Paul (03/19/24-03/20/24)

Two verses, and I feel I could write a book, just on what is here!  But I shall seek to restrain myself somewhat.  This being the case, I do not intend to explore the life of Paul with thoroughness, for that’s not what I am here to do.  I do, however, wish to make a few observations as to this man of God, particularly as touching on some points made by the article from Easton’s, which I don’t recall having utilized before.

The first point of notice for me, is that Paul had likely begun his rabbinical training at age thirteen, which seems stunningly young.  And, I should note that by that tender age, he had already learned his trade as a tentmaker.  I could also observe, given that article’s notice of his being born about the same time as Jesus, that he may very well have been around the temple on that occasion when Jesus stayed back discussing things with the teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-47), and recall Luke’s summation of that event.  “And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.”

The other aspect of this piece of Paul’s life comes of the description of the rabbinical office that is given, as being a combination of minister, teacher, and lawyer.  Now tell me, as you consider Paul and his work in establishing and caring for these churches, how clearly can you see that training at work in him?  This could readily describe the Apostolic office, I think, and it has implications as well for the pastors and other elders who have the task of governance in our churches today.  They, too, are called to satisfy these multiple roles, and to do so in the clear guidance of Scripture.

So, here was Paul, trained as a rabbi, perhaps even serving as rabbi already, and come back to serve in the temple proper.  There is some suggestion that he was a member of the Sanhedrin at this stage.  Note, for example, that it is not to the Sanhedrin that he appeals for permit to go haul back these Christians from Damascus to face trial, but to the high priest, the top of the order, as it were (Ac 9:1).  But something happened.  God happened.  Events transpired en route to Damascus that would forever alter his course.  As Easton’s sums up, “The whole purpose of his life was now permanently changed.”  This was, indeed, a conversion experience.  I had not really thought of it as happening in that moment before.  It seemed somehow like this was more of a traumatic experience, and it wasn’t until some days later, when Ananias came to him, that he came to faith.  But there is that observation that he spent the interim fasting.  But Luke doesn’t use the term.  He just says that he was three days without sight, food, or drink (Ac 9:9).  And then there is that instant readiness to be baptized when Ananias does come (Ac 9:18).  Something, indeed, had happened.  And the next several years of his life gave constant evidence of it.

Moving on to look at the years leading up to this current scenario from which Paul writes, we find him having been imprisoned some four years in total and still having not faced trial.  The nature of this imprisonment was nearer to being house arrest, though in the first few years at Caesarea Philippi, house consisted of the palace grounds.  It was, after all, illegal to put a Roman citizen in prison without trial.  Yet, in that first place, Paul had been forced to put aside his usual busy schedule of travel.  He still ministered, it would seem, and was in turn ministered to by those who cared about him.  But he could not be out carrying the Word to the Gentile world, as he would have been doing otherwise.  We know of his longing to go to Rome.  It was already there when he wrote to that church from Corinth some years back.  We know he had thoughts of proceeding west of Rome.  But thus far, as he says, he had been prevented.  God had other plans for his time.  And now, sitting, as Easton’s observes, in view of the Mediterranean, with its call to these distant shores, God’s plan for Paul constrained him to pause in his labors.

It behooves us to recognize this not as some inconvenience forced upon the evangelist by the evil machinations of man or devil, any more than the crucifixion of Christ was, at root, the result of such conniving.  No.  Events were, as always, falling out exactly as God had purposed, as God had ordained.  Men and devils alike may very well have been involved, but they are as tools in His hands in these matters.  They have their ideas, their reasons for acting, and those reasons may be utterly evil and opposed to the Gospel.  But why they act and how their acts are used are often very different matters.  God knew His servant needed rest, and He saw to it that Paul got it, whether he wanted to or not.  That is, at the very least, one way to read events.  There may have been other reasons in God’s providence that He found it needful for Paul to be parked there in northern Israel for a few years.  Maybe it was to get past the era of Claudius’ rule and into Nero’s.  That shift would have come about in 54 AD, it would seem, well before events in Jerusalem, so I guess that’s not it.  At any rate, a pause was determined in Paul’s actions, perhaps, as Easton suggests, to supply a time for reflection on the twenty or so years of ministry now behind him.

As to the present tense of this letter, we read from Paul that he feels himself near the end of this lengthy pause, and we read that while the possibility of execution remains, he feels confident of being released to return to his ministries.  Nor has he been idle in the meantime, preaching even to his guards, and that, apparently to significant effect.  Elsewhere, though I am not sure from what sources, we have reason to believe he was indeed released.  The ending of Acts at least hints at this being the case, but may just be Luke’s observation of the situation as of his departure, when Paul had been now two years under guard in Rome (Ac 28:30-31).  This article suggests that his release came the same year that Rome suffered the great fire for which Nero blamed the Christians and began his persecutions in earnest.  That would be 64 AD, some two years before Paul had been brought back to Rome again, this time to be executed for the crime of being a Christian.

But on this occasion, we have a good sense of God’s providential hand on His servant.  Indeed, he yet had work to do, quite probably including that return visit to Philippi that he envisions here in this epistle.  We don’t really have solid word, though as to his years beyond this point, so what we hear of them must be taken with rather less certainty than that which comes of the testimony of Scripture.

Suffice to say that from that first moment on the road to Damascus, indeed, even going back to his birth as a Roman citizen of Tarsus in Asia Minor, we find his life firmly under the direction of God.  That did not prevent error on his part, certainly not in those years prior to Damascus, but we see how those earlier years shaped and prepared the minister who emerged from that critical moment.  Trained to be at once a lawyer, a priest, and a teacher, and is this not exactly how we see him operating as he plants churches throughout the region?  And do we not see evidence of his training as well in the organization of those churches, and the nature of the leadership that he establishes in those places?  There is much of his past in his present.  But there is much, too, of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.  Truly, here we have a man of God worthy to be emulated.

Lord, help us to learn from this man, though he passed from the scene long and away before we were born.  Help us to learn from him that the assurance we have in You is not of a cushy life and easy living, nor even of a peaceful end in old age.  But we are assured of heaven, of an eternity ahead of us such as will render whatever trials we may face in the present order unworthy of notice.  Help us, then, to be content in Your providence, whatever Your providence may bring our way.  Help us to reach that place where we, too, can view such sufferings as we may face for Your name as matters of honored service.  Bring us to the place of rejoicing whatever our circumstances, for whatever our circumstances, You are there with us even in the midst.  Thank You, bless You, let my trust in You be constant as You are constant.  Amen.

Servants and Saints (03/20/24-03/21/24)

I don’t suppose it’s particularly surprising, but I find much of my observations on this greeting come down to words and definitions.  They must.  Otherwise, it seems to me, much of our reading of Scripture becomes so full of Christianese terminologies as to lose all meaning.  Oh, we have Paul as bond-servant.  How nice.  No idea, really, what that intends to convey, but what a lovely tone.  Or perhaps we get so utterly disgusted at any suggestion of servitude that we cannot hear the word with any perspective but of the sort of slavery once common to this land, and still common today in other places.  Or, saints:  What does that really mean?  I mean, we recognize that it’s a positive declaration often applied to believers.  Perhaps we come with a bit of baggage from our past experiences, and think it a merit badge of sorts, earned only by the select few in Christian history, the mark of one we ought to venerate almost as we would God Himself.  Never mind what we ought to make of grace, a term we hear constantly, yet have little real sense of when it comes to definition.  And what to make of God as Father, or Jesus as Lord?  Nice words, but if we don’t contemplate their significance, it will just roll on by us leaving us largely untouched.  After all, it’s just a greeting.  It’s just formulaic letter opening stuff.

I will be looking at these terms in pairs, as it is striking to me how many pairings we find in this greeting.  The first pair to consider are those terms by which the writers and the recipients of this epistle are described.  As to the writers, Paul chooses to describe their status as being bond-servants of Christ Jesus.  But what do we have in this idea of a bond-servant?  There is, in fact, at least a touch of the sense of slavery to it, insomuch as the bond-servant has sold himself into the service of another.  Some attempt to set this more nearly akin to our ideas of employment, the employee sold, as it were, into the service of his employer.  But in such a circumstance, the employee continues to have a will of his own, may very well act more from self-interest than from submission, and may very well find himself rejecting certain of the commands of his or her employer.  Add that an employee always has the controlling interest, being able to terminate this association at any time, should he so choose.

The bond-servant differs in many aspects.  For one, having sold himself into service, it is not for him to terminate the contract.  That’s not an option.  The one served might, I suppose, do so, but as for the bond-servant, once signed, henceforth committed.  And having thus committed, he now serves with his will wholly consumed by the will of that one he serves.  The NET notes that there is a strong Jewish background to this conception of duty to God.  There is a history of God’s servants claiming such a relationship, or being described by such a relationship to God.  And this was not some abject condition of which to be ashamed, but rather, an honor and a privilege, an office in which to take pride.  It thus signifies, certainly in this application, one who is utterly submitted to God, and being as we are in the New Covenant, one thus being used by Christ to advance His cause.

Surely such a descriptive ought to be applicable to any who would serve as a minister of Christ.  It ought to apply to any pastor who is rightly construed as such.  To be sure, those who claim the pulpit without any attendant faith in Christ and His Truth could not be said thus to minister as utterly submitted to God and Christ.  Rather, they seek to submit God and Christ to their own whims and opinions.  And that can never work out well.  What use could we have of such a bond-servant God?  What value would there be to it?  It is, I should think, the crassest idolatry one could contrive to exercise.

But that is not what we have presented here.  We have, as is quite evident from his circumstances, and indeed, his life history, one utterly committed to the service of God and Christ.  His will is, if ever any man’s was, wholly consumed with this service, wholly submitted to God in every decision.  We see it in the events that led to him coming to Philippi in the first place.  We see it in the events that had resulted in his imprisonment.  This did not come as a surprise to him, but as something of which he had been forewarned in no uncertain terms.  Yet, warnings did not dissuade him from obedient service.  And now, with the perspective of one facing trial and the potential of death, he can see that service reflecting Christ’s own:  Who was obedient even to the point of death on the cross (Php 2:8).

So, then, we have Paul presenting not as the man in charge, not asserting the authority of his office, as he has found necessary to do in so many of his epistles.  Rather, he presents himself in a place of humble, if honorable, service; one who is not his own.  As Wuest offers this introduction, “bondslaves by nature, the property of Christ Jesus.”  Do we see ourselves thus?  Surely, He having redeemed us at so great a price, we should!  I could go back once again to that beautiful bit of imagery from the high priest’s outfit.  There upon his turban, perhaps touching upon his forehead, hung a gold medallion upon which was inscribed, “Holy unto the Lord.”  This is our status.  Not that we are high priests, certainly.  We have One Who is, and He occupies that office for His eternal lifetime.  But still, we bear His name.  We bear His mark.  We, too, are sold into His service, and it’s not up to us to break that contract.  And so long as we are His property, we, too, bear this stamp upon us, of being holy unto our Lord.

And with that segue, let us consider this other term, that of saint.  Here, we are spoken of as set apart for God, exclusively His, and so, not to be profaned.  Think of that occasion when God appeared to Moses out in the land of Midian.  Moses was curious, seeing this bush burning out in the middle of nowhere, and what’s more, showing no signs of being consumed by the blazing flames.  And as he approached this wonder, it became more wonderful, the voice of God Himself calling to him from the midst of that fire.  And what does God say?  “Don’t come too close.  Remove your sandals, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Ex 3:5).  What would make a patch of dirt down south of what we know as Jordan holy?  Well, certainly in that particular moment, it was set apart for God’s use.  It was connected with Him in that His presence was quite apparently there.  But one might more readily have thought the bush perhaps holy in this sense, rather than the place Moses was standing.

The point, though, is that this place, with the wondrous event that was happening there, was, if only temporarily, connected with God.  And here is our key factor:  Being connected with God, it was not to be profaned.  And what would it mean to profane?  At its most benign, it would be to treat that which is connected with God as if it were a secular thing, a worldly matter.  Thus, for example, we separate such music or writing as is associated with worship and religion as being sacred, whereas the average book in the library or song on the radio is profane.  It does not mean they are obscene, or decidedly opposed to that which is sacred, only that they are not connected with God.  But there is a stronger sense in which to profane is indeed an act of contempt, a rejection of the holy.  Thus, the first reference we have to profaning something is in the instructions for making an altar.  There, God instructs that a stone altar is not to use cut stones, for ‘if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it’ (Ex 20:25).  In this application, I should think the point was that such a tooling of the stones suggested that God’s work needed improvement.

Let’s try and come back to our own passage, though.  Those who are ‘in Christ’ are saints.  At one level, this is a tautology, for if we are in Christ, then of course we are connected with God, for Christ is God, and if we are in Him, then clearly, we are connected with Him.  What, then, would risk profaning this holy arrangement?  Can we in fact profane Christ in us?  It cannot be, for He is perfectly holy, and ever shall be.  So, too, the indwelling Holy Spirit.  It’s in His very title, that He is likewise perfectly holy, being likewise God.  So, when we have passages, such as Paul’s admonition to the church in Corinth in regard to sexual sins, what then?  It’s interesting to note that on that occasion, the first matter that leads Paul to discuss the defiling of the temple of God which we are, comes in addressing issues of disunity and factionalism.  “Don’t you know that you are a temple of God in which the Spirit dwells?  If any man destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him, for His temple is holy, and that is what you are” (1Co 3:16-17).  Then, later, it turns to the matter of sexual sins, which Paul encourages us most strongly to flee.  Every other sin, he notes, is committed outside the body, but these immoralities are sins against the body itself, and that body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, ‘whom you have from God’.  You are not your own (1Co 6:18-19).

Here is our message even in this greeting.  You, there in Philippi are no more your own than we two here in Rome, bond-servants of Christ.  We are alike in this, in that we are God’s exclusive property for His exclusive use, not to be profaned by worldly pursuits and worldly hungers.  You and I are, if indeed we are in Christ Jesus, set apart for Him, His exclusively.  “You are not your own.”  This was as true of Paul and Timothy, there in that Roman prison, as it was for the church of Philippi, proud citizens of the empire and well to do in the world.  Whether you are in bonds or in a place of comfort, you are His, and all that you do must reflect this reality.

Now, I asked if our actions can in fact profane Christ, or profane the indwelling Holy Spirit of God?  And the answer has got to be that we most obviously cannot do any such thing.  But.  It must occur to us to ask what happens when we sin?  What happens when lustful thoughts overtake us?  What happens when, knowing ourselves to be holy, we all the same consent to sin, choose our hungers over His holiness?  At some level, it must be that God seals Himself off from our sin, for He cannot, will not abide with sin, and must destroy that which is sinful should it be in His presence.  And where, I would then have to ask, can I go that I could escape His presence?  The answer of the Psalmist is that there is no such place.  Heaven, earth, hell, off to the farthest lands?  It matters not.  “Even there Thy hand will lead me, and They right hand lay hold of me” (Ps 139:7-12).

So, take that thought, and bring it together with Paul’s admonition to Corinth.  “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him.”  There is strong reason to take this issue of sin most seriously, isn’t there?  If it was serious before we came to the knowledge of Christ, how much more so now, when we have been made temples of the living God, by His choosing and His workmanship?  I cannot simply write this and move on.

Father, these are concerns to shake me to the core.  I know too well how readily I can take up my sinful habits.  I know entirely too well how swiftly I can fall from these holy contemplations to utmost worldliness.  Do I think to improve upon Your workmanship?  I don’t think I see it thus, no.  But I do know that pride, even after all these years, remains an active poison in me.  I can be far too pleased with myself, with my insights and opinions, so pleased as to brush off or miss entirely Your prompting a course correction.  What shall I say to this?  Forgive me.  Grant that I might truly repent of such ways in myself.  And even in the midst of this awareness, and the keen sense of my own weakness of will, let me give thanks to You for Your patient working in me.  You have not abandoned me to my ways.  Let me not be so foolish as to take that as license, but instead avail myself of the opportunity You have given me to improve and grow.  Help me, Lord, to be more actively mindful of what it means that I am holy, set apart for You exclusively.  Let my thoughts be such as are suitable for life in the temple of Your Spirit, of one in union with You.  I can feel the flesh rising against such thoughts even as I pray this, so strengthen me, my God.  Help me in my weakness.  Guard me, that I might not sin against You.  For I am Yours.

Let me try and bring this portion of the exercise to a close.  We are considering these two ideas of being bond-servants and being saints.  At some level, they describe the same state.  For in both cases, we are considering people set apart for God for His exclusive use.  In both cases, it is clearly the case that God has right of rule, right of disposition.  It is for Him to say what we should do, how we should live, what the conditions of our life and its span are to be.  If there is a distinction to be had, I think it comes back to that distinction which our sundry lexicons make between the various Greek terms for such servitude and slavery.  In all cases, there is that sense of being given over entirely to the will of another.  But in base slavery, it seems to me there remains that possibility, even probability that subjection has been involuntary.  It may be the result of war that has led to being enslaved.  It may be that other life events have left one unable to see to his own provision, and thus left him to sell his services to another.  Certainly, in the rules that governed Jewish society from Mosaic times, that was the intention of slavery:  To supply a means of provision where the more normal means had been lost.  And this is why such slavery was always envisioned as a temporary arrangement, more akin to welfare, though there was the option for the slave who found he preferred this arrangement to make it permanent if he so chose.

But in the bond-servant we have something different.  I am given to understand that it could still have come about involuntarily, but there is something of honor to the position.  It is a term used of those who commit their lives to the service of the king, or in this case, of God.  It is an honorable setting aside of one’s own interests in order to pursue the interests of that one who is served.  So, then, the idea of the bond-servant conveys a sense of those duties performed, the work one has committed himself to do, and also the why of it.  In identifying themselves as bond-servants of Christ Jesus, Paul is making clear that everything he does, whether in jail or out on the mission route, whatever his circumstances, is done in service to and in obedience to Christ.  Truly, Christ is Lord of him.  Even as to what he writes in this letter, Christ is Lord of him, and what he writes, he writes for Christ, at the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Turning to the saints, we have view to our condition, a condition clearly shared by these who are His bond-servants.  We, too, are exclusively His.  We, too, are dedicated to His use, His assigning us to whatever position in life and church as He would have us fill.  And as we fill those positions, whether in matters sacred or profane, we being His are called to fill them as His representatives, as pursuing His interests.  We cannot divide our lives into periods where we are His and periods where we are our own.  That won’t work.  We are in union with Him.  Always.  What we can do is become more intentional about walking in that reality.  What we can do is seek, throughout our days, to be reminded that we are saints, God’s people in union with Christ Jesus our Lord.  Even in so benign an act as crossing the street, this holds true.  That is not a call to exert privilege, or act presumptuously, boldly crossing in total disregard for all those others using the street.  It is, instead, a call to think more highly of those others than of our inconvenience in having to pause for traffic.  It is a call to heed the laws that govern such things, even if there is no representative of the law there to enforce them.

If we are His, if we are exclusively His, this has got to begin to shape our interactions, even with those who are not.  I think of that unwanted phone call last night.  It seems that anymore any phone call one receives is more likely than not unwanted.  Apart from those very few that come from identifiable friends, or from other clearly identified sources from whom we may actually need contact, all phone calls are either from scammers, political action committees, or telemarketers, and none of these are particularly welcome.  Indeed, they seem always to come as interruptions.  Gone are the days when the telephone ring was a welcome note indicating the opportunity to connect with people we like and care about.  Now, it is almost always an interruption, an annoyance.  But how do we, as saints set apart for God, respond?  I know how I respond in the flesh, and I know how my flesh responded when my lovely wife suggested perhaps I could have presented them with the gospel rather than with my annoyance.  Well, that’s certainly annoying.  But it’s annoying because it’s quite right.  Such responses may give one a certain satisfaction in having vented, but this is not acting as God’s representative.  Indeed, it is closing the door on any possibility of presenting the Gospel.  Who would listen after that?

And again I must seek Your forgiveness and Your aid.  Keep me mindful that I am Yours.  It is so hard to maintain that perspective while working, or going about the busyness of life.  Yet it remains true.  Let me remain true.  Let me act like I am Yours, for I am.

Elders and Deacons (03/22/24-03/23/24)

The next pair of terms encountered in this greeting are found in the mention of those elders and deacons serving in Philippi.  These constituted, even from this earliest period, the governance of the local church.  They would be subject to the Apostles, but would otherwise have charge of the church as to its teaching and its operation.  We know of at least one other office, or at least that which appears to have been an office, in the case of prophets.  But we have no clear knowledge of how these were appointed, or if they were appointed.  Let us consider, then, the two we have before us.

We shall start with the overseers, elsewhere referred to as elders.  It is from this idea of overseer that we arrive at the office of the bishop as found in some churches today.  But both episkopois, as we have here, and presbuteros, which we find Paul using elsewhere refer to one and the same office in the church.  The ISBE points out how the former term tends to emphasize the office and the authority of the individual, whereas the latter term puts more emphasis on the age, wisdom and dignity of the individual.  But, as per Jesus’ clear instruction to the Apostles, this was no lordly position, no opportunity to domineer over the rest of the body.  These elders or bishops are to serve as guardians of the flock, overseers of God’s possession, and thus, act far more as stewards than lords.

There are a few passages in Scripture, particularly in Paul’s letters, which set forth the qualifications that need to be met by such as would serve as elders.  There is, of course, the passage from 1Timothy 3, which treats also on the qualifications for the deaconate.  There is also the instruction given Titus as he was charged with identifying and commissioning those in the church in Crete who would first fill this office there.  And in that instruction, it seems to me, we find the chief purpose for the office.  The elders are to be such as are, “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so as to be able to exhort sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Ti 1:9).  That’s a significant duty, and one that precludes a penchant for novelty and innovation.  The elders are not to be such as seek to make their mark on the development of the church, but rather steady hands upon the wheel, keeping her true to the course set forth by her Lord, Christ Jesus.

I think of those years spent at DEC.  Every time somebody new took the helm of management there would be reorganizing of how different teams and disciplines interacted, some new theory of management put in place, or perhaps a previously tried methodology revisited.  Honestly, for those of us doing the work, it rarely registered as anything much more than, “here we go again.”  But the new boss felt the need to make his or her mark on operations, make it clear that things were going to change under their guidance.  This thinking can slip into the church, particularly as we tend to view those successful in business as somehow better qualified to serve as elders in the church.  I have to say, I think we are greatly mistaken in that perspective.  It might suit for deacons, I suppose, but for elders, it becomes almost a counter-indicator, and for exactly those reasons.  The corporate manager wants to innovate, to change how things are done, to stamp his mark on the team, and that is exactly what we don’t want in the office of elder.

The elder, as I said, is a steward, a guardian of the flock.  Take Paul’s parting advice to the elders in Ephesus.  “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Ac 20:28).  You are under-shepherds.  You are not owners of the flock, but overseers, stewards.  Your charge is to see things done rightly by this flock.  Your charge is to take care that the doctrine they are taught is sound.  Now, as this is a teaching office, or at least to be staffed with those who can take up a teaching office as needed, it calls upon the elders to be students of this Word, well familiar with its truths and teachings, and holding fast to those traditions, those doctrines delivered once for all by the Apostles.  This is not the place for innovative programs.  This is not the place for polls taken to see what the flock would prefer to be taught.  This is not the place for pushing personal opinions.  It is the office of guarding the Truth.  Thus, once again, that instruction to Titus.  The elder is to be faithful to the word of God, the teaching delivered by the Apostles, able to exhort sound Truth, and able to refute false teaching.  And let me add, to do such refuting with a heart of love undiminished, not falling into angry dispute and ungodliness.  That, I must say, is harder than simply proclaiming the truth as it is given us.

I see that there is some doubt cast upon this letter for making use of this term episkopois, on the basis that the office of bishop, such as it is generally found today, did not really come into play until some centuries later.  But that supposes that the episkopois that Paul addresses is in fact of the same nature as that later office, and that, I think, is highly questionable.  More likely is that theory put forth by whichever article that the term had quite naturally been taken up by this primarily Gentile church as a familiar term for the presbuterois which Paul had established.  Again, same office indicated by different terms.  As well as that difference in emphasis already noted, there would also be a difference of societal background.  The idea of an elder would come naturally to one of Jewish background.  And in the same way, the idea of a bishop or overseer, was far more natural to one of Gentile background.  But they point to the same office.  And, as concerns that later office, it should be noted that where we see this office established in Scripture, there is always a multiplicity of elders guiding a particular church, not one bishop to rule over the rest.  And this, I would observe, follows the first establishing by Christ, in that He established a multiplicity of Apostles to see to the founding of the Church universal.

We see also the importance of this office in the eyes of the Apostles.  We have seen it already in that Paul instructs his generals on the selection of elders.  But we see it also in his own work.  We read in Acts 14:23 that as he returned through those places where he had planted churches, he now ‘appointed elders with prayer and fasting’, commending them to the Lord.  The selection of elder was not something to undertake lightly.  For us today, who have not the oversight of Apostles to check our progress, how important it is for us to take the matter with like seriousness of spirit.  As my own church enters its annual phase of seeking to discern those who might be both willing and fit to serve as elders, certainly it ought to be a matter of significant prayer for us.  One could argue that it ought to be a call to committed, communal prayer together.  Should it be an occasion for fasting as well?  I have to confess that any such idea hits a wall of resistance in me, but that is a matter of preference, not of holding some doctrinal line.  I suspect there is a place for fasting in this, though I simply fail to see the value of fasting as a means for godly decision making.  I can see it as a spiritual discipline for the taming of the flesh, and sharpening our sense of dependence upon God, perhaps even as a means of stirring thankfulness for His provision.  But as an ingredient for sound decision making, I just don’t see it.  Yet, here it is, set before us as a pattern, and presumably, a pattern to be followed.

So, then, what am I to do?  I can at least begin to pray in earnest for the guidance of our Lord in this process, that He would indeed stir the thoughts of those whom He would see guiding this body, and that He would direct us to such as will do so in keeping with the instruction and the mindset that we have found laid out for us in the pages of Scripture; such as hold fast the faithful word, and refute false teachings in a spirit of godliness, guarding and overseeing the flock over which our Lord has given them charge for a season.  May they be such as will be conservators of that which is sound, and may they be reformers of that which has gone off course.  May the be strong in faith, humbly submitted to God and well-acquainted with their need of His wisdom and strength to satisfy the demands of this most demanding office.  May they be wise to the setting aside of such worldly wisdom as may be theirs in order that they may lead in godly wisdom.  Lord, let it be so.

Let’s turn to the deacons, whom we might account as employees of God.  In this sense, we can immediately see that they bear similarities to the elders, and even to the Apostles, who identified as Christ’s bond-servants.  All alike share this subservience or enlistment to God.  All alike are king’s servants, committed to advance his interests even when that might have negative consequences for their own.  This aspect should apply, I am sure, to any office in the church, and indeed, should apply to every believer, whether they serve in an official capacity or not.  We are all of us called as Christ’s holy possession, as we have already considered.  And if we are His, are we not His to deploy as He deems best?  And if we are His, account Him our Lord and our Husband, are we not, then, obliged to comply?

An employee of God:  It’s a phrase Zhodiates supplies, and doesn’t it just stir a bit of pride to think of oneself thus?  I don’t know to what degree this holds in worldly connections, that we would feel a bit of pride to know ourselves employees of this or that company.  There have been places I have worked where no such feeling was stirred, but there are others, including this company I have been with now these many years, which do.  But nothing in this compares to those feelings that stir when I think of myself as God’s man.  Understand, it’s not pride of self.  It’s pride of being found suitable, perhaps.  It’s pride of being part of something you hold in high esteem.  Certainly, as we turn to this sense of being a king’s servant, and recognize that this, as with the sense of being bond-servants, is not a matter of abject, enforced servitude, but rather, a position entered into willingly, we recognize a sense of being honored to find oneself admitted to such a position.

I suspect one would have seen a similar sense of pride in the house steward of a well-respected and reasonable master.  This would not have been uncommon in Roman society, certainly, and as such, not uncommon to those in Philippi to whom Paul is writing.  They would, I expect, recognize the trust placed in these men and women by Him who selected them to serve Him.  It’s an honorable position, even if its most fundamental duties are care for and administration of the church.  For us, that’s often a question of facilities.  But it also extends to charitable pursuits, and to many aspects of our regular church service.  Our church in particular is perhaps less formal in recognizing the office of deacon, but the role is still there, though we think of it as team leads.  And there is still something of a division of labor there, the elders to be focused more on the spiritual leadership and direction, and the deacons on the more practical matters of church life.

That said, from the earliest examples we have of the deacons in Scripture, we find them not solely attending to these mundane matters of alms and accounting and such.  They are right in there with the elders in the work of proclaiming the Gospel and in the work of catechizing and baptizing those coming to faith in Christ.  Now, I do see some argument evidenced in the various articles on this office, as to whether it is rightly chased back to Acts 6 or not.  Certainly, in that instance, we see seven men of godly character set apart to tend to the concerns of distributing needed support to the widows of the church, in particular, ensuring that the Hellenistic widows are not overlooked, whether intentionally or accidentally.

It has been something of an undesigned coincidence in God’s timing that our men’s group happens to be working through that passage as I am working through this one.  That said, while I see that various denominations view the matter differently, I would indeed suggest that those set aside by the Apostles in Acts bear strong resemblance to the officers described by Paul in his letter to Timothy.  They share like qualifications for office:  Men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom (Ac 6:3), men of dignity, honesty, sober-spirited and content, “holding to the mystery of faith with a clear conscience” (1Ti 3:8-9).  Deacon and elder alike share these characteristics, though their duties vary.  And in both cases, they are called to be devoted to their wives, and sound in their management of children and households (1Ti 3:2, 1Ti 3:4-5, 1Ti 3:12).  That is not to suggest, as the Episcopalians apparently believe, that the office of deacon is as a probationary test for the office of elder.  There need be no such progression.  But again, we do see that beyond the mundane matters of administration, those called to serve as deacons also become involved in the ‘higher functions’ of the church, as Fausset terms them.  And that is clearly to be seen in Acts, as we watch Stephen declaring the Gospel to those in Jerusalem, and giving lengthy and well-crafted defense of his faith before the Sanhedrin, even to the point of declaring their sins to their face, and being stoned for that boldness.  Philip, likewise, is shown fully capable of explaining the Scriptures, and perfectly within his official rights to perform a baptism.  And that odd notice of him taken up by the Spirit and relocated from the southern road over to the coast certainly indicates a Spirit-filled minister the likes of which we don’t see today.

A few further notes, taken from discussion of this deaconate office, but I think applicable to both deacon and elder:  The ISBE observes how this deacon serves as would sons to their father, and that strikes me as a most telling description, and apt for all who would serve in Christ.  It is worth observing how this would typify, certainly, Jewish culture, and perhaps Roman as well.  The son is expected to follow in his father’s footsteps, to take up the family business, and to do his father proud.  Even where the son goes off to some other pursuit, such as Paul going off to Jerusalem to train as a rabbi, there is still that sense that he carries his father’s reputation in his demeaner.  How he pursues his vocation will reflect on his upbringing, and in some sense, I think, that persists even when one’s father has passed on from this life.  Of course, we could bring mother into this as well, for both parents are equally to be honored by how we carry in ourselves the lessons of our youth.  And there are aspects of that which would point back more rightly to mom than to dad.  Yet, such was the culture at the time, and such, I suspect, it remains despite loud protestations, that for the son, it is the father’s influence that is most in view.  I would equally expect that for the daughter, the mother’s influence would be more felt and more evident.

But how does a son serve his father?  If I stick with my own example, I might have to suggest resentfully.  Dad’s call to come work beside him on this or that project always means setting aside one’s games, one’s pleasures.  I was never keen to be out in the cold garage working on cold, greasy vehicles.  The wood shop might have held somewhat more interest, but even there, serving as something of an unskilled menial, the value was not immediately evident to my young, untamed mind.  But, oh!  The value.  Oh, the lesson it has been, as I consider this life of faith, to see how a father’s love demonstrated in those times.  There were things learned in those times of observation, doing little more than handing the wrong tool to him when asked, and then going off to get the right one.  His patience, for one.  Clearly, my help wasn’t much help at all, more a hindrance.  Yet, he sought my help, sought to have me there with him.  And he would, oft-times, take pains to explain what he was doing and why.  I think, particularly, of that time he was making speaker cabinets for my car speakers.  Now, that may seem an excessive thing, and it was.  But as he made those cabinets, he explained to me, with math, the physics of the thing, why this baffle was put in, and how the dimensions were chosen such that the bass port would emit the reflected internal waves in phase with the highs of the tweeter emitting from the front.  For one, there was something of wonder, for I did not know he possessed such knowledge.  For another, there was enormous pride in the outcome, that he had taken these cheap department store speakers and made them sound so much better than they would have been, if simply mounted on the rear deck of the cabin, as would usually be the case.

And he taught me something of care for doing the job right.  He taught me somewhat of sticking with it to see the task done, even when the particulars were onerous.  And I hope I can say that as I pursue my career, my role as father to my children, as husband to my wife, that I display somewhat of his better characteristics.  I know, too, something of the embarrassment of seeing one’s child taking up, instead, the characteristics we would rather had been shed by ourselves before they became such poor examples for our progeny.  Of course, God has no cause for any such regret when it comes to the example He sets for His children.  But I cannot overstate how beneficial my younger days have proven for understanding His care of us.  And now, also, I see more clearly the expectations my father had, that I might indeed learn from his example and character, so as to be a man of honor in my own turn.

So, take all that, and apply it back to this matter of deacons and elders.  Those who serve in the church, serve as sons to the Father.  Indeed, as I hope I make clear, we all do.  These officers are likewise called to serve as brothers to their fellow believers.  There is nothing authoritarian about the filling of this office, though certainly, as touches the elders, there is authority, and that authority sometimes has to be exercised.  This, I suppose, gives us a line of distinction between the offices.  There is an authority, particularly a disciplinary authority, that belongs to the office of elder which would not rightly devolve to the deacon.  But in both cases, the service of leadership, and of administration, is done as by brothers to their fellow believers.  It is a duty rendered for family, and that has got to influence how those duties are pursued.  What is done for family will almost certainly be done with greater care, and hopefully with less resentment.  We might allow our work tasks to become rote performance, just getting it done and over with.  But those same tasks, done for one we love, should never be so.

And again, I feel I must stress this aspect of the matter.  What holds for elders and for deacons ought rightly hold for all who know themselves to be joined with Christ, sons of the Father by His adoptive choice.  This is not a call exclusively for the officers of the church, but for the entire body.  We are all of us called to think more highly of those around us than of ourselves.  We are all of us called to set aside our preferences and agendas in favor of pursuing the harmonious unity of this body, that we might, together, be grown up into the fulness of the mature image of Christ, our Head.

May it be so with us, Father.  May we who serve, serve with no eye toward self-interest, but indeed, with eyes and heart and mind and soul turned firmly upon You.  May we be such as are attentive to hear Your leading, Your instruction, and then active in pursuit of those ends that You determine.  May we all be as bold as Stephen in proclaiming Your good news to a world clearly in need of it.  May we prove as selfless in doing so, whatever the cost.  For this I know:  our future is certain.  You have us firmly in hand, and our inheritance prepared.  There can be, then, no place for that fear which so often prevents us speaking the Truth, prevents us from that love which ought rightly to pour out of us an untamable stream, overflowing from Your love poured in.  And Lord, if it is Your desire that I should serve once more in some greater capacity, make that clear to me.  You know the concerns that cause me to refrain.  If I am mistaken, again, make it clear.  But I would not serve as unfit for such office as might be in view, and certainly those aspects of managing the household raise certain concerns for me as regards that fitness.  But You know best, and as You direct, may it be that I pursue without hesitation.  I am Yours.

Father and Lord (03/24/24)

The last pair of terms I want to consider here are the two by which our God is identified by Paul.  I suppose it’s more properly four terms set in two pairs, and which should rightly correlate to the other is a question.  We have, then, God our Father, as set one, and the Lord Jesus Christ as the other.  I suppose the more usual correlation would be between God and Lord, with Father and Christ as another correlating pair.  God and Lord thus indicate the two Persons of the Godhead that are in view (with the Spirit inherently present as well), and Father and Christ, or Messiah, speaking more to their office within the Trinity.  But there, we would probably expect to see Son mentioned as the natural correlative to Father.

So, it’s interesting the choice that Paul has made here.  And to my eyes, the focal point becomes the pairing of Father and Lord.  God, after all, is applicable to all the Persons of the Trinity, though Paul tends to utilize it as distinguishing Father from Son and Spirit.  And Christ has become so nearly a surname for Jesus as to have lost much of its Messianic connection.  I suspect that for the Philippians, that would hold as well, given their Gentile background.  They would have much less, if any, Messianic expectations.  The term would not bear all that historical freight with them.  So, Father and Lord.

Let’s look at Father.  The term is used not only for one’s immediate male parent, but in a much wider array of meanings.  The father of a thing is the author or beginner of a thing.  Thus, you might hear of this or that artist as the father of modern jazz, for instance, or the father of some art movement.  This usage is often found in Scripture.  You also have father as indicating one who provides care of a paternal nature, fatherly concern.  We could apply the term to Paul with that perspective, and he does so on occasion, speaking of himself as the father of faith in those various churches he planted.  And to be sure, in his pastoral care for them, he displays a father’s affection and concern.

Here, however, we are considering God, not man.  And thus, we have God as Author and Beginner.  This points us to His role as creator and upholder of all things.  As Paul told the philosophers of Athens, in Him we live, in Him we move, in Him we have being (Ac 17:28).  It would be hard to overstate the significance of that declaration.  Apart from God, we have no existence.  And that applies to believer and unbeliever alike.  Apart from God, nothing that exists would have come into existence in the first place, and were He to cease His attentiveness to the work of Creation, Creation itself would cease.  In that sense, identifying God as Father indicates great power, and absolute authority, absolute control.

But for the Christian, there is a more wonderful aspect to knowing God as our Father, and I will give credit to Thayer for bringing this aspect out clearly.  When we come to truly know God as our Father, as our Father, we find ourselves no longer caught up in dread of His power.  We are no longer craven applicants for mercy, knowing He could squash us like a bug, and has every good reason to do so.  No!  If this remained our condition, we could not conceive of Him as a Father at all, let alone as our own.  And I must recognize that for many of us, the fallen nature of our earthly fathers has left us ill-equipped to arrive at this realization.  But we must, for our own spiritual health.  We are reconciled to God.  That’s the message of our Father.  We are reconciled to Him because He has reconciled us to Himself (2Co 5:18), and that has transpired through Christ.  By this miraculous, unwarranted work of the Father, we have been drawn into this close relationship with Him, a relationship by which we are able to cry out to Him, ‘Abba!  Father!’ (Ro 8:15).  That is a cry of love and trust, it is a call to one we know we can rely on to hear and respond, and to come to our aid.

If you are one who has difficulty relating with this fatherly idea, I might suggest looking at the example of the father of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11-32).  You see his paternal love for this wayward son quite clearly as the son returns home.  You might be inclined to write that off as a response to repentance, and certainly, that is an aspect of this parable worthy of consideration, but the focus is not on the repentance, but the reception.  “While he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him” (Lk 15:20).  His father wanted nothing so much as to see relationship restored, and was already pursuing that goal before ever he had word of his son’s remorse.  Indeed, he had no particular interest in hearing of his son’s remorse, as needful as that ingredient may be. 

You can also see his paternal care in his interactions with the other brother.  He doesn’t respond to his son’s anger with anger in turn.  He doesn’t simply tell him to shut up, or slap him for his insolence.  He explains.  He expresses his heart to his son, sets the example for his own development of character.  No, son, but this is how love responds.  This is what forgiveness looks like.  This is what it means to be family.

And of course, the whole of this is geared towards depicting for us exactly how our Father has longed for our own restoration to Him, has felt compassion for us long before ever we heeded His call, and undertook to see to our restoration, quite honestly, before ever we thought to repent, and before it ever occurred to us that we had reason to repent.  Truly, it is His doing that we are reconciled, His doing that all fear is gone.  There remains only that holy reverence which is His rightful due, and the loving response to this one who is our Father, who loved us enough that he gave over His only begotten Son to experience death on our behalf, that we might be restored to Him in life (Jn 3:16).

Well, let us look to this Son, our Jesus Messiah.  We will be looking at this aspect of His obedience unto death later in the letter, but observe that in light of this, in light of His active submission to the will of our Father, even in dying, God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name (Php 2:9).  Now, the immediate reference following is to his name as Jesus, but that is a relatively common name, even today.  Chances are good that you know at least one Joshua, and perhaps have even met one or more who bear the name Jesus directly.  So, that can’t be it.  Messiah or Christ?  There have been others who were sent as redeemers of God’s people, if not on quite the same eternal scale.  The key is perhaps in that application of Isaiah 45:23 that follows.  Every knee will bow, every tongue will confess.  And what shall they confess?  That this Jesus Christ is indeed Lord.  There is the name.  There is the name by which we must be saved.  And that name indicates both His office in regard to us, and also – and this is critical – our perception of His relationship to us.

What does it mean, this Lord?  Well, at its most mundane, it can be simply a term of respect, having no more real significance than when we apply mister or miss in addressing somebody, and let us specify, do so without a sense of irony.  You can see somewhat of this in the proceedings of the senate or the house, as the one chairing the proceedings is spoken to as Mr. Speaker.  There is nothing much more to that usage than simply being respectful.  But there is far more to this idea of Lord.  There is a confession, as evident in that later passage from this letter, that this is the One with power to decide one’s situation or condition.  He is the possessor of that over which He is Lord, which is to say, everything, in the case of Jesus.  He is our sovereign.  We here in America struggle with grasping that concept, because it is so foreign to our idea of governance.  I suppose other countries in the West are likewise challenged, for even where there are such things as kings, they are largely figureheads with little to no real say as to the lives of the citizenry.

Lord implies one who truly does have such say, and exercises it.  He who is Lord is our owner, our master.  And in the case of Jesus, we are given to recognize just how high a price He paid for possession of us.  Quite rightly, we ought to be amazed that He did so, and did so willingly.  We can hardly think to put ourselves forward as worth the price.  It would be laughable were it not so arrogant.  But this is what is indicated when we speak of Jesus our Lord.  He is our owner, our master.  He is, in truth, the Ruler of the Universe.  He has the power.  He effectively has all the power.  What He says goes.  When the day comes that He says, “Kneel!”  Indeed, every knee shall bow, whatever they may think of this one who is Lord.  Like it or not, He will be acknowledged.  Like it or not, He will be obeyed.

We who are His, given Him by His Father and ours, are in the enviable position of knowing His rule of us combines with His love for us.  He is Lord, yes.  He is also our elder brother.  He is also our bridegroom.  There is, once again, that depth of relationship in view, even as we are drawn to attend to His authority.  This realization does not, must not lead us to presume upon His love for us.  If we permit that response, we are setting ourselves in harm’s way.  No, but knowing His deep love for us, His great and tender care for us, we know that whatever He may require of us, wherever He may choose to station us, and whatever task He may set us to doing, it is indeed for our good – our best good. 

“We know that God causes all things to work for good to those who love God, to those called according to His purpose” (Ro 8:28).   God is for us!  That most directly addresses our Father, through whose election of us we are adopted, called, and justified.  But it is through the Son, through our Lord, through having been so changed in heart and spirit as to not only acknowledge Him as Lord, but respond to Him as Lord.  What does that mean?  It means we don’t hem and haw when He directs.  We don’t put Him off.  We respond to Him in the spirit of that prayer He first taught His disciples.  “Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven” (Mt 6:10).  You have commanded it.  We shall do it.  And we shall do so trusting You, knowing that You are with us, whatever that command may be.

Father and Lord.  These two descriptions by which we are given to view our God, speak both to God’s full and firm authority over us, and to the depths of God’s eternally abiding lovingkindness towards us.  There is both love and discipline in view, and can we not say that both are most needful if indeed we are to know that grace and peace which our ours in God?

Father, it is interesting that I should land upon this part of my study on this Sunday when we celebrate the triumphal entry of our Lord into Jerusalem as He entered His city in the leadup to His betrayal, His crucifixion, and yes, our rescue.  It is fitting, I think, to be reminded of the depths of love and the rightful rule of my Lord on such a day.  It is fitting to be reminded of that always.  He is Lord, and by Your grace, I am His.  I am Yours.  You have called me by name.  You have loved me enough to search me out when I was far from You.  You came looking for me when I was not looking for You, but oh, the change, when You found me!  Oh!  The wonder of it when You made Yourself known to me.  And Oh!  The joy that has come to be mine, knowing that I am indeed Yours.  You are my Father and my Lord.  Forgive, then, those myriad times I have fallen far short of rendering the obedience that is Your due.  Forgive me, as well, for those times that I have thought little of Your love.  May it be more real to me even this day, and may I be found doing as You would have me to do, without hesitation and without resentment.  This seems to be something I am needing to deal with more of late.  If it is of my own doing, then guide me clear of it.  If it is indeed a response to Your calling and direction, grant me the peace and grace needful to do all these things in the grace of Your power, not in the anger of my fleshly self-concern.  I am Yours.  Thank You for that.  May I, through Your power and influence, make that evident in my own character.  Amen.

Established with Order (03/25/24)

Having considered these various word pairs, it’s time to consider what we learn of the nature of the church and of the God she serves in this greeting.  The first thing that becomes very evident is that the churches have an organizational structure.  There are offices, and as there are offices, there are officers to fill them.  Paul actually writes as one such officer, an Apostle, though he does not speak of his authority of office in this epistle.  Yet, he does choose to specifically address the overseers and deacons.  This is a thing unique to the letter before us.  And it must lead to a question as to why it should be that he has done so.

It may be that this comes as something of a reminder to the church at large, that yes, these who serve as elders and deacons in the church do so by God’s appointment, and for the benefit of the whole church.  So, start here.  Offices are established for the church.  Now, some of those, particularly the office of apostle, have not been perpetuated beyond the first holders of that office.  This was a unique office with a unique purpose, and that purpose having been fulfilled, the office is no longer required.  But those of elder and deacon persist as the church persists, for the need for such local leadership pertains so long as there is a local body.

If I may, though, I would diverge just a moment to that small conjunction by which these officers are included in the greeting.  The term is sun, and as various lexicons point out, it is a term for close union.  There are other terms that could have indicated, shall we say, a locative proximity.  Meta, for example, would have noted their being in one place, or para might have served to indicate how these officers come alongside the church, rather like the Paraklete.  But this is closer.  It suggests, as Zhodiates observes, the shared conditions experienced by all in the church body, and that they have joined in a cooperative work in this matter of faith in action.  There are hints of equipping in this choice of word.  This is something Paul makes more explicit in other places.  In Ephesians 4:11-12, for example, he lists various offices of the church:  Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, and notes that these are appointed ‘for the equipping of the saints for the work of service’, so as to strengthen the body of Christ, which is the church.  Okay, so elders and deacons are not directly mentioned here.  That ought, I think, to make clear that Paul’s list here is not exhaustive.  Of course, at least in our polity, we would account the pastor as being among the elders, and teachers might well be construed as filling a deaconate role.

But observe the intent.  This is not a matter of honoring star players.  This is not a case of promoting hierarchy as a means of enforcement.  There is governance involved, yes, but it is governance with humility.  That note is evident from the very first, as Paul lays aside office to speak of himself as Christ’s bond-servant.  He is but a man under orders, doing that which has been appointed to him to do.  This sets the tone for the service of these elders and deacons.  They, too, are bond-servants of Christ.  And they are to be submitted to the Apostolic instruction because they are bond-servants of Christ.  It’s not a matter of exalting the man who happens to fill the office.  It’s about honoring the One who appoints office and officer alike.  And it’s also about remembering His instruction for those who would serve as undershepherds over His church.  “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mk 9:35).

Let me just clarify that the point in that verse is not that our service ought to be rendered with an eye to reward.  It’s not a competition to see which of us can be the most holy, or who can gain the most brownie points with the Boss.  No!  It’s about serving Christ by emulating Christ.  He came as a servant, as we will read shortly on in this letter.  He did not come lording it over His subjects, though He assuredly had the right to do so.  He came, rather, to save His own.  He came to minister to our needs, needs most dreadful and far beyond any capacity we had to deal with them.  And having departed into heaven for a season, He saw to it that His people would not be without those to serve in His absence.  Listen.  The pastor does not preach to make a name for himself, not if he is deserving of being called a pastor.  The elder does not serve to obtain praises from the body, nor to get the best seating or any other such thing, not if he is fit for office.  The deacon does not seek accolades or pay for his services.  They serve.  It’s there in the very term deacon.  It’s there in Paul’s chosen motif of bond-servant.  And I do believe it is quite intentional on his part to convey to the elders that they, too, fill their office as bond-servants of our Lord.  They serve at His will, and they must serve as He wills, which is to say, as He serves.

These are to be men wholly submitted to Christ, whether acting in the pursuit of their office, or whether acting in private life.  They guide the church, for that is their assigned duty.  And as I have often observed, it is no light duty.  It can be wearing, more like herding cats than shepherding sheep.  Or perhaps the difference between the two is not so great as one supposes.  But where there are elders and deacons serving after the fashion desired by Christ and modeled by Christ, there will indeed be this outflow of peace for the church they thus guide.  Their job, after all, is to establish such an atmosphere in the body as befits and encourages such peace.

One final note for this topic.  As I wondered above, just why has Paul felt the need to single out these officers of the church?  Or, more appropriately, why has the Holy Spirit encouraged him to do so?  Here, we may be getting a hint of the concerns Paul will be addressing later in the letter.  It does seem that there was a bit of prideful contention in that body.  It may have been a small thing, but small things have a habit of growing large if they are not swiftly attended to.  Pride is ever an issue.  As I have often observed (sadly, in my own condition), pride is, if not the root of all sin, at the very least the root of many.  And I know I am not alone in this observation, having heard a brother of mine make much the same observation last week.  Pride is a disease of this human condition.  We hear that we are made in God’s image, and something in us just puffs up immediately.  Well, ain’t I something, then?  Aren’t I just God’s gift to my wife, to my company, to this church?  Oh, dear.

Put that in office, and it just creates a stench.  You’re not here to lord it over the church.  You’re here to guide, to safeguard, to teach and direct, that, Lord willing, every last one of those who form this church might be so matured and taught as to be fit to serve as you serve now.  After all, this office will wear on you.  There’s a reason we put limits on the length of service, at least the length of continual service.  There is a cost to it, and if you don’t attend to that cost, to what it has taken out of you thus to serve, you will soon be unfit to serve in any useful fashion.

And before I leave off this subject, let me expand it just a bit.  This same mindset applies whether in office or out.  We are all of us called to consider others as more important than ourselves.  This, too, will come up shortly in this letter (though it may take me a month or two to arrive at that passage).  We are all called to thus serve one another, to care for one another, to set aside our personal agendas and preferences in favor of seeing to the needs of those in our circle of acquaintances.  I have seen some who excel at this, at least so far as is visible during our times of interaction.  I have seen others who manage well enough, but also wish to make sure everybody knows that this is what they are doing.  This, to my thinking, smacks of seeking accolades.  There’s a touch of the Pharisee in it, wanting the recognition for a job well done.  And there are others who quietly go about the exercise of giving themselves over to the needs of others, but are seeking to do so in their own strength.  I fear of late, at least, that I have been in this category.  And because it is done in my own strength, it wears.  It wears hard, and resentment grows up alongside service, which cannot be a good thing.  Somehow, whether it’s a case of striking a proper balance, or a case of placing far greater reliance on prayer, and on the power of God (which should surely be the case regardless), there is a means of truly giving of oneself with a servant heart and not burning oneself out, playing the martyr.  Somehow, this is possible.

Father, I pray You would soon correct my approach, for the resentment has been thick of late, and it needs weeding.  If, as I suspect, I have been doing this in my own strength, and neglecting my need of Your grace, Your strength, Your wisdom, Your direction, forgive me.  Correct me.  Teach me how to do this in You, that I may indeed do it well, and may do it without all this negative feedback within me to taint the offering.  Show me what needs changing, and grant that I might prove both willing and able to the change, as You work within me.  Amen.

Established in Joy (03/26/24)

We do have one pair of words remaining in this greeting; grace and peace.  These two form the blessing which Paul seeks for this church.  The first of these terms is one of those terms we use regularly but, if pressed to define it, tend to come up short.  Oh, grace is God giving us what we don’t deserve.  Fair enough.  But it hardly scratches the surface of the matter.  Here is God condescending to bow down to us, His servants, in kindness.  It is not that He sets Himself as our servant.  Hardly that!  But He shows us such kindness as is not only unwarranted but unexpected.  God did not have to make Himself knowable to man.  He did not have to redeem even one of us.  He could quite righteously have left us to make our own way in life and suffer the full consequence of our sins.

Consider this.  God did not require to make known to us His law.  It was not incumbent upon Him to give us clear exposition of what was required of us.  He certainly did not act under compulsion in supplying for us the means to be restored to His favor.  Who among us could find cause to expect that He should adopt us as His own?  What slave ever had cause for such expectation?  And slaves we were, by the simple fact of His being our Creator, and possessed of power beyond all possibility of our opposing His rightful rule of us.  But rather than a domineering overlord, our God has been to us a master most kind, not berating us for our failings, but lovingly redirecting, bringing us back to our duties.  And in all of this, He blesses us.  He showers down upon us such spiritual blessings as give us the means to live as we ought, and to love as we ought.  Indeed, as Thayer observes, each and every blessing, whether of physical supply or spiritual, are due to God’s favor towards us.  And this favor shown us has influence upon our hearts.  Indeed, that influence upon our hearts is itself an outflow of God’s grace towards us, and knowing that grace in our hearts leads to His grace being evident in our lives.

Where the grace of God is active and actively received, it shows.  We may not always be our most gracious.  If I look at my own spirit these last few days particularly, I’m not sure I could say that grace was a defining feature.  In blunt truth I would have to say it quite clearly was not.  But it was there.  God’s grace has been at work, even in this ungracious time, working in me, working upon me, to bring me out of that place into a place of blessedness.  Has this work of grace been completed?  I hope not.  I have far yet to grow, and I shall not grow at all except God’s grace continue to be my daily experience, my daily supply.  And this, as I say, places a certain requirement upon me to actively receive what He freely bestows.  I have to be careful here, that I not make His grace to be a work of my own doing.  That would never do, nor could it ever be.  But rather like the rain that falls outside, if the soil of my being will not receive and absorb that rain, it runs off, puddles elsewhere, and leaves me just as arid and lifeless as before.  Can I resist God’s grace?  In ultimate terms, I must say no.  His will shall be done, and if His will is to bless me and make me more like Him, so it shall be.  But I can certainly prove stiff-necked and proud, unwilling to accept the change He is making, and expending futile energy opposing that which shall be.  And there is a grand way to increase frustration!  Far better I should keep myself at the ready for what He shall do.  Far better I should be in prayer to seek His influence, and seek awareness of His influence, that I might the better comply with His influence and make manifest His goodness in my own graciousness towards others.

Lord, may it be so!  You have seen my attitude these last few days, and it has been an ugly thing.  I have seen it.  And I have felt powerless in the face of it.  I have seen, I think, that for all my constant commenting against allowing works to weigh more with me than grace, I have indeed been trying to hard to do godliness on my own, in my own strength, forgetting that You alone are all that is good in me.  Let me, then, learn once more to lean on Your goodness, draw upon Your freely offered power, and seek to present more fully the influence of Your Spirit indwelling me.

This brings us properly around to peace, ‘untroubled well-being’, as Zhodiates supplies the meaning.  What a lovely thing to know, this untroubled well-being.  And we do know it when it is our experience.  And we know, as I have been expressing, when it has gone missing.  Now, peace, in this instance is most plainly applied to the relationship we now know with God our Father because we have come into fellowship with Christ the Son.  We are a people assured of our salvation through Christ Jesus.  Even at our worst, even in days such as I have been having, when godliness seems far from my demeanor, still this assurance pertains.  Still that confidence of Christ’s love for me, and His work in me persists.  The Holy Spirit is at work, and the troubled soul seeks counsel of Him as to how it might see peace restored.  And He is gracious to supply that counsel, to clarify the course that must be taken.

Beloved, this is a reality most marvelous.  We know God has saved us.  We know that however much we may stray from the paths of righteousness, He will guide us back to it.  We know that though we have sinned, and perhaps sinned most grievously, (can there be a sin not most grievous?), still we have nothing to fear from God.  He is our Father.  Yes, we have failed our Lord, disregarding our orders and even actively pursuing an opposite course.  But God is yet our Father.  His love for us is a Father’s love.  His heart for us is such as seeks restoration.  As I have observed already in this study, we are as the prodigal son, seen by Him when yet at a distance, and He, seeing us at last turned once more towards home, comes to meet us in love, not in punishment.  We have nothing to fear from God, not because we have become such illustrious examples of sonhood, but because we are sons, however poorly we have given evidence of that fact.  We are His.  You know it’s coming.  He has called us by name.  He has redeemed us (Isa 43:1).  Come what may, His promise remains.  “I will be with you, for I am the LORD your God.” (Isa 43:3).  I could go on.  And one day, I suspect, I shall, Lord willing.  But the point is made.  Whatever our situation here in this life, we have this assurance:  God loves us.  God has us.  We are His.  And God, as I so often observe, does not lose what is His own.  God does not lose sheep.

We shall look, in due course, at Paul’s great proclamation of contentment, which is something of a crown jewel to this letter.  “I have learned how to be content in whatever circumstance… I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Php 4:11-13).  I have what I truly need, for He is with me.  Through flood or fire, He is with me.  In prison or at liberty, He is with me.  In life or in death, He is with me.  And through it all, here is the key:  I have nothing to fear from my God, for in Him, by Him, I have been made righteous.  The blood of Jesus my Lord was shed on the cross on my behalf, my debt paid, and the record wiped clear.  And in this life of redemption, I now walk in the knowledge that it is not my employment which provides, but God who provides these employments, that I may be supplied.  And that supply is not for my amusement but for His glory, for His purposes.

This does not in any way preclude my enjoying that with which He has blessed me in this season, for indeed, He has provided richly.  But it does call for me to hold all these things loosely.  Should He require it of me that I let them go and learn to live a more frugal existence, so be it.  And may I be sufficiently possessed of His grace as to bear it well, to be just as content in lean times as in plentiful.

All that we have is from Christ our Lord.  That is the overpowering message of this greeting.  Paul and Timothy, writing from Roman imprisonment might not appear to have much.  Yet, they have a pulpit, even there in the prison cell, and they have, ironically, a captive audience.  And the power of the Gospel remains with them, and that is showing in the results.  Thus, even with the possibility of death before him, Paul exudes the contentment of untroubled well-being.  He is at peace with whatever course God decides, and he has no doubt but that it is God’s to decide.  Nero may be the man in charge, but he is yet an instrument in God’s hands, though he would hardly acknowledge any such thing.  The outcome, whatever the nature of those men involved in events, is God’s to determine.  This is so of those who would spitefully use us.  This is so of our efforts on behalf of God, as we seek to proclaim His gospel.  This is so of our more mundane efforts, as we go about the business of life here on earth.  All of it, every circumstance of life, is from God, and all of our life, in every circumstance is for Christ.

Paul is His bond-servant.  The officers of the church in Philippi are likewise His servants, and set to serve all those others in the church who belong to Christ by His own choosing.  And to one and all, this blessing pours out.  For what is sought in prayer is what is already ours by our Lord’s decision:  Grace and peace.  We cannot have these apart from Christ.  And in Christ, we have them in abundance.

Grace and peace, after their fashion, define the ongoing, inward experience of the Godhead.  Father, Son, and Spirit always know this harmony, this peace of unity in themselves.  Of course they do.  God is One.  Yet, He is three.  And in His three-ness, harmony is experienced in its perfection.  Peace is such as cannot be improved upon, being complete altogether in Him.  And it is this peace which our Lord Jesus bestows upon His own.  “My peace I give to you” (Jn 14:27).  Here is harmonious unity given us, not merely with one another, nor even with our own condition, but with God Himself.  We are welcomed into this perfect peace.  We are made one with Him Who is One.

The Triune Godhead is always at peace in Himself, and He is always at peace with that church which He has purchased for Himself.  That is not to say He peaceably stands by as she veers off course, nor that He quietly nods as she pursues falsehoods in His name.  But where He abides, His peace abides.  Where He abides, His love pours out, and those things done in error will find correction.  Repentance will be the pursuit of His children so often as it proves needful.  And Christ shall be Lord of His church, not only in name and in ultimate truth, but in practice.  Therefore, as we continue in the church, let us do so with the awareness that we are all His, in spite of our myriad differences.  We are not in competition for His affection, for He loves us all equally, and equally fully.  We are His.  We are not our own.  He has given His peace to the Church as a whole.  Let us, then, seek to be vessels of peace, filled by His grace, and pouring out a harmonious flow of His goodness that we might bless one another, and bless those around us, given them cause and opportunity to come and be touched by Christ in their own turn.

Oh, my soul, rejoice!  There has not been much of that in you these last days, but rejoice!  And again I say, rejoice!  God has redeemed you.  It may not feel it at present, but He has made you whole.  He has not abandoned you, nor shall He, for He is faithful though faithfulness be far from you.  Oh, my soul, know once more the blessedness of your condition.  God loves you.  God has you.  You are his.  Oh, my Father, thank You!  Oh, my Father, let it show in me, that I am Yours, that I am Your son.  Burn off the dross, and let this reality shine from me.  Let me know once more Your peace, and let me abide in it.  I have need of You.  I always have and I always will.  But how I have felt it of late.  Let me, then, feel once more the joy of Your presence, and let me be such as gives You joy in that presence.  Amen.