Skip to content

Blog

Published on Leave a comment on Three ways Christ is in the OT

By promise

By prototype

By presence

Genesis 22 is a good example of Christ being there in all three senses.

By promise, He is there in the Seed, first promised in 3:15, threatened through sacrificial death but renewed so that in Abraham's Seed all nations will be blessed (22:18).

He is also promised very strikingly in v14.  Abraham said the LORD would provide a lamb (v7-8).  On this occasion a ram is provided (v13).  And "So Abraham caled the name of that place "The LORD will provide."  As it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."   The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world will be provided on that mountain in the region of Moriah (Jerusalem - cf 2 Chron 3:1).  And everybody knew about it.  They kept saying 'On that mountain the LORD shall provide Himself the lamb.'  (It's a reflexive verb, tricky to translate but fascinating all the same!)

By prototype, there is Isaac the very first promised offspring of Abraham.  The beloved son.  The heir of the promises.  He carries the wood on his back up the hill while his father holds the tools of judgement (v6).  He is laid on the wood for sacrifice, but through divine intervention Abraham receives him back from death (cf Heb 11:19).  And all of this on the third day (v4)

By presence, the Angel of the LORD intervenes.  In v12 He sees that Abraham fears God because he didn't withhold his son from Himself (that is, from the Angel).  In verses 15-18 the Angel speaks as the LORD, swears by Himself and promises to bless Abraham as above.   He both is the LORD but He is also clearly distinct from another Person called LORD.    Interesting isn't it - this is the only time the Angel is said to speak from heaven.  Christ chose not to come down to this pre-enactment of the cross.

So Christ is present in a mixture of these three ways throughout the OT. 

And it's important to highlight all three and to relate them to one another.  The Angel is present not as a freaky apparition but as a portent of the gospel work He would do as the promised Seed, the promised Isaac etc.  Check out these quotes by John Owen that interweave Christ as actually present and Christ as promised:

"After the promise [of Gen 3:15] was given, he appeared ‘in human form’ to instruct the Church in the mystery of his future incarnation, and under the name of Angel, to shadow out his office as sent unto it and employed in it by the Father; so here, before the promise, he discovered his distinct glorious person, as the eternal Voice of the Father. (John Owen's Works, Volume 18, p220)

[On the LORD's appearance in Genesis 18]  Neither is there any ground for the late exposition of this and the like places, namely, that a created angel representing the person of God doth speak and act in his name, and is called Jehovah; an invention to evade the appearances of the Son of God under the old testament, contrary to the sense of all antiquity, nor is any reason or instance produced to make it good. (ibid, p221)

[On Genesis 32:24-30]  From what hath been spoken, it is evident that he who appeared unto Jacob, with whom he earnestly wrestled, by tears and supplications was God; and because he was sent as the angel of God, it must be some distinct person in the Deity condescending unto that office; and appearing in the form of a man, he represented his future assumption of our human nature.  And by all this did God instruct the church in the mystery of the person of the Messiah, and who it was that they were to look for in the blessing of the promised Seed. (ibid, p225)

[On Exodus 3:1-6] He is expressly called an “Angel” Exod. 3:2 – namely, the Angel of the covenant, the great Angel of the presence of God, in whom was the name and nature of God.  And he thus appeared that the Church might know and consider who it was that was to work out their spiritual and eternal salvation, whereof that deliverance which then he would effect was a type and pledge. (ibid, p225)

When we highlight the presence of Christ with the people it is not to minimize the importance of the promise nor the proto-types.  Christ is present among them that He Himself might prefigure His promised work.  So the OT is not various promises and types moving towards Christ but is Christ Himself striding towards His own incarnation.  (Blackham's phrase).

But then why specifically highlight the presence verses?

Well often when I speak about Christ in the OT I mention the promises and people say "Ah yes, but they spoke better than they knew."  Sometimes they'll bring up 2 Cor 1:20 and say 'There were lots of promises about all kinds of stuff but, unbeknown  to the OT saints, these promises ended up being about Christ.'  Of course they never quote v19 which says 'These promises have always been 'Yes' in Christ.'  But still the 'promises' route seems to slide off people's backs.

The proto-types route very readily slides off backs too.  'David was David' they say, 'No-one had to know he prefigured the divine Messiah.'  Now of course you can quote Gen 49:10, you can point to the immensely exalted ways David is spoken of in the OT, you can do what Jesus did and quote Ps 110 or what Peter did and quote Psalm 16, but still people don't want to admit that the OT saints consciously knew about the typology in which they participated.

And so we turn to the presence verses.  And here there is still resistance - "Ok so Jacob knew that the name of the God of Abraham was the Angel (the Sent One) and He was the Source of blessing (Gen 48:15-16).  So what?" 

But my hope is that banging on this particular point may just soften up an assumption that resists this teaching very strongly.  The assumption is that OT saints could not have understood that the divine Visitor who encountered them was Himself LORD and also sent from the LORD.  It is assumed that OT saints are effectively unitarian in their understanding.  It is assumed that the OT saints had no ability to conceive of 'God from God' the way we do and therefore no conceptual framework for knowing and trusting the distinct Person of the divine Mediator.

My hope is that banging on these verses may just loosen up such a tight set of assumptions, because those assumptions really do straight-jacket these discussions.

It's not by any means the only way by which we should speak of Christ in the OT but it's a significant plank in the argument.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Three approaches to Christ in OT discussions

I'm the sort of person who bangs a drum for Christ in the OT.  Specifically I think it's important to maintain that knowledge of God is always in Christ. 

In my experience there are three ways to do this:

1) From the OT forwards

Basically you point out where the OT reveals an Appearing LORD, the Angel of the LORD, the Commander of the LORD's army etc.  And you say 'Look - there He is.'

2) From the NT backwards

Basically you show how Jesus and the Apostles just assumed that the OT saints knew Christ.

3) Systematically

Here you point out how Christ is the Image, Word, Way, Truth and Life of God - and always has been.

Typically I encounter these kinds of resistance.

Against 1) I tend to find an underlying assumption something like:

The OT saints could not have even a proto-trinitarian understanding of deity in distinction among multiple Persons called 'LORD'.  They (therefore) could not have an understanding of the distinct Person of Christ. 

Of course there is no Scriptural warrant for this.  It is just an assumption.  But a very strong one.  Quite rarely will this assumption yield even when confronted with a barrage of OT texts.

If it is finally conceded that Christ in His distinct deity is present in the text, the interlocutor will typically say "Ah but nobody at the time realised it."

Again this is not a Scriptural assertion, but it has tremendous force on your interlocutor.  They may even argue as though "They spoke better than they knew" was in the bible.  It's not in the bible.  And it's an extremely poor assessment of the bible's teaching on OT faith and prophecy. 

 

Against 2) I find an underlying assumption something like:

Whenever Jesus and the NT speak of Christ-focused faith and experience in the OT, they are always re-reading the OT in a way that was neither intended nor grasped by the OT saints.

Here's a frustrating little quirk!  Bring up a barrage of NT texts that say something like "Seeing what was ahead David spoke of the resurrection of the Christ" (Acts 2:31) and you will receive a reply something like "Ah yes, Peter said that, but only with Pentecostal eyes of faith."

Um... [scratch head]... so David saw and spoke of Christ and His resurrection but... only once Pentecost happened?  ...?

 

Against 3) I reckon the underlying assumption is something like:

You don't really need to know Jesus to know God.  Obviously it's best.  But not essential.

To be honest I think this is the one that really throbs beneath much of these discussions. 

I don't mind if people have false assumptions 1) or 2).  I'm fairly optimistic that eventually the Scriptures will do their work here.  I find false assumption 3) to be the most intransigent and the most worrying.

Go here to read quotes from history firmly opposed to such an idea.

Go here to read a debate we're having on just this topic - we're up to 67 comments!

And keep reading the blog - because that's what 'Christ the Truth' is all about.

.

 

 

Published on Leave a comment on 1 Corinthians 9 sermon – part five

Continued from here.

Where do we draw the line though?  Is Paul infinitely flexible? Just a chameleon with no integrity?  No, look at those brackets in v21:

21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.

Paul is not just all spin and no substance. Even when Paul enters deeply into another culture there is still something ruling Paul.  He says he’s not free from God’s law but he uses a wonderful phrase to describe his relationship to Christ.  He is in-lawed by Christ.  Not that Christ is like the in-laws – that would not be good!  But it’s the idea of Paul kind of sunk down into Christ who is Paul’s law.  Christ Himself is the ruling authority in Paul’s life – Christ has en-law-ed Paul.  So Paul has not just cast off every rule and authority “Hey – all things to all men – whatever man!”  Instead he is ruled, he has a centre, he has integrity.  It’s Jesus.  It’s the Jesus who hung out with prostitutes and publicans and sinners.  But it’s the Jesus who never sinned in those circumstances.

Which means Paul could never say ‘I became a drug dealer in order to win drug dealers.’   ‘I became a drug user to win drug users.’  Or ‘I became sex worker to win sex workers.’  But it will mean some people saying ‘I hang out with drug dealers and drug users to win drug dealers and drug users.’  ‘I hang out with sex workers to win sex workers.’

There’s flexibility, but there’s also faithfulness.

But why Paul?  Why go through all of this??  It’s so much easier to stick with people like us.

We’re not even aware of how strongly we just gravitate towards people like us.  When we’ve walked into a room we’ve assessed the people there in a nanosecond and we gravitate immediately to people like us.  Without even thinking about it, we strike up a conversation with people our age, our race, our tax bracket, our sense of humour, our fashion sense.  We’ve made those calculations at the speed of thought, and we slot into cliques with ‘people like us’.  Because – we crave acceptance, we deeply want to belong and it’s exhausting crossing social and cultural boundaries.

So how does Paul do it?

23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

I read another translation of this verse which I think is a bit better.  “That I may be a CO-sharer in the gospel.” Paul shares in the blessings of the gospel.  He has the right to be God’s child.  But he doesn’t want to enjoy this blessing on his own.  He wants other CO-sharers.  He wants other children around him.

And that’s the prize he speaks about in v24.  In v25 he calls it ‘the crown’ – we might call it the gold medal.  The prize Paul is interested in is having MANY other people share in the gospel blessings with him.  In Philippians (4:1) Paul calls his fellow believers his joy and crown.  And in 1 Thessalonians (2:19) he says this:

[SLIDE]

19For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? 20Indeed, you are our glory and joy.

Paul’s vision of the future is not just sitting down at the great feast with Jesus and no-one else.  His vision is sitting down at the feast in the new creation enjoying the presence of Jesus WITH the Philippians and the Thessalonians and the Corinthians and with as many other people as possible.  That’s a crown worth working for.  That’s a prize that can get you excited.  And so Paul tells us how this prize motivates him.

 24Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.  25Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Do you know how much training it takes to run a marathon?  Frankly I don’t want to know.  Cos it aint happening?  I’m out of breath just brushing my teeth.  But I looked up a few training regimes this week.  And they seem to vary between 14 and 23 weeks.  And at some point you’re running 75 miles in a week.  Even if I did nothing else, there are not enough days in a week for me to run 75 miles.  Where do they find the time?  I read one 14 week regime it said: Week one, day one: Run 6 miles.  I need a 14 week regime just to get me to that!  By day 7 of week one it said: Run 13-15 miles.  You’re running a half-marathon by the end of your first week.  I thought ‘That’s a bit extreme’ and then I realised that this was the training regime for someone who wants to run the marathon in under 3 hours. 

But actually this is the kind of regime that Paul’s talking about because, v24, we run in such a way as to get the prize.  In v24, Paul’s not saying ‘There’s only one spot in heaven, I’ll race you!’  He’s saying the way we seek to win others for Christ is not like a fun run.  It’s not a saunter in the park.  It’s a competitive sub-3 hour marathon regime.  And when you’re on this regime you watch your diet like a hawk, you eliminate virtually everything else from your diary and your life is taken over by running. 

But you know what?  If you are obsessed enough about running a sub-3 hour marathon, your whole life will be brought into line.  If the crown is in mind, if the medal is in mind, if the finishing line is in mind, you’ll find that you have the most amazing self-discipline.  Unnecessary stuff gets squeezed out and you’ll do it with zeal because you’re looking to the prize.

Read verses 22-23 again:

I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Paul wants to sit down with Christ in the new creation.  And next to him is that Philippian jailor he converted.  And the Jewish business woman Lydia.  And that demon possessed slave girl he met.  When Paul was in Philippi he was flexible enough to reach all of them – you can read about it in Acts 16.  But there they’ll be the Jail warden, the well-to-do Jewish business woman and the demon possessed slave girl.  (Ex-demon possessed).  They’ll all be feasting together.  What a prize!  And opposite Paul will be the very religious Jews he met at the synagogue and across from them the very clever Greek philosophers he converted in Athens, and next to them will be some Corinthians who chapter 6 told us were once sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers.  They’ll all be there because the Gospel is big enough to meet and change all of them – and Paul was Christ-like enough to be flexible.

Who do you want to sit down with on that day?  Jesus’ blood has paid for every tribe, language, people and tongue.  Who’s going to reach them?  Who’s going to reach Eastbourne?  Well – we are.  That is, if we abandon our entitlement spirit.  If we stop insisting on hoarding time and money and comfort?  If we stop sauntering along like a fun run, or like a shadow boxer.  There is a race to run and a prize to win.  Thank Jesus that we can partake in this great work.  And ask Him now for help to sacrifice what needs to be sacrificed so we can run well.

PRAY

.

Published on Leave a comment on 1 Corinthians 9 sermon – part four

...Continued from here.

Let me ask you a question: What does an evangelical look like?

‘Evangelical’ is just a label that bible believing Christians like us use for ourselves. It’s taken from the word ‘evangel’ which means ‘gospel’. An evangelical just means a ‘gospel person.’ So what does an evangelical look like?

The scandal is – everyone knows what an evangelical looks like.

Ned Flanders

Ned Flanders. We know it. The world knows it. Evangelicals look like white, middle-class, suburban, university educated, irritating, sanctimonious nerds.

Did you know that most of the world is not white, middle-class, suburban, university educated and nerdy? So what would an evangelical look like then?

hijab

Would you look like a Muslim to win Muslims?

Biker

Would you become a biker to win bikers?

evangelicalcassock

Robed to win the robe lovers?

chav

A chav to win chavs?

porn show demonstrator

Here is a protestor outside the strip clubs of New Orleans.  Is this the evangelical position towards the sex trade?

What about...

inside the porn show

Here's XXXchurch handing out 'Jesus Loves Porn Stars' Bibles.  They distribute thousands of New Testaments with this cover to pornographers and enthusiasts at porn shows across America.

All things to all people that by all possible means we might save some.

Here's the point:  If evangelicalism starts to be visibly identifiable as a certain cultural / religious movement it’s actually betrayed the evangel – the gospel – that supposedly shapes it.

That is the stunning implication of 1 Corinthians 9

To be continued...

.

Published on Leave a comment on 1 Corinthians 9 sermon – part three

...Continued from here.

To offer the gospel for free and for everyone requires huge sacrifices on our part.  To offer it for free will put great pressure on our time and money - Paul had to work a second job.  To offer it freely for everyone will require huge sacrifices of personal comfort.  It will require that we leave our own comfort zones of 'people like us' and enter deeply into the cultures and sub-cultures of others. 

That's what Paul addresses from v19:

 19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.

And then Paul gives some examples:

20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Paul grew up Jewish.  He called himself a Hebrew of Hebrews.  Circumcised on the 8th day. Of the tribe of Benjamin.  Paul was a Pharisee.  You know those pious religious types who kept every law and made up more just for fun?  Paul was one of them.  But then, as v1 reminds us, Paul met Jesus.  Jesus turned Paul’s life around.  And Paul realizes it’s not about the law.  It’s not about legal obedience.  It’s not about circumcision or eating the right food or observing special days or jumping through any of the hoops of the OT law.  It’s about Jesus.  To be saved – to be right with God - trusting Jesus is IT.  It’s not: trust Jesus and do your best.  It’s not: trust Jesus and be circumcised.  It’s not: trust Jesus and take a pilgrimmage to Bognor Regis.  It’s: trust in Jesus.  Full stop.  And all that religious stuff has every danger in the world of getting in the way of simply trusting Jesus.  And so Paul writes the most damning critique of Jewish practices in all the bible.  He says ‘If you think Jewish practices and religious observances get you to God, you’re headed for hell.’  It’s Jesus and only Jesus.  The book of Galatians is all about this.  He even says at one stage: ‘If you think getting circumcised will bring you closer to God – I hope the knife slips.’  (Gal 5:12).  He actually says that.  You couldn’t find a person more opposed to Jewish practices as a road to salvation.

But what does he say in v20 here?  He says when I’m with Jews, I’m like a Jew.  I dress like a Jew.  I eat like a Jew.  I go to all the Jewish festivals.  I even pay for others to go to Jewish festivals.  And here’s how much Paul is flexible.  In Acts 16, Paul goes with another gospel worker called Timothy into a predominantly Jewish area.  Timothy’s mum was a Jew, but his dad was not.  So Timothy had not been circumcised.  You know how flexible Paul is?  The man who wrote: “If you get circumcised to get closer to God – I hope the knife slips”- he circumcised Timothy.  Not to get closer to God, but to get closer to the Jews.  Not to save Timothy – to save those Jews.  Paul didn’t want all his conversations with the Jews to be ‘Why isn’t Timothy circumcised?  His mother’s a Jew, don’t you care about the Old Testament?’  Paul didn’t want his conversations to be about foreskins – he wanted his conversations to be about Christ.  So he said, “Timothy... mate. You’re going to have to take one for the team here.”  That's the kind of costly flexibility that's called for.

Imagine I’m invited to a high Anglican church to preach – and I say ‘I won’t wear your priestly robes, because wearing robes doesn’t get you closer to God.  And so I show up in a T-shirt and shorts.  I might think I’m demonstrating the gospel to them: “It’s not about robes, it’s about Christ.”  Are they going to listen to a word I say?  No and actually my refusal to wear robes makes robes the big issue.  Robes don’t get you closer to God no.  But not wearing robes doesn’t make you closer to God either.  So wear the robes and preach the gospel.

I once spoke to a group of Muslims from the bible.  After I read from the bible I didn’t have anywhere to put the bible and so, I put the bible on the floor by my feet.  Every widened eye was fixed on my bible and jaws were on the floor.  This was how the Christian treated his holy book??  And they didn’t listen to a word I said.  I might think I’m prioritising Christ by being careless about my religious and cultural practices.  Actually when I’m careless about my religious and cultural practices, THOSE practices become the issue and no-one listens about Christ.

How far do you go?  Well if you were living among Muslims and everyone fasts at Ramadan, it’s the holy thing to do, would you fast?  Would you fast to Jesus, while they fast to Allah?  That's an issue to seriously consider.  If you’re a woman and all the Muslim women wore a burkha, and to wear less than a full burkha was to cause offence. Would you wear a burkha or at least a hijab or some other headscarf?  You'd have to seriously consider that woudn't you? 

Again, here’s the fascinating thing.  If you don’t fast, all your conversations are going to be about fasting.  If you don’t wear a head covering all your conversations are going to be about clothing.  If you do fast, if you do wear the clothes – then any conversations about food and clothes get off on the right foot.  Because you say, ‘I’m doing it for Jesus, let me tell you about Him.’

To be conitnued...

.

Published on Leave a comment on 1 Corinthians 9 sermon – part two

Continued from here.

What does it mean to give up our rights for the sake of the Gospel?  What does that even mean?  What is the gospel?  Let me summarize it for you:

‘Gospel’ is a word that just means good news.  And here is the good news that the bible tells us: 

[SLIDE - the Gospel]

Jesus Christ has all the rights in the universe.  Jesus Christ is the LORD.  He’s the King.  He is the Son of God.  He made the world.  He owns everything.  He’s got rights.  Ultimate, supreme, absolute, unimpeachable rights.

On the other hand we...   We think WE are Lord.  If I ask you ‘Who’s got the right to tell you what to do...?’  Your heart, if it’s anything like mine, answers: ‘No-one!  No-one’s got the right to tell me what to do.’  Well... what have I just said about Jesus.  He does have the right to tell you what to do.  So when we say ‘No-one’s got the right’.  That’s blasphemy, mutiny, an utter rejection of Christ.  It’s what the bible calls sin.

Now how does Jesus respond?  He has every right to crush our little rebellion.  But here’s what He does.  He gives up His rights.  He who was rich became poor.  He came into our world as a penniless preacher.  He who was free became our slave.  He stooped and served and washed our feet.  He who was powerful became weak.  He could have called on 12 armies of angels to save Him from death, but instead He walked alone to His execution.  He who was righteous, became sin.  You see on the cross Jesus stepped into our guilty shoes and He took the punishment due to us.  Have you ever seen a Man more stripped of His rights than Jesus Christ on the cross?  Next time you find yourself bitterly lamenting how you’ve been wronged, think of your LORD, Jesus Christ.  Next time your entitlement spirit surges up within you and you cry out ‘It’s not fair’, think of the cross.  There is the King of the Heavens, the LORD of the earth betrayed by a close friend, deserted by the disciples, wronged outrageously in the courts, mocked and abused by the soldiers, nailed to a piece of wood and jeered at by those He came to save.  But He gave up His rights and took our punishment.  So that we, who were due His punishment can have His rights. 

[SLIDE - John 1:12]

John’s gospel chapter 1 says ‘To all who receive Jesus, to those who believe in His name, He gave the right to become a child of God.”  Jesus has the right to be a child of God – He’s the eternal Son of God.  If you receive Him, you get His rights – you’re adopted into the family.  This offer is for free and it’s for everyone.

[SLIDE - For free, For everyone]

There are only two kinds of people in this room.  Those who insist on their own rights to run life their own way.  And those who’ve given that up and received Jesus instead.  In Him they’ve received the right to be a child of God. Which are you?

If you’re not yet a Christian, if you’re still insisting on your own rights to run life your own way, stop!  Tonight, stop insisting on your rights.  Receive Jesus and by receiving Him receive the right to be a child of God.  That’s the only right worth getting excited about.

If you have received Jesus, do you realize the nature of this gospel?  This gospel is an offer.  And if you receive the offer, it claims you so you pass it on.  The gospel doesn’t just save you – it claims you.  It’s not just a message you once trusted – it’s a way of being that has wrapped its arms around you.  We’re like someone who has received the torrent flowing down the hill, and we are swept along to offer it to others.  So as we pass it on to others we will pass it on for free and for everyone.

You know what that means though, don't you?  It’ll be costly. Not costly to pay off God – all that’s dealt with. We’re children now. Kids don’t pay back their parents, they just receive. But of course kids grow up and have other kids. And that’s costly. Same with us. We don’t pay back God, but it will be costly as we pass the gospel on to others. It was costly for Jesus to offer us a free salvation. It was costly for Paul to offer the Corinthians free gospel ministry. It will be costly for us to freely offer the gospel in Eastbourne.

In the first 18 verses, Paul has outlined the time and money cost.  It put tremendous pressure on Paul’s diary and his wallet to serve the Corinthians like this.  Gospel ministry costs time and money.  And that’s a huge sacrifice.  Are we prepared to sacrifice time and money?  But more than this, from v19, Paul talks about another sacrifice that is just as costly. 

From v19 we see Paul sacrificing his personal comfort.  It shows him moving out of cultural comfort zones and into other cultures and religions and socio-economic groups to win them.  But to offer the gospel for free and for everyone that's precisely what needs to happen.

To be continued...

.

Published on Leave a comment on 1 Corinthians 9 sermon

I haven't posted any sermons for ages.  Part of the reason is that they've had trouble recording them at church the last couple of months.  So I don't have any mp3s, but here's the text of Sunday's sermon if you're interested...

Previously on 1 Corinthians, we asked the vital question: Can I eat this kebab??

 kebab

In a culture where the meat comes from ritual sacrifices in idols temples, Christians with a weak conscience couldn’t eat it without thinking they were part of idol worship.  Others with a strong conscience thought, "It’s just a kebab, it’s not demon meat."  And Paul says to the strong, ‘You’re right – you can eat.  But that doesn’t mean you should eat.  Because if you eat in front of a weak Christian, they will be scandalized, or they’ll be tempted to eat themselves against their conscience.  And that will tear them apart.'  So Paul says ‘Yes your right to eat is real.  But you should relinquish your rights for the sake of others.’ 

And that’s a theme Paul will continue through chapter 9 as well.

[SLIDE]

Rights are real.  But rights are to be relinquished.

The Corinthians were full of rights.  They were saying: ‘I’ve got the right.  I’m free.  The law’s on my side.  I know the right answer, so I’m untouchable.  No-one can take my rights from me.’

That’s just like us.  We are a rights based society

Children learn the phrase ‘That’s unfair’ very early.  It’s pretty much the only phrase teenagers ever say – to adults that is.  ‘So unfair.’  It’s deep within us.

We have an enormous ‘entitlement spirit’ within us.  Someone steps on our toes, someone dares to infringe upon our sphere of protected personal space, puts demands on our money or time, intrudes into our wallet or our diary – we are incensed.  You might not think you’re particularly bothered by your rights.  But I guarantee, when you are wronged you feel it.  We know our rights and we stand on them. 

What’s amazing is: We fight for our rights so we can stand on them.  Paul asserts his rights so he can give them up.

But that’s what he does in the first 14 verses – he asserts that he does actually have rights.  But only so he can tell you he’s relinquished them.

And so from verse 1 Paul discusses one major right he has as an apostle.  He has the right to get paid. 

Now Paul wasn’t paid by the Cornithians.  Paul worked a second job to pay for his ministry.  He made tents for a living.  And on Sunday he never passed the plate, he never took a collection from the church.  He never asked the Corinthians for a penny while he worked among them.  Paul relinquished his right to payment.  But first he’s going to show them that he had every right to claim payment from them.  Do you see v4 and 5 – ‘Don’t we have the right... Don’t we have the right...’  He’s establishing the right of gospel workers to be paid.  From verse 7 he gives some examples:

 7Who serves as a soldier at his own expense?

Can you imagine that?  A soldier having to work a second job just to afford his own bullets?  "The enemy’s coming – quick I’d better re-mortgage the house."  Ridiculous.  Soldiers have a right to payment.

Then in v7 he gives the example of farmers.  Who would object to a farmer eating the food he’s grown?  Every farmer has the right to say: “My soil, my labour, I’m gonna have some.” 

Then in verses 8-10 he tells them that even Oxen were treated better in the OT than Paul has been treated in Corinth.  The OT law gives even oxen the right to eat on the job, to profit from their own labours.  But Paul has effectively muzzled himself, refusing to take anything from the Corinthians.  Even though he had the right.

Then in v13  he gives the example of OT priests,  they got paid.  And if Paul hasn’t yet convinced the Corinthians of his rights, he cites Jesus Himself, v14:

14In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

In Matt 10 and Luke 10 Jesus said the gospel worker is worth his keep.  Jesus says ‘Pay your gospel workers.’  So Paul has proved it: His right was real. But he relinquishes it.

Isn’t that a challenge?  Would you be prepared to do what Paul does?  Paul has been like a soldier working a second job, like a farmer not eating his own food, like an OT priest passing up the sacrifices, like an ox muzzling himself so he can’t eat what he’s entitled to.  And even when Jesus says he CAN, Paul says: I know, but I won’t.  Paul’s approach to his rights is SO unlike our own.  If anyone else infringed on Paul’s rights like this Amnesty International would be sending in the Human Rights Lawyers.  But Paul treats himself like this. Why?

Well it’s all over the chapter.  Look at the second half of v12:

BUT we did not use this right.  On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

Or look again at v18:

18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.

Or again v23:

 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

It’s for the sake of the gospel.  Taking a collection was going to hinder the gospel going out in Corinth.  People would get the wrong idea, as though he’s just a con-man interested in a quick buck.  Well then the gospel would get a bad name.  So when the right to payment clashes with the cause of the gospel – the gospel always wins. 

And Paul wants us to think the same way.  What wins with us?  Our rights or the cause of the gospel?

To be continued...

.

Published on Leave a comment on Is the fruit of the Spirit too sissy for ‘real men’?

Quote:

Real manliness is defined by Christlike character, and not just the Gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild-style character, but the full-orbed fruit of the Spirit rounded out with strength, courage, conviction, strong passions, manly love, and a stout-hearted willingness to oppose error and fight for the truth—even to the point of laying down your life for the truth if necessary.

From TeamPyro's More on the Sissification of Church

Just the other day I was going to post on the fruit of the Spirit - wondering whether 'real men' would find Paul too feminized at this point.  All that girly 'patience and gentleness' and nothing about mechanical, athletic or barbecuing ability.  

Then I read the quote above. Now I think I agree with much of what the author says.  He himself is reacting against a kind of John Eldredge 'wild man' myth.  And who could disagree that manliness is defined by Christlike character?  But to say the fruit of the Spirit requires 'rounding out' when it's applied to real men....  ?? 

Does this mean that 'faith, hope and love' are a bit 'chickified'?  Perhaps they require rounding out with 'strength, honour and belching'?  Or maybe 'be joyful, pray and give thanks' (1 Thes 5:16-18) need augmenting with 'build, fix and kill.'

Oh look, I'm all for stout-hearted fighting spirit.  I know that men are cowards.  I know what a problem this is.  After all, the silence of Adam got us into this mess in the first place.

But when true, stout-hearted, courageous manhood is expressed, you know what it will look like?  Cheek-turning, cloak-giving, rights-yielding, foot-washing, burden-bearing, shame-absorbing, sacrificial love. 

It will look like the fruit of the Spirit.  And even though these qualities may look sissy to the world - well...  Real men don't care about looking sissy.

.

Other posts on men stuff:

Models of masculinity

Three thoughts on Headship

He said - She said

.

 

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer