density. War is waged by one city against another. The city promises safety but is the most unsafe of places. 

And so when humans decided to gather in one city at Babel, God decides to put an end to this deception and delusion. The introduction of different languages serve the purposes of scattering the people and of leaving the city unfinished. 

We know and God knows that this does not quench the human desire to build cities. For the building of cities is the means by which humans hope to become safe. 

And the city has its positive qualities. Culture, literature, art, music, and science flourish in the city. And these are good. These are valuable human endeavours. But the problem is that the city is confused. That is why the archetypal city is Babel, confusion. 

And what is its confusion? Where is it misled? Every human city ever built has been built apart from the presence of the true God. There may be temples and mosques and churches and other so-called holy places. But the true God, the living God, is not welcome in the city because the city is the human insistence of living without God. 

But the desire to build and the desire to be creative is good and God will encourage these desires. And ironically, he will finally bring humans to a city. And so in Revelation 21 we read: 

I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it. 

And so we realize the shocking truth about the city’s confusion: That without God at its center, a city is not a protection from what is outside but a prison for those on the inside.

The Image in the Temple [Genesis 1] (8 July 2012)

Sermon Recording
          ________________________________________________________________

Today, we are beginning a series of sermons on the first few chapters of Genesis and the first chapter of the Gospel according to John. We are calling the sermon series ‘Beginnings.’ As many of you probably know, the series on Romans was supposed to conclude two Sundays back and this series was supposed to start last Sunday. I am glad though that it is starting today because something happened this past week.

You may have read in the newspapers that scientists at the CERN Supercollider have discovered the Higgs Boson, one of the fundamental particles predicted almost half a century ago.

Why am I glad? Well, for three reasons. First, I have been following the research at CERN ever since the Supercollider went operational, hoping for the discovery of new particles, especially the Higgs Boson.

Second, I was hoping that in the wake of its discovery, the prominent scientists would disavow connection to the popular term ‘God particle’ that is used for the boson. Both these hopes have now been realized.

Third, I will be giving the same message today that I would have were the boson not discovered. Hence, speaking after its discovery, I can assure you that, profound though the discovery was, it has not affected my beliefs, nor indeed the manner in which I interpret today’s text.

So to today’s text. The text starts with the words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” When you hear the word “created” in this context, what comes to mind? Probably something like the big bang? God bringing something into existence out of nothing. 

What about when you hear the sentence “He created a piece of art”? Surely not a one-time explosive big bang, but a possibly long process. And we know that the artist would not have started with nothing, but with a canvas, brushes, easel, paints, etc. 

What about when you read 1 Samuel 2.29? “Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?” 

What? What relevance does this have? The word translated as ‘fattening yourselves’ is the same that is translated as ‘created’ in Genesis 1.1. The Hebrew word is בָּרָא. 

If we do a word study of this word in the Old Testament we will find the following. First, when the verb takes a direct object, God is always the subject. Second, when the verb is reflexive as in 1 Samuel 2.29, the subject is a human. 

Third, most often, the focus of the verb is not on the material aspects. This is seen in Psalm 51.1, where David sings, “Create in me a clean heart.” He is not asking God to unclog his arteries or to wash the blood pump with soap! We know what he means, and it is not material in nature. 

If we go through all the uses of בָּרָא we will see that the common thread is not that of making something out of nothing, but filling something that already exists with meaning and purpose. 

Mind you, I am not saying that God did not create the material universe from scratch. What I am saying is that the focus of Genesis 1 is not on material creation from scratch, but on God’s giving creation meaning and purpose. It is a wonderful meaning and a powerful purpose, so stick with me. 

Apart from the study of the word בָּרָא, we have some intriguing clues, things that call out for recognition and understanding. 

First, in v. 2 we read, “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” We see that, prior to the happenings of v. 3 itself, the earth existed, the darkness existed and the waters existed. So when we read about darkness in vv. 4-5 and about waters in vv. 6-7, the text is not speaking of their being physically brought into existence out of nothing. Rather, the focus is somewhere else. 

Second, why does God call the light, day? Does that not strike you as odd. Why did he not call the light, light? It is like saying, “I will call this group of pages, a book.” Not all groups of pages are books. But all books are groups of pages – even if it is in digital format on your iPad or Kindle. Similarly, not all light is day. But all day it is light. Similarly, it is dark at night, but not all darkness is night. 

Third, v. 4 is inexplicable. There we read that God separated the light from the darkness. But we know and the ancients knew that darkness and light are immiscible! Where one exists, the other is excluded. Darkness is precisely the absence of light. 

It is best to think of the light spoken of in v. 5 not as light in its essence, but as a duration or period of light. Does it not make sense that after reading about darkness covering the earth, that God designated a period of light, which he named “day”? And God designated a period of darkness, which he called “night.” This makes more sense than naming light itself “day”. 

Fourth, if we concentrate on the first three days, we will see that the idea that binds them together is that of separation. On day 1, God separates a period of light from a period of darkness. On day 2, God separates the waters below, that is, on the face of the earth, from the water above, that is, in the sky. 

Now we know that there is no such physical barrier that controls the rains. But that is what the ancients believed. They believed the earth is flat and that there was a canopy that contained the waters in the sky and that from time to time the canopy was drawn back to bring rain. 

On day 3 God separates the land from the seas, bringing dry ground into the picture, where there had been only waters. 

What have these three days accomplished? Day 1 set in motion the diurnal cycle of alternating day and night, without which nothing could exist. Day 2 set in motion the cycle of seasons, which for the ancients was mainly about control of rain, without which nothing could grow and flourish. Day 3 provided the space within which the two cycles could function to bring food into being, here vegetation which depends on both the diurnal and seasonal cycles. 

Isaiah 45.18 captures these three days succinctly when God says, “This is what the Lord says... he who fashioned and made the earth; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.” The earth has a function and that function is for it to be inhabited. And the first three days of Genesis 1 tell us how God set up the overarching mechanisms as a consequence of which the earth could become habitable. 

So now to the next three days. If the first three days set up the mechanisms or functions for habitation, the second three days describe the entities through which the functions are fulfilled. 

Day and night are brought to the earth by the operation of the sun and the moon. These are mentioned on the fourth day. On the fifth day, the places not inhabitable by humans, namely, water and air, are filled with those who can inhabit them because God wants this earth to be bursting with life. And on the sixth day, the land itself is populated with all sorts of creatures. 

We have now reached v. 25. And the text is still probably quite opaque to us. It is opaque to us because it was not written to us. It was certainly written for us, but not to us. It was written to the Israelites many millennia ago. And in order to make the text transparent, we must ask ourselves, “What would have crossed an ancient Israelite’s mind when he or she read this?” 

The bible is not written in a vacuum. And the Israelites did not live isolated from the people around them. They would have known the writings of their neighbors – the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Sumerians, etc. And the Israelites would have recognized Genesis 1 as being similar at points to yet markedly different from the temple texts of their neighbors. 

A temple text, as the name might suggest, described the building and installation of a temple. The common pattern was three stanzas that described the timings of the offerings, the festival calendar and the acceptable offerings. You will immediately see a parallel between this and the first three days of Genesis. 

After this, in a temple text, comes another three stanzas, which describe the who’s-who of the temple. This is a description of their priesthood. Who is responsible for the daily offerings, who is responsible for the various festivals in the year and who is responsible for the temple itself. 

The parallels here with days four to six of Genesis 1 are not evident. But if you see this text as a parody of the other temple texts it makes sense. There is no specific human priesthood in Genesis 1. This is because all of inanimate creation and animate creation are already accepted by the real true God. There is no need for a priest because God has already declared everything good. 

And if you are not yet convinced, let me ask you, “What do I hold in my hand?” A ring. Any specific ring? It is my wedding ring. When the goldsmith made it, he did not make it to be a wedding ring. He would not have known who would have bought it and for what purpose. When it was bought the purpose was known. However, knowing the purpose and fulfilling it are two quite different things. The ring fulfilled its purpose when it was put on my hand. 

In much the same way, a temple text describes the installation of a temple. But it is incomplete without the final element. This is because a temple cannot function without that final element. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what that element might be? 

A temple is incomplete without the installation of the idol of the deity. And now we can see the importance and relevance of vv. 26-27. This is not some random strange thought propping up suddenly. 

Genesis 1 is telling its readers that creation itself is the temple of the living God. As scripture says elsewhere, heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool. And elsewhere, the whole earth is full of the glory of God. 

But if creation is the temple of the living God, where is the idol? And Genesis 1 answers that God has created human beings to be that image, that idol. They are the representation of the true God to the rest of creation. 

We can learn many things from this wonderful chapter. Most I cannot even mention because I have not laid the groundwork for them. Indeed, to speak of each of these aspects, we would need many months of messages. But here are a few things we can conclude. 

First, all of creation is God’s temple. The bible warns us about desecrating God’s temple. And so we must be careful about how we treat this creation, all of creation, for there is no separate sacred space. 

Second, the prohibition against making idols must be viewed in light of this passage. If God himself has placed idols, images, icons of his design in this temple of his, who are we to attempt to replace them? To make an idol, at the very least, is to say that God did not know what he was doing when he decided to be represented by humans. To make an idol, at its worst, is to reject God’s designation of humans as his image bearers. It is to say, “I cannot bear his image. Let this lifeless lump of clay do it.” 

Third, every human has been called to bear God’s image to the rest of creation. This is not restricted to a group of priests or a set of rulers. Divine representation is the prerogative of every human, male and female, and any attempt to deny this to any human is an affront to God. 

The very first chapter of the bible insists on an order of equality, rather than a hierarchical one, an order of justice, rather than a lopsided one. It tells us about a marvellous purpose extending to the entire universe. And it tells us about a glorious purpose given to humans. How can we not be in awe of the God who did this?

Evidence for Faith [Romans 10.1-13] (1 July 2012)

Today we bring to a close our series of messages on Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome. We are dealing with a portion of chapter 10, which along with chapters 9 and 11 show us Paul’s immense anguish about one overarching issue: Israel’s Messiah had come, but most of the people of Israel were still waiting for their Messiah.

Twenty centuries later, a few Jews still wait for their Messiah to be revealed. But for the most part the Jews have stopped waiting. Not because they believe their Messiah has come. Rather, they have given up any hope of his coming. Paul would be completely distraught today.

But in Paul’s day, they were still waiting. And Paul had to face the burning issue of whether the revelation in Jesus was not enough. Why were only a few Jews convinced that Jesus was and is their Messiah?

We who are separated by twenty centuries of time and thousands of miles need some information that was readily available to the people to whom Paul wrote this letter. 

Romans was probably written around AD 55. In AD 49, the emperor Gaius had the Jews expelled from Rome, as recorded in Acts 18.2 and confirmed by non-biblical sources. Paul spent more than a year at Corinth, during which he came in contact with many Jews who had fled Rome as a consequence of Claudius’ edict. 

When Nero came to power in AD 54, he rescinded the edict and allowed the Jews to return to Rome. Many of the people Paul was writing this letter to were these who had returned. But they were those who had left Rome as Jews, but who had returned as Christians. They knew what had happened to Paul while both they and he were at Corinth.

We need a refresher. In Acts 18.12 and 13 we read that Paul was taken before the proconsul Gallio. The Jews charged him with persuading people to worship God contrary to the Jewish law.

Remembering that they always went first to the Jews as even in Acts 18, we should ask ourselves, “What was so offensive about Paul’s preaching that the Jews hauled him before the proconsul?”

Paul knew the answer. He had been a sworn enemy of the church some years before. He knew the Jews were a zealous people because he himself was zealous. But as he says here, zeal without knowledge is worthless. He looked back at his former worldview and remembered why he had persecuted those who believed Jesus was the Messiah.

Well, for one thing, a dead Messiah is no Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to drive the enemies away from Israel, not end up being crucified by the enemies. A person who ended on a cross could only be cursed by God. And so such a person could never be the Messiah.

He is shaken from such a view on his way to Damascus, when Jesus has an encounter with him. And he has three days of blindness in which he is finally able to see the truth. On the road he asks, “Who are you , Lord?” and he begins to realize that the answer to that question is, “Jesus is Lord.”

Is! Such a small word. Such a powerful word in this context. Not Jesus was Lord. Not Jesus will be Lord. Rather Jesus is Lord. Right then. Right now. Paul realizes that this could only mean that something wholly unanticipated had happened, that in the midst of time, rather than at the end of it, Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Mind you, most Jews of that time believed that God would raise the faithful from the dead at the end of time. The issue that most Jews would have had with the preached gospel was that the Christians said that Jesus had been raised while their mundane lives went on as usual. That was not supposed to happen. 

Resurrection was supposed to be one of the final acts of God when he brought everything to its culmination. But here was this bunch of people who claimed that it had already happened to one person – just one person, and that too in the midst of this era. 

From a conventional Jewish perspective, this was just unintelligible. We can recall the response of the apostle Thomas. We call him doubting Thomas, but really this was the reaction of all the disciples. Even the women who first witnessed the empty tomb did not conclude that Jesus had risen from the dead. Their conclusion was that perhaps someone was playing a cruel joke on them by stealing Jesus’ body.

Most Jews that Paul would have encountered during his preaching of the gospel would have been like Thomas, asking for proof. Some may have said, “If Jesus is really alive, let him come down from heaven and show himself to me, just as he did to you, Paul.” Or “If Jesus is really risen, let me see the place of the dead and confirm that he has been taken from there already.”

People asking for proof of the events of the gospel is nothing new. Paul must have encountered such demands on a daily basis. “Why you? Why not me?” would have been the unsettling question he would have faced.

And Paul knows that proof and faith cannot go hand in hand. Just as he said in chapter 8 that no one hopes for what he already has, so also he could have said here that no one believes what has already been proved to him. Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Where one exists, the other cannot.

Mind you, I am not saying that we must have blind faith. Far from it. God has given us our minds and our ability to reason. And he expects us to use those abilities. But he also expects us to be humble enough to know when we have reached the end of our abilities.

Here in Romans 10, Paul writes, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The book of Acts records the preaching of the early church. And from Peter and John to Stephen and Paul the preaching centers around two points: Jesus is Lord and Jesus has been raised. The exaltation of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus formed the hinges of their proclamation.

Twenty centuries later, we read these words and are hardly fazed by them. We have accepted these two hinges and so we are unable to appreciate how ground breaking the gospel is.

As we have seen, resurrection was something the Jews believed would happen. But it would happen at the end of time, when God recreated his marred creation. Resurrection was something that belonged not to this fallen order of things, but to the renewed order that God had promised to bring about, when he would finally come and live with his people.

The resurrection of Jesus in the middle of this old order means but one thing: God has decided to allow the new order to press in upon the old. Without doing away with the old order, God has inaugurated his new order.

Christians are caught in the middle of this invasion of the new creation. On the one hand we experience the Holy Spirit indwelling us. But on the other hand, we still are limited by our sinfulness. Paul has written about these aspects of the Christian life earlier in Romans.

Here he is addressing those who had accepted the proclamation of Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection and we can count ourselves in that group.

The Christians at Rome, who had left Rome as Jews and had returned as Christians, would have returned with others who we still not-Christians. And those Jews would have ridiculed the Christian faith, just as Paul once had. They would have demanded proof of Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection.

But what Paul is telling those Christians and us twenty centuries later is to avoid the temptation of thinking that if one is only more fervent in one’s faith or more vocal with one’s words, one will be able to get a glimpse of Jesus.

The Christian faith is not one of flamboyance. There are few, if any, fireworks. God is not some genie, existing to provide blinding proof of Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection by doing this miracle or providing that sign.

We would like God to simply show himself. We are confident that if Jesus simply revealed himself, people would believe the gospel. But the problem is that you cannot believe what you see. Sight precludes faith. The reason God is hidden is that only his hidden-ness leaves space for faith.

Once again, God does not ask for blind faith. Rather, he provides us with evidence, through scripture, through the voice of the Spirit in us and through the voices of other Christians around us. And as these voices rise in a crescendo around us, we confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead.

Conquering Sufferers [Romans 8.31-39] (24 June 2012)

Many of us, I suspect, view God as some sort of Sugar Daddy, who exists mainly to make life easier, to remove difficulties and obstacles from our path, to support us through everything. And quite a few of us might find justification for such a view from our passage for today. 

Let me ask a question. Without opening your bibles, can you tell me how the text for today begins?

[Respond to their answers.]

Paul begins today’s passage with a question: “What then shall we say in response to these things?” Quite naturally, we should be thinking, “What things is Paul talking about?” 

He is talking about everything he has mentioned from the start of the letter. In today’s passage, he is drawing to a close the first big part of the letter, which he began way back in chapter one itself. He began by introducing himself as an apostle of the gospel. And it takes him almost eight chapters to spell out what the gospel is and what it means.

So now he asks, “What then shall we say in response to these things?” And he proceeds to ask a few more questions?

“If God is for us who can be against us?” he asks. God’s being for us is the gospel in a nutshell. But we should not think that what this means is that God endorses and supports our every undertaking. The gospel does not tell us that God will smile on our every endeavor. 

Rather, as we saw in the text we dealt with last week, God has predestined us to be conformed to the image of Jesus. God’s being for us must be viewed in light of this predetermination to Christ-likeness. In other words, God is for us means that he will do what it takes to ensure that we become like his Son.

And then Paul asks, “Who can be against us?” Paul does not answer the questions directly and not right after asking it. But the answer is not “No one and nothing can be against us.” 

Paul knew that there are forces which work against our becoming like Jesus. And if God’s agenda for us is for us to become like Jesus, then anything and anyone that works against that agenda is against us.

Then Paul asks, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” We can easily see this as an argument from something that is greater, in this case God’s Son, to something that is lesser, in this case all things.

But what does “all things” refer to? All too often we might think that “all things” actually means “all things that we consider good” or even “all things that are inherently good.” 

So we might think that God has given us the new job we applied for, but not conclude that he has also given us the letter indicating we have been laid off.

Or we might think that God has given us healing from some terrible disease, but not conclude that he had also given us the illness in the first place.

Or we might think that God has given us a wonderful baby, but not that he has given us a baby with a disability.

We have a tendency in the Christian church of refusing to – for want of a better word – blame God for the bad things that happen to us, for the things that happen that make us uncomfortable.

But Paul will have nothing of this kind of thinking. God is in control. And so whatever befalls us is directly or indirectly God’s doing. Everything that comes to us is given to us by God.

And Paul is speaking about especially the kind of things that unsettle us. Otherwise this passage makes little sense. When are facing some difficulty for a long time, we will experience the accusations. Not necessarily audibly. But the accusations will be there, just as they were for Job. 

“You must have sinned for this to happen to you.” “You must not have obeyed God completely if this is happening to you.” “It is evident that you lack faith.” “You do not truly trust God.” And we can go on with the charges that Christians have used over the centuries to abuse other Christians with.

And when those accusations – audible or merely in our minds – hit us, we will wonder who is behind those charges. Is it God? And Paul answers, “God is the one who justifies us.” Yes we have sinned. Yes we still sin. And yes we will sin tomorrow. But God has chosen to accept the righteousness of Jesus as being ours. That is the gospel. If he has decided to accept Jesus’ righteousness, then he has also decided that our shortcomings are not reason for any accusations.

But sometimes the trouble does not stop with just the accusations. No! Sometimes it moves on to the consequences of the charges. 

“If that is what you believe, then you are not truly a Christian.” “If you have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, you are not a part of the church of God.” And once again, unfortunately, we can go on with all the different ways we Christians have found to condemn other Christians.

But Paul asks, “Who then is the one who condemns?” In other words, what is the source of these condemnations? Remember, he started chapter eight with “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Here we reach a point in the passage that makes many of us envision a very strange thing that goes against the grain of the passage. When Paul says that Jesus is interceding for us, who is his intercession directed to? We often imagine that Jesus is interceding on our behalf with God the Father. But that goes against what Paul has just said. God is the one who justifies sinners. God is not blind. He justifies only those who are in Christ Jesus, knowing full well that these humans are sinful.

So if Jesus intercedes with God for us, it either makes God look like some absent minded person bent on condemning people or it makes Jesus’ intercession ridiculous. Do we really imagine that every time I sin Jesus says to the Father, “But remember, he is mine” and that the Father says, “Oh yeah! Thanks for the reminder. I was just going to blast him to smithereens”? Or that the Father says, “Remember? I am God! I do not forget who belongs to you”?

Just because Paul says that Jesus is at the right hand of God does not mean that Jesus is interceding with God. So who is Jesus interceding with? He is interceding with those who have brought the charges against us and those who have condemned us. When someone brings a charge against a Christian, Jesus pleads with that person to see the truth. Whenever a Christian faces an accusation or condemnation, it gives Jesus the opportunity to intercede with the accuser in order that the accuser might understand the true nature of the gospel.

And so Paul goes on to ask, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” The accusations and condemnations aim to undermine our belief that we belong to Jesus. They tell us that we are not truly a part of him. And they might lead us to believe that they are signs of our being separated from Jesus.

We hear this often among those who preach prosperity. I will not dignify that kind of teaching by using the often used phrase “prosperity gospel” for it is not the gospel. You hear there that you have a grave illness because you have some secret sin. Or that you have financial difficulties because you did not contribute enough to that particular ministry. Or that you are being persecuted because you are not a true believer.

The prosperity thinking is a dualistic thinking in which only what makes me feel good is from God and what makes me feel bad is from the forces of evil that have a hold on me on account of some sin in my life.

But Paul will have nothing of that. For him the underlying premise is that God wants us to become like Jesus. And Jesus himself did not have a cushy life. His was not a bed of roses. And he faced accusations and was condemned to death.

And so for Paul, the accusations and condemnations that come the way of the Christian are not signs of backsliding or sin, but precisely the evidence of Jesus’ embrace. 

That is why Paul can quote from Psalm 44. “For your sake we face death all day long.” There are two sides to this. The difficulties come to a Christian precisely because Jesus loves the Christian and because God has predetermined the Christian to become like Jesus. But also, the Christian faces these with confidence and without becoming discouraged because he or she loves Jesus. 

We have the opportunity to face accusations and condemnations because God is for us and because Jesus loves us. And we face them with joy because we love Jesus and trust God to do right by us.

And so when Paul uses the words “we are more than conquerors” we should not forget that he preceded them with the words “in all these things.” God does not spare us pain and suffering. He does not provide his people with a comfortable life. To the contrary following Jesus brings difficulties. And God brings his people through those difficulties. And in the midst of those difficulties we are not discouraged, we are not disheartened, because we understand that these things are happening to us precisely because Jesus loves us. And we go through these things because we in turn love him.

“More than conquerors” does not mean that I will say a prayer and my difficulties will vanish. That may happen at times, but that is not guaranteed. 

“More than conquerors” does not mean that I can simply name something I want and believe strongly that it will happen and then it will. That may happen at times but it is not guaranteed.

What is guaranteed is that nothing can separate us from God’s love toward us, the love put on display in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the love made real in our lives through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Divine Conspiracy of Predestined Conformity [Romans 8.28-30] (17 June 2012)

We are currently hearing messages on key passages from Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome. Last week we saw how creation itself will be redeemed when the children of God are finally redeemed. We saw that God is not concerned only about humans, but about every part of his good and beautiful creation, which God himself has now subjected so that humans may learn obedience.

Today, we have a short passage, but one so rich, a whole series of messages could be given on them. I cannot do full justice to the richness of the text. But what I wish to do is reveal a conspiracy. It is contained in this passage. And it is one orchestrated by God. So let’s get to it.

Having spoken about creation groaning for its redemption and having told us how the Spirit helps us when we ourselves groan, Paul continues with the startling words, “We know.” We know. Not we believe. Not we think it might be so. Not it is highly likely that. Not the forecast is. 

No! Rather, we know! 

The Spirit living in the Christian gives such supreme confidence in the reality that Paul is about to describe that only the words, “We know” could capture it.

But what is it that we know? “All things work together for good toward those who love God.” What in the world does this mean? What does “all things” refer to? The majority view is that this refers to the circumstances of a Christian’s life, that everything that happens, whether good or bad, works in favor of the Christian. Another view, reflected in the NIV, is that God works in everything that happens in a Christian’s life so as to produce good through it. 

But if we consider the flow of the passage, and the fact that Paul has only just devoted quite bit of space to the groaning of creation, we will be led to understanding that “all things” refers to creation itself.

The Spirit helps us when we don’t know how to pray or what to pray for with regard to the redemption of creation. But because creation realizes that a Christian is someone who will be bodily redeemed, someone who loves God, someone for whom Jesus died, someone indwelt by the Spirit, creation itself is favorably inclined toward the Christian. Every part of creation works in tandem with every other part for the benefit of those who love God. We will shortly see what that benefit is.

Mind you, I am not saying that this does not happen in the context of the circumstances of our lives. To say that would be absurd, for we are benefited only through the circumstances of our lives. 

What I am saying is that it is not the case that creation is somehow working against us and that God is somehow turning the bad things that creation hurls at us into things that benefit us.

Rather, the bad things are hurled at us by the forces of evil and the humans who willfully or helplessly assist those forces. And God lifts the curse on creation for the sake of those who love him. Creation is now able to join God in benefiting those who love him and, in doing so, oppose the forces of evil. What the benefit is we will see shortly.

Now Paul moves on to one of the most controversial pair of verses. Paul mentions this string of ideas – foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. 

The last three, namely calling, justification and glorification, can easily be seen as a temporal sequence. One first receives the call to believe the gospel and trust Jesus, whether over time in the context of a Christian home or over time in the witness of a Christian friend or even as a onetime invitation in say a crusade such a conducted by Billy Graham or by receiving a tract, etc.

Then, if one believes the gospel and trusts Jesus, one is justified and becomes a part of the people of God. And finally, as Paul wrote in the passage we discussed last week, we wait in hope for our glorification.

Because these three ideas easily fit into a temporal sequence, many Christians have tried to see the first two also as fitting the same sequence. So, it is claimed that a person would not even receive the invitation to believe the gospel and trust Jesus were it not for the fact that that person were predestined by God. 

And that person would have been predestined by God because God had foreknowledge that that person would come to faith in Jesus.

But that is nonsensical. It is illogical. It is circular reasoning. It makes no sense to say that God saw into the future, obtained the knowledge that I would come to faith in Jesus, and so predestined, called, justified and glorified me. 

It is like saying, “I saw that you would return the book I lent you and so I predestined you to receive the invitation to borrow the book, subsequent to which you accepted the invitation, borrowed the book, read it and then returned it.”

The issuing of the invitation cannot be made contingent on its being accepted, which is how this view sees it.

Many Christians would readily see the logical failure of this argument. And they would propose that when Paul speaks of God’s foreknowledge, he is speaking of God’s foreknowledge not of the person’s accepting the invitation to believe the gospel, but of the foreknowledge that God himself would predestine certain people to be called, to believe, and to be eventually glorified.

But this too is ridiculous! It is like saying, “I saw that I would have bacon for breakfast. And so I predestined myself to go to the nice little breakfast joint, called our my order, received the order and ate it with glorious gusto!

Both these views are hugely popular. A staunch Calvinist would endorse the second view, making everything the decision of God. A semi-Pelagian would endorse the first view, making God’s initial act contingent on human response. And both views are illogical.

But both these views fail because they have been taken out of the context within which they appear. They are easily seen as illogical or inconsistent because they are trying to do with the text something that Paul did not intend. If you try hammering nails with a screwdriver or cutting paper with a power drill, don’t complain that it appears to be laughable.

The key here is the clause that is the most important and which is conveniently ignored by both views. Paul writes, “Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined – and here it is – to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.”

Paul is not talking about predestination to salvation. He is linking our present sufferings with which he began the passage we looked at last week to the glory which we anticipate.

Earlier in the letter Paul wrote, “We also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”

Here Paul makes it more specific. The character that will be developed in a Christian by virtue of the sufferings he or she endures will be the character of Jesus. Paul is saying that every Christian is predestined to become like Jesus. And just as Jesus himself had to endure suffering, so also a Christian will endure suffering.

We make a category error when we view these verses as being directly spoken to individuals. Then we get into the logical inconsistencies of the semi-Pelagian and Calvinist views, either on the one had that God predestines to salvation those whom he foreknows will be saved or that God predestines to salvation those whom he foreknows he will save.

Rather, what Paul is saying here is that we Christians are not spared from sufferings. We endure every kind of suffering. We do so not because God predestined us to suffer or because God predestined our salvation. Rather we suffer because God has predestined, that is, decided beforehand, that everyone who is saved should become like Jesus. And the book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus learnt obedience through his sufferings.

Those whom God foreknows will come to faith in Jesus, he has predestined to remain not mere believers, but to become Christlike.

And now we can see what v. 28 means and what I meant when I spoke of the idea that creation is working for our benefit.

Creation is groaning. We saw that last week. And it groans because it awaits its own redemption, which is contingent on our redemption. And so creation colludes with God. All things, every part of creation, works together as a unit, a team, to benefit those who love God. 

But how does it do this? It does this by providing for us the environment within which our present sufferings will enable us to be conformed to the image of God’s Son because that is the goal set by God for those who love him, who have been called according to his purposes.

So what we see till now in chapter 8 is not an ivory tower description of the process of salvation. Rather we are given a glimpse into the creativeness of God. Outside the Christian life suffering is meaningless. But in the Christian life, suffering is the means by which we become more like the one we love. This is the Divine Conspiracy.