Homage to Steven Bear

A dark, quiet room.

A man and a woman are sleeping silently in the early hours of the morning. There is no light but the faintest illumination of the moon, no sound but their slow and sleepy breathing. The air is cold, but the blankets are warm with several hours sleep.

All of a sudden, a cry pierces the night like a siren. Both parents stir, and the father rubs his eyes. The cry comes again, broken-hearted as only a child's cry can be. The baby wails again from the next room, even louder, and the father swings out from beneath the warm covers. He treads sockfoot into the nursery in the next room, where he a little boy is standing and sobbing in his crib, little tears glistening in the dim glow of his night-light.

Still half sleeping, the father sees the binky in the boy's mouth and kneels on the floor. The tears continue as the father crawls around the edges of crib and reaches blindly underneath. He coos soft comfort to the baby, but the little boy only cries harder until...the father's hand finds something soft and small. It is a grubby white bear, which he hands over the railing to the sobbing boy. Immediately the boy stops crying, presses the bear to his face, and hums a cheerful, satisfied hum. He kneels in his crib, then faceplants hard onto the mattress, using the bear as a pillow. With his bottom still sticking up in the air and his face buried, he returns to peaceful sleep in less than a minute.

Easier to love when you can't smell him

This is Steven Bear, and he is James' best friend in the entire world. Steven was a gift from Uncle Calvus and Aunt Beka last April, and he instantly became James' favorite toy. He has a little tag on his bottom that says "Steven Smith Company," so his name was obvious. The first full day of Steven's life with James was a six hour car trip to Pennsylvania, and James spent the entire trip snuggling Steven as tight as he could, as well as holding conversation in six month old coos. Steven instantly became James' bedtime companion, and held a powerful ability to instantly turn fussing and crying into happy snuggles when produced by a parent. He was, for the first few months of his life, a beautiful bright white.

Then James learned to crawl. And got his first cold. (Steven was probably more helpful for James' first cold than either of his parents...but in a really gross way.) I don't know what color we'd call Steven now, but it certainly isn't white. He's aging quickly. Sometimes we'll give Steven a "bath" in the washing machine, but if James is supposed to be taking a nap during this terrible time of separation we can forget about any kind of sleep. (Puppy and monkey, to whom James has shown some affection on occasion, are NOT acceptable substitutes, apparently.) Worried about this, J at one point called the Steven Smith company to ask about a "back-up Steven." Unfortunately, the Steven Smith company only sells in bulk. (Calvus tells us that our bear came from a CareNet fundraiser) This might explain why Steven is so flimsy...his neck is getting wobbly, his stitching loose, and he has a few holes in his fur. As James has learned to walk (and fall) things have only been harder on poor Steven, and James' latest teething trick seems to be biting Steven's nose. It's hard to know how much longer Steven will be with us before he needs some sort of major surgery.

With that said, J and I have grown to LOVE Steven Bear. It's really touching to see just how big James' little heart can be. Nothing makes him happier than finding Steven lying on the ground, and no playtime is complete without Steven playing along. He sings to Steven, snuggles Steven, and even talks to him. (His name is Dy-dy to James.) I think that James even understood what the word "Steven" meant before "banana," "binky," or "bath." Steven has become so much a part of our family that I'll say "I'll see all three of you later" when I head out the door for the day. J, who has been subject to pregnancy jokes from my brothers for our entire married life, doesn't think this is funny. I think James and Steven love it.

Back when he was actually white

Best friends sitting together

Ready for a trip in the carseat

Playing with the "stroller"

Deep in conversation

The only way to sleep

December Insanity

This is where we live:









And this is where my gig is tonight:


So, just like last night, I won't be getting back until 1 AM at the earliest. My gig is actually in Utica, which isn't quite all the way to Saturn. Why did I agree to a gig in Utica? Because I still apparently have trouble reading through all of the fine-print details of an email before responding "Yes, I'd like to do that." I should work on this before we attempt to purchase a house.

In other news, our furnace has stopped working. J heard it dying on Sunday, but we didn't act right away because James sometimes likes to toddle back into the laundry room and bang on the sides of the washer and dryer as hard as he can. A furnace man came twice yesterday and again today. Since I was traveling in outer space, J had to move all of our worldly goods out of the laundry room by herself with a fussy 1 year old "helping." We don't have a basement or extra closet space in the duplex, so the corner of the laundry room is home to our boxes of storage items. (Basically the Christmas stuff and all of the books that don't fit on the bookshelves.)

I didn't ask, but I think this meant that she had to give up any chance of taking a shower before going to a meeting for her new job. James (who would have loved to assist the furnace man) was heading off to be baby-sat again. He was baby-sat yesterday evening while J was at orchestra in N. Chili and I was doing my gig in a separate time zone. He was baby-sat the day before while I directed my church choir and she directed hers. He was baby-sat last Friday, Wednesday, Tuesday, and Monday. We are very fortunate to have such a good-natured and forgiving child. We are even more fortunate to have such good-natured and generous baby-sitters. Most of you (and you know who you are) have refused to take payment. This is good for us, but not in the way you think. (Yes, it is financially better for us to have the money rather than to give it to you, but I'm not talking about that.) It is really difficult for us to ask for baby-sitting so often and to let you take care of us for no pay. We aren't used to this. We're self-sufficient people. It makes us feel terrible to send out another wave of phone calls or emails asking people to give up their time to help us out with James. But we need you, and if you've watched him over the past few weeks you've helped us make an impossible schedule work. Things will slow down after Christmas concerts and big church services are over. But if you end up spending an hour or two with our little boy before then, THANK YOU, and give him a hug from his Dad.

(I'll be re-entering the Earth's atmosphere by midnight at the latest.)

Cheesemaking (Or, how to waste a gallon of milk)

A few weeks ago I decided that we need to make our own cheese. Every once in a while I get a great idea like this. J is always very supportive. "J," I told her "I think that I'd like to try to make some cheese."
"Really? Why's that?"
"Well, I imagine that fresh cheese tastes delicious. And we'd save money. And it would be healthier. We could spread it on crackers and bread."
She smiled in an "I'm-humoring-you" sort of way and said that if I wanted to give it a try, I was more than welcome.
I called up Calvus (who makes his own delicious bread very successfully) and invited him over. Then I made remarks about rennet tablets to J. She nodded and looked like she wanted to say something. But she didn't. She gets this look sometimes, like when I tell her that I'm going to start waking up earlier to get more reading done, or that I'm going to find a way to organize all of my sheet music.
The evening passed, and I brought up cheesemaking several times the next day as well. J was very patient. I told her that once we'd made mozzarella I'd like to try to make Brie. "We just need 12-18 months and a medium-damp cave."
"Why don't we just see how the Mozzarella goes?" said J.
Two more days passed like this, and then it was cheesemaking day! I stopped at Wegmans on the way home to buy rennet tablets (I got 3 boxes, because I knew that I'd probably be going through rennet tablets quickly from now on.) and I also bought a gallon of milk. I bought 2%, because that's the sort of milk I buy when I'm at the grocery store by myself. If I'm with J, we get 1%, which is a compromise. I didn't actually think at all about whether 2% was the right sort of milk to buy or not...I just got the sort of milk I got while I was out on my own.
Calvus was already at the house when I arrived home, and we immediately poured the milk into a dutch oven (J: Are you sure you should use a dutch oven? Me, totally unsure of what sort of vessel we should use: Yes, we want a dutch oven.) Also, I made a mental note that the biggest pot we have, the one with two small handles, is apparently called a dutch oven.
Once the milk was been poured (irretrievably) into the dutch oven I decided I ought to look at the recipe. Here it is, for anyone who's interested: http://homecooking.about.com/od/cheeserecipes/r/bldairy22.htm (Warning: This recipe doesn't work) Our first step was to dissolve 1/2 rennet tablet into 1/4 cup of cool chlorine-free water.
Calvus: Do we have chlorine-free water?
Me: Nah, I'm sure tap water will be fine.
Next we were instructed to add 2 teaspoons of citric acid.
Me, shouting: J, do we have any citric acid?
J:...I don't think so...
Me: Well, do you think lemon juice would work?
J:....sure.
Following this, we had to wait until the milk reached 88 degrees F and then add our rennet solution. We used a candy thermometer that we suspended from a wooden spoon to carefully monitor the temperature of the mixture. Once we added the rennet solution, we waited for "large curds to appear and to separate from the whey" at 105 degrees F. 105 degrees came, and nothing happened. We let the milk get up to 110 degrees...nothing. We let the mixture sit for five minutes at 105, and nothing happened. We turned up the heat. (I noticed that some of the recipes for other types of cheeses called for hotter temperatures.) Nothing happened. We had a dutch oven full of warm lemony-smelling milk. Calvus left at 5 PM to go to class, and I held out hope for another 15 minutes or so, stirring with a wooden spoon and monitoring the candy thermometer. J was very kind when I flushed the gallon of stinky milk down the toilet upstairs.

If anyone needs rennet tablets, I have plenty of extras.

LCS Devotions: Kingdom

With credit to Dr. Wright:

A few years ago I noticed how often I came up against the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” in my reading of the New Testament. It bothered me that I understood the term in only a shadowy sort of way, especially since it seemed always to be connected to Jesus. We don’t sing about it very often in our songs, and I noticed that when Christians talk about the “gospel”—a term which was almost always connected to the “good news of the kingdom” in the New Testament—we have a lot to say about atonement theology and almost nothing to say about this “kingdom of Heaven,” at least not in any way connected to mustard seeds and pearls of great price. In each of the synoptic gospels, Jesus talked about the kingdom almost exclusively. In fact, the first words of his public ministry were “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is near.” (I take it for granted, by the way, that kingdom of Heaven is an interchangeable term with kingdom of God, but that Matthew, observing Jewish scruples, didn’t write the name of God.)

So what might this kingdom of God be about? I’ve heard several explanations that I find unconvincing. Most commonly, that the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” is a shorthand way of expressing “getting saved and going to heaven when you die.” That’s not a bad guess based on what most of us think Jesus was concerned with, but when you try to plug that meaning into the actual texts it doesn’t fit. In the big mainline churches you’ll hear a lot about the kingdom of God when people talk about soup kitchens and other types of humanitarian work. I think that the kingdom work is certainly no less than that, but I’m also pretty sure that it’s more than kindness to small children, old ladies, and stray dogs. It isn’t inner peace of mind, and even though there’s certainly an eschatological element to Jesus’ kingdom teaching, it doesn’t seem to be about the destruction of the space-time continuum either. So if it isn’t “getting saved and going to heaven,” and it isn’t “doing acts of kindness and making the world a better place,” what might this kingdom project be?

If we only had the New Testament documents to examine, it would be hard to answer that question, because no one at any point in the New Testament stops and writes out an exact definition of what the kingdom would look like and why everyone is so excited about it. We do, however, have plenty of other sources from the time and culture of the New Testament, and they are also filled with writings about the kingdom. After looking at those sorts of sources, starting with the literature of the Maccabees, we can get a much clearer picture of what the Jewish expectations were concerning the kingdom of God, and the ways in which Jesus was in continuity with those hopes and also in subversion of those hopes.

The major problems for the Jewish people in the last few centuries B.C. were their Temple, their Land, and their Torah. If you picture yourself as a citizen in the American colonies in the years before the Revolutionary war, you might be getting close to the Jewish mindset about being ruled by the Romans and by their puppet government, the Hasmonean dynasty. (the Herods of the New Testament) In this political climate the people began to talk of the Kingdom of God over and against the Kingdom of Rome. This wasn’t a spiritual or abstract idea at all—the Jews firmly believed that YHWH was their one true ruler and hoped for his enthronement (and Caesar’s defeat) in real time and in the real world. Furthermore, the temple had to be the place for their god-king. Even though a temple had been built when they returned from the Babylonian exile, the presence of YHWH had never returned to dwell there as it had during the time of Solomon when Israel was a mighty nation and YHWH did rule them through his servant-kings. Last of all, the land and the people had to be cleansed of their pagan impurities, most likely through a return to faithful observance of Torah, against the Roman and Hellenistic encroachments on true Torah-keeping. In short, as long as YHWH had not returned to the temple, the kingdom of God had not yet come. As long as the pagans ruled over Israel, the kingdom of God had not yet come. As long as the whole nation of Israel did not keep Torah together, the kingdom had not yet come. As long as the kingdom was not brought by God’s Messiah, the kingdom had not yet come. The kingdom of God hopes in 1^st century Israel were concrete and specific. To sum up, the Jewish expectation of the kingdom of God was the saving sovereignty of the covenant god exercised in the vindication of Israel and the overthrow of her enemies.

If we fast-forward 60 years or so from this picture to the letters of the early Christians, we see that something curious has happened. The disciples of Jesus and the first wave of Christians are also talking about the kingdom, but in a different sort of way. Imagine a 5-act play. If the Jews were talking about the kingdom as Act 3—awaiting the climax in Act 4 so that they could get onto the business of putting everything right in Act 5—the early Christians had relocated themselves to Act 5. According to them, the kingdom of God had already arrived, and while there was plenty yet to do and certainly some very important eschatological hopes, there was no doubt for them that Jesus had inaugurated God’s reign in a way that fulfilled Israel’s hopes according to the scriptures. Most curiously, the kingdom story was now told with those Jewish hopes reshaped—Israel was no longer the holy land of the covenant god and his people, but now the whole world. The temple in Jerusalem was no longer the dwelling place of the covenant god, but his spirit lived physically in his followers. Torah was no longer the boundary marker of the covenant people and their code for holiness, but grace and forgiveness instead. No one talked of Caesar’s power as something that YHWH would overthrow—in Jesus, it had been overthrown.

What then do we make of Jesus? Was his language about the kingdom a collection of religious teachings about love and grace, preferring inner observance of the heart over outward legal codes? In the context of the writings before and after him, I think we get a more historical and comprehensible alternative. He began his ministry with the announcement of the kingdom arrival. He told short stories and parables about what the kingdom would look like—a mustard seed, yeast, a sower sowing seed, treasure in a field, a merchant looking for pearls. Many of these stories illustrate how the kingdom would grow through a tiny remnant, others how the kingdom-bringer would suffer and be vindicated. He called disciples to himself and acted in highly symbolic ways to evoke Israel’s history. He emphasized that the nearness of the kingdom ought to bring repentance. He told his followers to seek the kingdom first, and to pray that it would come “on earth as it is in heaven.” He said that the kingdom would suffer violence and violent men would try to take it. He said only those born of water and the spirit would enter it. He talked of the new covenant people as critical to the kingdom task. He cleansed the temple of impurities and redefined observance to Torah. Finally, approaching Jerusalem to die, he mourned over the city since it did not know the time of its visitation—it did not know when or how YHWH was returning to the holy city.

How do we make sense of this in any sort of way for our own day? As the people of Jesus, what do we make of a kingdom that Jesus told us to seek first and to pray for on earth as in heaven if that kingdom story was so far removed from us historically and locally? To be frank, I have more questions than answers, and I ask for and invite everyone’s ideas about how this might look. If we begin to engage with Jesus’ kingdom teaching it does enrich our understanding of the cross and resurrection—surely these events were not merely for private salvation and the expiation of personal guilt (although they weren’t anything less than that either) but in some way the cross brings the kingdom. It is the kingdom of God that defeats evil. It is the kingdom of God that brings YHWH into dwelling with his people. It is the kingdom of God that reclaims the whole creation for his dominion. It is the kingdom of God that rewrites the rules on money, sex, and power. It is the kingdom—the reign of God, and of his Messiah, that speaks into any politics we would try to run on our own, Christian or not. And, I believe, it is the kingdom of God that we must make our central task as teachers of young Christians, whether that be through music, math, or Bible. As fellow citizens of that kingdom, I can’t wait to see what that looks like. Let us pray.

Heavenly father, we pray that you would instruct us what is your kingdom and that by your spirit we would have the understanding to seek it first. We pray that your kingdom would come in this world as it is in heaven, and we thank you in all joy and praise that you have made this possible by the victory of your son Jesus. Help us, father, to be imitators of Jesus in all we do, and we pray that we would be worthy dwellings of your spirit. We pray for our students and the work we have before us today. In your great and holy name, Amen.

Silly James

Me, having discovered that J was coming home early and bringing back a cheap pizza, and having burst into spontaneous dance.
"James, do you want to dance?"
James, sucking on his binky and holding Steven Bear.
<shakes head no>
"You don't want to dance with Daddy?"
<shakes head no>
"Well, what DO you want to do?"
<lays head down on Steven>
"Do you want to go to bed?"
<nods head yes>
"Would you like a bottle?"
"Hmmm!!!!!" <crawls over to refrigerator and points at formula>

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 11

Chapter 11

1 I say then, has God rejected his people? May it not be! For I myself am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin

Rejected is aposato, which means “pushed aside.” Read in context of the previous argument of chapter 10. Paul’s point in asking this question, then affirming his own ethnic heritage, is to identify the terms of the “remnant.” So then, can any ethnic Jews be saved?

2 God has not rejected his people which he foreknew. Or do you not know in Elijah what the scripture says, that he pleaded to God on account of Israel?

Paul argues here to the precedent of God’s sparing a holy remnant when Israel as a whole was lost. Foreknew is proegno.

3 Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have destroyed your altars, and I alone am left and they seek my life

Quotation is from 1 Kings 19.

4 But what did the oracle say to him? I have kept to myself seven thousand men, which did not bow a knee to Baal

Oracle is chrematismos.

5 In this way then even in the present time there has become a remnant chosen by grace

Remnant is leimma, chosen eklogen. “In this way” is houtos, which is vitally important to how we understand v. 25. Here, as there, it functions as the conclusion of an argument by demonstrating manner, not time.

6 And if by grace, neither by works, since grace would no longer by grace

The definition of grace precludes the possibility of election by national privilege—works of Torah. Therefore the remnant is not defined in this way, but rather by charitos

7 What then, what Israel sought, this it did not obtain, and the chosen found it, but the rest were hardened

Chosen is again ekloge. As shown in 9:30-31, the unlikely according to birth have found that which ethnic Israel thought it would claim for itself. Note here that what is being “sought” must be covenant membership—dikaiosune; not a personal deliverance from the guilt of sin. Otherwise the remnant language makes no sense.

8 Even as it is written God gave to them a sluggish spirit, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, until this very day

Echoing Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and of course, Jesus.

9 And David says Let their table be to them unto snares and unto a trap and unto a stumbling block and unto a retribution

Table is trapeza, which would of course have the implication of a ceremonially clean table from which Gentiles were excluded, for a Jew. Stumbling block is skandalon (cause for sin) again and antapodoma is retribution. (An unfavorable ruling in the law court that must be exacted.) The reference is from Ps. 69/35

10 Let their eyes be darkened not to see and their backs bent forever

Ethnic Israel, called to be a light, is gone dark. Ethnic Israel, which told its own story in terms of liberation and freedom, is by its own sin bent under the yoke of slavery again. But the point of this is not to show an absolute condemnation, but rather to define the terms of the remnant.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they might fall? May it not be! But by their stumble salvation to the Gentiles is come unto their being made jealous

Here Paul makes his case for “some hope yet.” I think this passage is clarified further in the terms of his practical purpose in writing the letter. (Establishing Rome as a missionary base to Spain, as Antioch was to him for Asia Minor.) The following passage is not, as some commentators, a sudden extension of universal salvation back to the Jews after it was retracted in chs. 9-10, but rather a personal note of hope on a deeply painful subject despite the surprising and paradoxical way in which God has acted through the Messiah. Paul doesn’t change his mind in the next 13 verses…rather, upholding his argument throughout the book, he cautions the Roman church against the same mistake by which the Jews excluded themselves. Stumble is eptaisan. Jealous is parazelosai.

12 And if their stumble is riches of the world and their defeat riches of the gentiles, how much more their inclusion

How much more wonderful should it be that a remnant of Jews would be included in the covenant people! This must be told to the Roman church especially in light of the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius, and the retraction of the edict under the newly ascended Nero, which would have brought the Jewish Christians back into an uneasy fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Rome who apparently needed reminding that the gospel was “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”

13 And I speak now to you, Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I myself am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry

Here Paul makes his direct plea to the Gentile party The second half of the sentence is a particularly convoluted bit of Greek. The rhetorical force of the men…de relationship with v. 15 is lost in English, but there should be a sense of “since v. 13B&14…then clearly v. 15.” In short, Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, somehow has a unique ministry to the exiled Jews as well by rousing their jealousy at Gentile inclusion.

14 in order to make my flesh (people) jealous and save some of them

Flesh is sarka, “Israel-according-to-the flesh.” Save is soso. Implication is that kai has a thereby or “thus” effect.

15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what would their acceptance be but life from the dead?

If by the rejection of the Messiah (and here you see a reference to everything about the aggregation of sin/trespass in the argument in ch. 7 referenced AND the idea of Jesus as the representative of Israel according to the flesh) is the means of reconciling the world into God’s family, how much more would the resurrection of Israel from their death in sin mean? The sense is, the re-inclusion of Israel must be very desirable.

16 And if the first-portion is holy, also the whole batch. And if the root is holy, also the branches.

First-portion is aparche again. The leavening yeast and the branch-nourishing root are O.T. images of Israel that are carried into the words and teachings of Jesus. It’s a side-note, but worth mentioning that this verse ought to carry into the discussion of the question “to what extent was Paul exposed to the written/oral traditions of Jesus?”

17 And if some of the branches are broken off, and you being a wild olive are grafted in upon them and made in fellowship of the rich olive root

If the Gentiles are grafted in replacing that which was of the desirable olive by “the flesh”

18 Do not boast over the branches. And if you boast do not bear yourselves over the branches, but the root over you

…then they ought not to boast themselves on some sort of privilege over and against those branches which have now been denied access to the root. The proper thing to do is not to compare yourselves to one another, but to recognize the “rich root.” There is no national privilege.

19 Then you would say Branches were broken off that I should be grafted in

Paul acknowledges with a good (Kalos) that this dangerous statement is true.

20 Good. By their faithlessness they were broken off, but you stand in faith. Do not think in pride but in fear.

Faithlessness is apistia, also possibly “disobedience.” Do not be minded (phronei) high, but of fear.

21 For if God did not spare the branches according to nature, neither will he spare you

Paul’s analogy begins to cut across some traditional Protestant thinking about “assurance of salvation,” but when we take his words as we find them their meaning is sobering. God has not and will not let anyone but himself determine the terms for who his people are.

22 See then the kindness and severity of God. On those falling the severity, but on you the kindness of God, if you might remain in kindness, otherwise then you would be cut off

Kindness is chrestoteta and severity is apotomian.

23 And even these (of Israel), if they might not remain in faithlessness, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again

Simply kakeinoi in the beginning of the verse, but the contest implies “of Israel.” Though they have been cut off in God’s severity, God is able (dunatos) to graft them in again. N.B. The text does not say that God will graft them in again. The rest of Paul’s argument about the terms of the covenant people still stands.

24 For if you having been cut off from what is according to nature a wild olive are grafted into a cultivated olive, how much more would these according to nature be grafted onto their own olive.

And how much easier would it be for those which were the covenant people according to its flesh become members of the covenant according to grace since their flesh knows that “sap.”

25 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you might not be wiser besides yourselves, since a hardening from part has come to Israel until when the fullness of the Gentiles might enter in

Wiser beside yourselves is really “cleverer than you ought to be.” This clearly belongs to the preceding argument: You Gentile Christians ought not to vaunt yourselves over the Jews. The second half of the verse is NOT a future prediction that Paul was suddenly struck with in contradiction to the entire argument of the letter so far. Rather, it is a description of what has already happened and been accomplished through Jesus. The mystery/marvel is what Paul has been explaining. The Jews were hardened in part until the justifying death of the Messiah, at which point the full number (pleroma) of the Gentiles was able to come in. (as was promised to Abraham.)

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, even as it is written He saving will come from Sion, he will turn ungodliness from Jacob

It is in this way—the coming in of the Gentiles—that All Israel will be saved. What is Paul saying? He is saying that Israel is not defined by the flesh, nor is it defined by the observance of Torah. Rather, in fulfillment to the promises the Covenant God made to Abraham, Israel, which was chosen by grace and justified by faith, shall all be saved in the way that he has described throughout the letter to the Romans. The Gentiles and the remnant are “Israel.” The whole process is God’s way of saving his covenant people; that is the meaning of kai houtos pas Israel sothesetai.

27 And this will be my covenant to them with me, when I take away their sins

The one saving is gone/come (there is no distinction is Gk., but the tense of the verb is undeniable) from Sion, and he has fulfilled the covenant and dealt with sin. This is no apocalyptic prediction, but a description of what Jesus has done.

28 According to the gospel they are enemies to you, but according to election they are beloved on account of their fathers

Paul now draws his conclusions for instructing the Jew-Gentile relations in light of these truths. According to the gospel of grace there is no room for the Jews, but we love them on account of the flesh which they overprize.

29 For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable

They will never lose the gift (charismata) or the call (klesis). Note that klesis is an important technical term in Paul’s “salvation process” as the first step before faith.

30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now you have received mercy in their disobedience

Apeitheia, not apistia. Keep in mind the argument of 9-10 throughout…God used Israel’s disobedience paradoxically to give mercy and deal with sin.

31 In this way they now have disobeyed that, by the mercy given to you, they also now might receive mercy.

Another example of houtos, always as demonstrative of manner, never temporal. The mercy which came through Israel’s disobedience is not out of their reach. They might have it. (Not must)

32 For God has imprisoned all unto disobedience that he might have mercy on all.

There are none that do not need God’s mercy. It is on the terms of his mercy through Jesus that we will receive his dikaiosune.

33 O the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God. How unfathomable are his judgments and unsearchable are his ways

I’ll be treading much more lightly from here out. The rest of the chapter is an epilogue to the section of 9-11, and then 12-16 is largely practical advice in light of the letter’s theological argument.

34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?

Is. 40, Job. 15, Jer. 23

35 Or who has given to him even that it will be repaid to him?

Job 41. Note that Paul always denies man’s ability to demand from God.

36 That from him and through him and to him are all things. To him the glory unto eternity, amen.

In his rapture, Paul wrote a Greek sentence without a subject or a verb! But amen, nonetheless!

International Date Night: Switzerland

Tartiflette, Fondue, Toblerone, Lindt, and red wine

It was all delicious, despite the fact that James threw his snotty falling-apart teddy bear into the potato dish. (Steven was hungry, apparently.) This is why we usually start after we put him to bed.