The Republic of Nauru

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15433616

Why We Baptized James

I mentioned some months ago that I would explain in greater detail why we chose to have James baptized at Pearce. The decision was difficult, and we spent many hours talking it over in much greater detail than I'll write here. I'm leaving out the whole question of infant baptism in the early church, not because it's unimportant, but simply because what we found on this terribly important question was so inconclusive. Eventually, these were the three big points for us in deciding to have James baptized:

1) God's salvation in Jesus has no efficient agent or action except Jesus. We came to see baptism as a true participation in his death and resurrection, not as a post-conversion proof of authenticity.

2) We came to see the meaning of baptism as "entrance into the covenant people." We are committed to James being en Christo, which is much less a matter of personal decision and responsibility than a conversion experience seems to be.

3) While we celebrate and rejoice with those who have had dramatic conversion experiences, we don't regard them as absolutely necessary. (Note: regular confession and repentance must be necessary, of course) We don't know what will happen to our little boy in 10 or 20 years (God help us as parents!) but we think it entirely appropriate to regard him as a Christian, a member of the body of Christ, having received his baptism for the remission of sin and participating in his death and resurrection with the Spirit. Baptizatus est.

This is all very general, and of course we uphold many other "volitional" practices (such as communion) in keeping with the traditions of those before us. Sometimes I remember back on this decision and think we made a lot of fuss over nothing, and sometimes I think the whole think was much too weighty for us and our feeble wisdom. Oremus invicem.

What I Read on Summer Vacation

Very good historical analysis of media, but most of the neurophysiology went right over my head. I don't know what to make of most brain science claims. Someone who knows the data needs to sit down and make some careful distinctions about what's correlation and what's causation.

The chapters on suffering and asceticism were the best. I'm not sure I understood what he was saying about prayer and meditation. I found Seven-Storey Mountain and Dark Night of the Soul much easier the second time around, and will probably try this one again.

A good quick read, and very sad. The symbolism is a bit overplayed, and the characters are hard to believe by the end.

Wonderful, gripping book. The best American novel I've read in a long time.

Lots of rubbish. He's a great story-teller, but it isn't real history. (Every social ill of the past 500 years is reduced to a greedy cartel of evil white capitalist men.) There are some real injustices in this book that ought to be discussed and addressed, but the whole book is so strident that you hardly know what to take seriously.

I forgot how great this book is. It was a delight to re-read it.

I still love the Hornblower books, but finally discovered why everyone talks about Capt. Aubrey. This was brilliant.

This is what all spy novels should be like. I hadn't read it since college.

I liked the country scenes at the beginning of this one especially. I also started to really get the humor.

The best of the three so far, I thought. (Or maybe I'm just getting more of the naval jargon three books in) It will be hard to decide how many more to read when things get busy in the Fall.

I'd highly recommend this and Mr. Romney's book before the election. They are especially useful for understanding how each candidate interprets the story of the past 20-30 years of political history. I have some narrative context now for statements that I'd otherwise misunderstand. (Or, perhaps, misunderstand even worse)

The first of the Smiley novels. Very good, very original.

Terribly, terribly sad book. I don't know if any of the film adaptations are any good, but I'm sure they couldn't capture the deep religious substory. (Greene might have thought of the religious story as the main course, and the affair as the side dish!)

Not as interesting as Call for the Dead (none of the international concerns) but a good mystery.

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

How I Spent My Summer Vacation...

Getting into monkey business...

Relaxing in hammocks...

Having fearsome bear picnics outside...

Attempting solid foods...

Visiting the alumni BBQ...

Going to a preseason Bills game...

Hanging out poolside and O&K's...

Blowing bubbles...

Relaxing in PJs...

Visiting grandparents...

Playing with Steven...

Building forts...

Playing peek-a-boo...

Practicing walking...

Playing hide-and-seek...

Playing orchestra concerts...

Helping with housework...

Playing gigs...

Staying cool on hot days...

Drinking coffee...

And going on dates with Mom...

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those in the Messiah Jesus

Paul’s conclusion here precedes his minor premise (v. 2-11) given the first premise (Israel’s problem was Sin operating with Death through Torah) in chapter 7. Condemnation is katakrima, renewing the law-court metaphor from earlier. The incorporative sense of “Messiah” is enormously important here. Paul’s argument from 7-8 doesn’t make any sense if you view the escape from Sin and Death as something to be bargained individually.

2 For the law of the spirit of life in the Messiah Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and of death

Here the bifurcated Torah is denoted. The good and just Torah of life, in the Messiah, is what has freed those en Christo from the condemnation sentence that would be pronounced by Sin and Death.

3 For with the Torah unable in the weakness of the flesh, God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sins (as a sin offering), condemned sin in the flesh

Unable is adunaton. Peri hamartias is a construct lifted directly out of the LXX to mean “sin offering,” and probably should not be translated directly as “for the sake of sins.” As that sin offering, the Messiah neutralized the katakrima—the condemnation.

4 That the just requirement of Torah might be fulfilled in us not walking according to the flesh but according to the spirit

Walking in the sense of living or being. (peripatousin) The contrast throughout this section is sarkos (flesh) and pneumatos (spirit).

5 For those being according to the flesh think of those things of the flesh, but those according to the spirit those things of the spirit

Or “set their minds to” the things of the flesh. Phronousin doesn’t mind thinking as in pondering, but denotes the character of the thinking apparatus. This is not a dualist trap. Paul is not saying that his special gnosis will elevate the mind away from the body and into the spirit. He is saying that the mind enslaved by the flesh is characterized by the rule of Sin/Death, but that mind freed and now animated by the spirit will be transformed into something different.

6 For the mind of the flesh, Death, but the mind of the spirit, life and shalom

Just as the law was bifurcated and became, though holy and good itself, the bringer of death to the flesh, so also the flesh’s phronema is subject to Death.

7 Therefore the minds of the flesh are enemy unto God, for they are not submitted to God’s Torah, neither are they able.

As long as one is in bondage to the flesh, they are at enmity with God and his good Torah. Furthermore, they are unable (oude gar dunatai) to be helped.

8 And those being in the flesh are not able to please God

With the sense of “be pleasing to God.” (aresai)

9 But you are not yourselves in the flesh but in the spirit, since the spirit of God dwells in you. But if any does not have the spirit of the Messiah, he is not His

All 2^nd person plural. The Messiah’s people live in the spirit because God’s spirit inhabits them. Paul uses temple language here. As YHWH’s spirit dwelt in his people’s temple of old, now the spirit dwells in the bodies/body of his Messiah’s people. The indwelling of the spirit is the characteristic of the people “for whom there is now no condemnation” and the proof of their acquittal.

10 But if the Messiah is in you, then the body is on the one hand dead because of sin and on the other hand the spirit is alive on account of righteousness

A clunky translation, but there’s no simple way to highlight the men…de contrast. Because of is dia, not a dative of reference. Righteousness is dikaoisunen. Body is soma, not sarx. Not sure whether to read sin as “Sin” or “sin” here, but the point would be essentially the same.

11 But if the spirit of him raising Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he raising the Messiah from the dead will make alive also your mortal bodies through his spirit indwelling in you

Perhaps my favorite verse in Romans. If the spirit of YHWH temples/tabernacles in you, the one who began new creation in his Messiah Jesus will make-alive (zoopoiesei) your mortal somata through his indwelling—enoikountos.

12 Therefore then, brothers, we are debtors not in the flesh according to the flesh to live

The language switches in v.12-17 to the language of inheritance, which might be more evocative for an ancient agrarian community anyway, not even considering the promises of “inheritance” driving the O.T. Paul may be continuing his deliberate evocation of the O.T. story as we, leaving the Red Sea and Sinai, approach the inheritance.

13 For if you might live according to the flesh, you ought to die. But if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

As your phronemata (mind, mindset) is now led by the spirit, so are your actions. (praxeis)

14 For such by the spirit of God are led, these are the sons of God

Not only offered abstract direction, but led in action. (agontai)

15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again unto fear but ye received a spirit of sonship, in which we cry Abba father

Based on the scholarly work I’ve read I understand the case for Abba as “Daddy” or some similar intimate term to be overstated, but Pauls’ point stands whether “Daddy” or “Father.” The Father receives not in oppression, but in sonship. (Huiothesias might also be the technical term for adoptive sonship.)

16 the same spirit bears witness in our spirit that we are children of God

Not our flesh (as by circumcision) but our spirit attests our status of sonship

17 And if children, also heirs. The heirs of God, and co-heirs with the Messiah, since we suffer with him that we might also be glorified with him.

Hence the promise in v.11 of resurrection. Proper understanding of this verse hinges on the belief that the Messiah, in his ascension to the Father’s right hand, has already been glorified.

18 For I reason that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy of comparison to the glory to be revealed in us

Reason is logizomai. Axia with a genitive of comparison. The glory to be revealed is not personal aggrandizing or braggadocio, but New Creation itself.

19 For Creation’s deep longing awaits the revelation of the sons of God

Not only do God’s people await the New Creation to be revealed (apokalupsin) but the whole of old Creation yearns.

20 For the Creation is subjected to futility, not of its own will but on account of the one subjecting it, upon hope

Just as God gave over the minds of the impious (ch. 1) to futility, so also did he risk giving over his whole good creation to Sin, that by his Messiah’s decisive action against Sin, he should rescue it all. (!)

21 That the Creation itself also might be freed from decay’s bondage unto glorious freedom of the children of God

None of this “far-golden-shore” escapism. Creation will be rescued with us into our shared glorious freedom.

22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together and suffering together until now

Both verbs are present tense—the whole creation is groaning and suffering until now.

23 and not alone, but we already having the first-portion of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, awaiting, the redemption of our body.

As Paul goes on to explain, this present suffering, as modeled in the Messiah, is necessary for we who will be redeemed. New Creation comes out of suffering.

24 For in this hope we are saved. But hope seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?

The already/not yet dichotomy of the inaugurated kingdom is expressed in 23&24—we already have the first portion of the spirit, but we are a people living in hope.

25 But if what we do not see we hope, through endurance we await

Endurance is upomones.

26 And likewise also the spirit fore-co-aids in our weakness. For if we might pray as is necessary we do not know how, but the spirit intercedes the same with unspeakable groans

There is no simple way to translate sunantilambanetai. Best to read it in the context of vv. 21-25 and especially in weakness. The verb is usually translated “intercedes,” as is uperentugchanei in the later part of the verse. The sense is similar, but not exact.

27 And He searching our hearts knows what is the mind of the spirit, since according to God he intercedes for the sake of the saints

Understanding the “He” of this verse as God, who accepts the spirit’s intercession for us, is the key to understanding this otherwise potentially slippery verse.

28 And we know that to those beloved God works together all things unto good, to those according to his purpose being called

“Called” (kletois) is the first category of the list in v. 29&30, which is Paul’s theological description of the Christian process

29 Since those he foreknew, he foresaw sharing-the-likeness of the image of his son, unto his being firstborn among many brothers

Likeness-sharing is summorphous. Here begins the summation of Paul’s work so far, the description of how God through his Messiah has fulfilled his glorious purposes of salvation and restoration for Israel (through the Messiah) and for his Creation. What follows in ch. 9 will be the specific problem that Paul wishes to address in light of this.

30 And those he foresaw, these he also called; and those he called, these he justified; and those he justified, these he also will glorify.

Foreseeing (or predestination), Call, Justification (edikaiosen) and Glorification. These might not be absolutely airtight theological compartments, but they are distinct, and Paul’s whole corpus is vivified when read in these categories.

31 What therefore shall we say to these? If God is for us, who is against us?

What then of the problems of suffering and weakness raised?

32 Which his own son did not spare but for our sake gave him over, how with him will all things not be granted to us?

Gave him over is again paredoken. The “all things” should be read not only in terms of favorable judgment for eternal life, but that (incredible enough) and all of the covenant purposes from the O.T.

33 Who will accuse against God’s called? It is God who justifies

Vv. 34&35 in affirmation of 8:1.

34 Who is he which condemns? The Messiah [Jesus] which died, and more was raised, and which is at God’s right hand, and who intercedes for us

Identification of the Messiah with the Spirit, but with yet another word (entugchanei) for intercession.

35 What will separate us from the love of the Messiah? Tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

Expected answer, “no,” of course.

36 Just as it is written that For thy sake we die the whole day, we are reckoned as sheep of the slaughter

Here is the paradox of the gospel, that this confidence and justification comes in and with the imitation of suffering, following the suffering King.

37 But in all these we are overconquerors through him loving us

Yet in that suffering we are more than conquerors—hupernikomen.

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers nor things present nor things to come nor powers

39 Nor height nor depth nor any other created thing is able to separate us from the love of God in the Messiah Jesus our Lord.

Only, Amen.