 |
|
     |
|
|
|
The Four: A Survey of the Gospels
Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom
From Behind the Veil: The Epistles of John
Deep Exegesis:The Mystery of Reading Scripture
1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary
The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter
A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons
Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature
Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen
The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism
A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel
From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution
Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy
Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper
A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature
Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays
Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life
The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church
Sermon for the Third Sunday of Advent.
“Rejoice in the Lord always,” Paul says (Philippians 4:4).
“Always,” Paul? Always? Rejoice when my mother dies, and when my husband’s playing around, and when we don’t know where the next paycheck is coming from, and when I won’t make the deadline on the project I’m working on? Rejoice when I stub my toe in the dark, and when I fail a test, and when my roommate’s gossiping about me and turning other friends against me? Rejoice always, even when bad things are happening to me? Rejoice always, even when my life is coming apart at the seams? Always, Paul? Always? Rejoice when you know there are thousands of children around the world who don’t have enough to eat, when many thousands more live in war zones, when we daily read about acts of horrific cruelty in the newspaper? Rejoice when the church is in disarray, when Christians can’t make up their minds about simple ethical issues, when the church has cozied up to oppressors? Rejoice always? Even when the church and the world are in misery?
Paul’s exhortation sounds impossible, inhuman, nonsensical. Worse, it sounds unbiblical and unchristian.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, December 13, 2009 at 8:09 am
Paul uses the verb politeuo in Philippians 1:27, urging his readers to “conduct yourselves as citizens worthy of the gospel.” Doble points out that this same verb occurs in Acts 23:1, where Paul defends himself before the Sanhedrin by saying that he has “conducted himself with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” There, he is using the verb to describe his conduct within the community of Israel; he has been a good citizen of his people. But, as Philippians shows, he is among a different people now, a different “commonwealth,” one that has different standards for its citizens.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, March 28, 2009 at 10:14 am
A stimulating 2002 article from JSNT by Peter Doble argues that Philippians 3:21 is not talking about “vile bodies” that are going to be transformed, but about “our body, now discipline to humility” that will be conformed to the exalted, glorious body of the Lord and Savior awaited from heaven.
This might make even better sense if soma is taken in a corporate sense. The body that is currently humbled is not mainly the individual bodies of the Philippians Christians, but the beleaguered church, which will be rescued at the parousia of the Lord Jesus from heaven.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, March 28, 2009 at 10:10 am
In a 1985 article in Novum Testamentum, David Garland notes that Paul’s insults toward Jews and Judaizers in Philippians 3:2 are chiastically balanced by his commendation of the Philippians in verse 3. Thus:
A. Dogs
B. Evil workers
C. Mutilation
contrasts to
C’. Circumcision
B’. Spirit of God
A’. No confidence in flesh.
This becomes more illuminating when Garland suggests that each of the insults is a Jewish insult turned against them.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, March 28, 2009 at 9:43 am
NT Wright explains the meaning of the exaltation of the Son (Philippians 2): “It is the affirmation, by God the Father, that the incarnation and death of Jesus really was the revelation of the divine love in action. In giving to Jesus the title kurios, and in granting him a share in that glory which, according to Isaiah, no one other than Israel’s God is allowed to share, God the Father is as it were endorsing that interpretation of divine equality which, according to v. 6, the Son adopted. Christ’s exaltation and divine honor are the public recognition that what was accomplished in his obedience and death was the outworking of the very character of God, the revelation of divine love.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 6:13 am
The numerological structure of Philippians 2:1-2 is intriguingly complex. Verse 1 is explicitly structured by four conditional clauses, each introduced by “if” (ei). But this fourfold structure is crossed by a list of five nouns: paraklesis, persuasive address (paramuthion), koinonia, bowels, innards. And the first three conditional clauses hint at a Trinitarian structure: Christ is explicitly mentioned in the first, the Spirit in the third, and in between we have “persuasive address of love.” Naming the Father “love” would be unusual (as would the order Christ-Father-Spirit), but not impossible.
Verse 1 is perhaps structured by three-, four-, and fivefold patterns.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 5:49 am
In a web article examining NT Wright’s arguments regarding Philippians 2:6, Dennis Burk writes, “If harpagmov be understood according to the above analysis, then Christ is said not to have snatched at or grasped for equality with God. Though he was himself true deity existing in the form of God, he did not try to grasp for this other aspect which he himself did not possess—namely, equality with God. On the contrary, Christ emptied himself. This emptying consisted in taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men (v. 7). Therefore, the contrast between verses six and seven is made very clear. Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, did not try to snatch at an equality with God which properly belongs only to the first Person of the Trinity. On the contrary, Christ embraced those duties which were appointed for the second Person—taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men. In this way, Christ did not attempt to usurp the peculiar role of the first Person of the Trinity, but in submission he joyfully embraced his own in the incarnation.” He later defines this as “functional equality” with the Father.
The phrasing is odd here: How can “equality with God” be a property of the Father? “Equality with” implies at least two. But the exegetical point is an interesting one, namely, that the Son refuses to seek the Father’s role and position and instead obediently accepts the Father’s commission to take the form of a servant and humble Himself in death.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, November 3, 2008 at 5:58 am
Veli-Matti Karkkainen points out that Philippians 2:9-11 alludes to Isaiah 45:22-23, where Yahweh declares Himself to be the one and only God, before whom “every knee will bow” and by whom “every tongue will swear.” Thus, “for Paul the resurrected and exalted Christ enjoys the same status as the God of Israel.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 7:26 am
Philippians 3:1-11 has been seen as a key anti-NPP text, emphasizing as it does the contrast between Paul’s zeal and his righteousness by law (v. 6) with the righteousness not of his own not derived from the law but a righteousness from God on the basis of faith (v. 9).
Watson suggests that the passage proves the opposite. Paul does not contrast his own striving with the obedience of Christ imputed to him. He contrasts everything he had as a Jew with everything he has in Christ, a contrast that is not equivalent to a contrast of faith and works. What Paul renounces, after all, is not just “striving for righteousness” by his own works. He renounces also the inheritance he has wholly apart from his own works – “circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (v. 5). One might say he renounces Jewish grace as well as Jewish works.
What he is actually renouncing, as Watson says, is his “covenant-status as a Jew, which includes reliance on the divine gifts bestowed on Israel as well as the confirmation of those gifts by his own obedience.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 7:30 am
Philippians 2:17-18: But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all. You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me.
Christians sometimes misunderstand joy. We think of joy as an emotion, and we think emotions are deeply hidden within ourselves. Our feelings are ours, and ours alone. A moment’s reflection shows us that this is not the case. Step into a room of mourners for a few minutes, and the gloom settles in. Go to a party, and you begin to share the atmosphere. You can resist the jollity of a party, but that’s just the point: You have to resist in order to keep from being caught up in the spirit of the thing.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, July 15, 2007 at 8:41 am
Philippians 2:5: Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.
Toby has pointed out this morning how much Paul emphasizes the effect of the gospel and the Spirit on our minds. We are to strive together with one mind, to cultivate humility of mind, set our minds on heavenly things – on the exalted heavenly King Jesus – and not on earthly things. Throughout the letter, Paul urges us to remember, consider, think, and he assures us that the peace of God will guard our minds.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, July 15, 2007 at 8:18 am
A few weeks ago, I posted some discussion of vulgar language on my site. I included some brief, and inconclusive, comments about Paul’s use of skubalon in Philippians 3:8. Classicist Matt Colvin examined and analyzed the use of the word in Greek literature, and concluded that “the word would definitely not have been considered vulgar in the way English ‘sh*t’ is today.” Matt gave permission for me to quote him, so here’s the full analysis (all from Matt):
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, March 12, 2007 at 8:49 am
I have little sympathy overall with the work of Heikki Raisanen, but he makes some shrewd comments on Paul’s argument in Philippians 3. As he points out, several of the items on Paul’s list of “fleshly” advantages are things that he has received through no work of achievement of his own, for he had nothing to do with his own circumcision, his membership in Israel or the tribe of Benjamin, his status as a Hebrew of Hebrews. As Raisanen says, “What Paul renounces according to Philippians 3:7ff is his whole covenant-status as a Jew, which includes reliance on the divine gifts bestowed uniquely on Israel as well as the confirmation of those gifts by his own obedience.” Thus, the Bultmannian notion that Paul is renouncing the law because it encourages pride in one’s own performance doesn’t wash in the passage.
Also, in this passage the “righteousness from the law” (3:9) refers to the advantages that Paul could claim based on both his Jewish heritage and his performance of Torah. We can reason backwards: Paul says he does not have a “righteousness of my own derived from the law,” and this is what he counts as loss and as s*** (vv. 7-8). Specifically, this “righteousness” from the law consists in the various advantages that he lists in verses 5-6. Righteousness in this passage thus refers to status within the people of God, as well as performance demanded by that status. It would appear that the righteousness that he has by being in Christ would include these two dimensions as well, both the status as a member of the covenant people and the righteous life that comes from it. Both of these are found “in Him,” and come “from God.”
Raisanen seems correct to say that here at least Paul’s rejection of Torah-righteousness is more christological than anthropological. For the “righteousness that is from the law” is in part a gift of status and membership among the people of God, as is the righteousness that comes by faith. The key difference between Torah-righteousness and Christian righteousness is not that one is a gift and the other an achievement; for Paul must recognize that both are gifts. The key difference is that Torah-righteousness has been superseded because of the coming of the eschatological righteousness of God in Christ. Further, the Jew-Gentile issue is lurking near the surface here. As Paul describes his Torah-righteousness, it is clearly something that pertains only to Jews. But Christ-righteousness is open to all.
Elsewhere, of course, Paul has other criticisms of the law, or at least of the way the law can be coopted to the purposes of sin and death (Rom 7). The Law is not only superceded because its telos has come in Christ, but also because it was “weak” and had been turned into a means for death. But in Philippians 3, Paul seems concerned only to contrast old and new, without commenting on the weakness or limitations of the old.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, April 4, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Sermon outline for December 28:
What Are Our Plans for Moscow?
INTRODUCTION
During the recent furor, the question has been posed to Christ Church (and, implicitly, to Trinity), “What are your plans for Moscow?” To answer that question, we must understand what the church is, and what she’s called to be and do. One historian of early Christianity has called Christianity a movement for “urban revitalization.” More theologically put, the church is God’s city on earth, called to witness and serve in order to transform the earthly city so that it becomes more like the heavenly city.
THE TEXT
“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .” (Philippians 3:1-21).
THE HEAVENLY COMMONWEALTH
The English word “political” comes from the Greek word for city, polis. Understood in this way, the church is unavoidably political, since she is herself a city. She is not political in the sense that she exercises coercion, and she is not a city in all the ways that earthly cities are cities. But she is political and a civic order in the sense that she is a community, under the authority of a King and His appointed rulers, governed by her own constitutions and procedures, with her own calendar, culture, and customs.
At several points in his letter to the Philippians, Paul uses explicitly political terminology to describe the church. For instance, Philippians 1:27-30 are a single sentence in Greek, and the main verb is politeuo, which means “to live as a citizen.” The Philippians, so proud of being Roman citizens and so protective of Roman custom (Acts 16:20-21), needed to learn to live as citizens of a different commonwealth that placed new demands on its citizens.
In chapter 3, Paul mounts a polemic against the imperial ideology, affirming that Jesus, not Caesar, is “Lord” and “Savior,” both prominent terms in imperial propaganda. Paul refers to the Philippians as citizens instead of a heavenly politeuma (“commonwealth”). The idea is not that Christians would go home to their “heavenly home” when they died. The idea is that the church of Philippi is a colony of a heavenly empire, ruled by Jesus at the right hand of the Father.
The Philippian Christians were thus to consider themselves a colony of heaven more than as a colony of Rome. Paul had imitated Christ by giving up his privileges as a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Philippians 2:5-11; 3:1-7), and he exhorted the Philippians to follow his example by treating their Roman citizenship and attachment to the Roman emperor as “rubbish” for the sake of Christ and His heavenly politeuma.
EKKLESIA
The most common Greek word for “church” in the New Testament is ekklesia. Though frequently etymologized as “the called-out ones,” the word means “assembly,” the “called-together ones,” and, like the other terms we have been examining, was originally a political term.
Ekklesia was used in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament to described the assembly of Israel for covenant-making at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:10; 9:10; 18:16), for the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8:14, 22, 55, 65), for public repentance, for dedication of the city after the exile (Nehemiah 5:7, 13; 7:5, 66), and for other religious and national purposes (Judges 20:2). At times, it refers to a permanent institution of Israelite social and political life (Deuteronomy 23:1). By taking over the LXX usage, the church was claiming to be the true assembly of Yahweh, the fulfillment of the Sinai assembly, the people who had returned from exile, and the new nation of Israel.
In the Greek world, however, ekklesia referred to the assembly of citizens of the polis. When Aristotle spoke of the sovereign “assembly” in Greek democracy, he spoke of the ekklesia. When any important business faced the city-state, the citizens would gather in the theater or other public space as the ekklesia to deliberate. By taking this word to describe the church, the apostles were making clear that the church is not another “sect” or cult that existed under the umbrella of the polis. She is an alternative governing body for the city and the beginning of a new city.
SPECIFICS
What does God’s city do? How does the Christian ekklesia do her business? First, it is imperative that we recognize that we are not the only churches here on the Palouse. All the congregations of Christ’s Church in Moscow are “colonies” of the heavenly commonwealth. Denominational boundaries are dissolving today, and are being replaced with geographically-based connections among churches. We at Christ Church and Trinity seek to promote the unity of the local body, and participate in ministry with other churches in the Palouse. The churches are the guardians of the health of the city, and the moral and spiritual state of Moscow is our collective responsibility.
Second, the accent of our activity in Moscow must be on self-sacrificing service. Before Israel had a ruling king, Israel had serving priests, and in the Bible even kings are distinguished less for their commanding authority than by their willingness to die for their people. For disciples of Jesus, servanthood is not merely a means to authority and leadership; it is the form of leadership. We should be busy feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, taking in the stranger, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned (Matthew 25:34-39). We are called to be a Sabbatical people, a people devoted to giving rest.
Third, we glanced last week at John 17, where Jesus says He gave the “glory” He received from the Father to the disciples (v. 22). In Scripture the “glory” of God is linked closely with His visible beauty and majesty. In the context of John 17, the glory given to the disciples is associated with their unity (v. 22), which in turn catches the attention of the world (v 23). As we live in unity, love, peace, joy, the “glory” or “beauty” of God manifest in our lives is a primary witness to the gospel. This “glory” should be evident in every area of our lives ?Ein the way we go about our work, the products we produce, the harmony of our families, the letters we write to the newspaper. Our plan for Moscow is for civic “beautification.”
Finally but really firstly, the power for all this comes through the Spirit, who ministers to us in the Word and Sacrament every Lord’s Day. Worship is the heartbeat of God’s city, and the main means for the transformation of the earthly city. In worship, we ascend to the heavenly polis, and afterwards we descend from the mountain radiating the glory of God, refreshed and renewed in fellowship with God, eager to tell of the things we have heard and seen.
CONCLUSION
As summarized by historian Rodney Stark, early Christianity “revitalized life in Greco-Roman cities by providing new norms and new kinds of social relationships able to cope with many urgent urban problems. To cities filled with the homeless and the impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with newcomers and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate basis for attachments. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of family. To cities torn by violent ethnic strife, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity. And to cities faced with epidemics, fires, and earthquakes, Christianity offered effective nursing services.” Over centuries, the Greco-Roman cities were transformed, and many became predominantly Christian cities.
What are our plans for Moscow? We plan to witness and serve and worship so that God’s will is done in Moscow as it is in heaven.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, December 26, 2003 at 9:42 am
Sylvia Keesmaat’s paper was uneven, beginning with some suggestive observations on Philippians 2 and then descending into self-contradiction.
First, the good stuff: She suggested that the Christic “hymn” in Philippians 2 is not merely contrasting Jesus and Adam, but Jesus and the emperor. Jesus attains to imperial status, but does not do so by seizure. “Equality with God” was apparently a Roman imperial claim. Thus, Jesus sets the path toward true imperium, which is the path of suffering service.
Keesmaat also noted that there is an allusion to Isaiah 45:23, that every knee will bow. This comes at the end of an idol polemic in Isaiah 45, and suggests that Paul is picking up on that idol polemic. Being that the emperor is a false deity, Phil 2 is insisting that this idol too is nothing and less than nothing before Jesus. Though she did not mention it, this also brings together Wright’s “return from exile” theme with the Roman imperial theme, since Isaiah 45 is a passage about the return from exile and the consequent humiliation of the idols of the nations.
The bad stuff: From this, Keesmaat argued that Paul was subverting not only the Roman imperial mythology and soteriology, but also Isaiah himself. Paul presents not a “conquest” over the idols or the nations, but a savior who wins by absorbing violence. The cross becomes the one and only form of the victory of Jesus. She seemed to be emptying the NT of any notion of vengeance and wrath, of God’s victory over enemies, saying things like “we have gone completely beyond questions of victory and conquest” and Phil 2 rejects any kind of conquest. This is hard to make out. She talks of wrath against those who are in darkness, but somehow resists the idea that this wrath means that God is going to take vengeance against enemies. In the end a very unsatisfying paper.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, November 24, 2003 at 9:09 pm
Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.
