Continuing the theme of ‘doing’ from yesterday, a single verse from the Sermon on the Mount – which we will return to several times in this sequence!

“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven.”

Why is this a favourite passage?

I love this verse because it stands over against the exclusivist emphasis that sometimes dominates Christian thinking, especially the ones which quote ‘there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved’ – which might qualify as a least favourite verse! Jesus is explicit that the naming is not the essential thing; it is the doing which is essential. I believe that it is possible to do the will of God using all sorts of different religious languages – the different forms of Christian language, but also Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. To say otherwise is, to my mind, to recklessly restrict God’s gracious activity and borders on saying that there is a realm of creation from which God is absent. Which is bonkers.

Of course, if you want to know precisely what doing the will of the Father entails, please see the previous passage in this sequence!!

This should have been posted on Saturday – I’m behind already! – which means you might get another one this afternoon. Click ‘full post’ for text.

6 With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Why is this a favourite passage?
I see this short passage as summarising the prophetic critique in the Old Testament. Roughly speaking (very roughly!) there is an ongoing dialogue in the OT between the voices of the established temple cult and the prophets who criticise the cult. There are some analogies with the arguments of the Reformation era, I see the prophets as being people who God raises up to say to the religious establishment ‘You’ve missed the point!’ This passage expresses the critique in a nutshell.
Verses 6 & 7a: simply remarking on what is laid down as requirements for a sin offering, setting the context for what follows.
Verse 7b: this is a text worth pondering (not least by those atheists who go on about the Abraham and Isaac story as evidence for God’s abominability (if that’s a usable word!)). The God revealed in the Old Testament is, so far as I can see, resolutely rejecting of child sacrifice – much more rejecting of it than the people themselves (eg Jephthah). All the present-day atheists are doing, here as so often elsewhere, is repeating, unacknowledged, the prophetic critique. I’ve often felt that the Bible is an anti-religious text; certainly Jesus is one of the most anti-religious characters ever known.
Verse 8: One of the best verses in Scripture: no complications, no distractions with doctrine – we have been shown the right way to live. That right way is active, it is about establishing a righteous environment (which always, in Scripture, means a bias to the poor, ensuring that the rich are not oppressive), later called ‘the Kingdom’ by Jesus. It also, necessarily, involves spiritual humility – we are called to cooperate in the process, not to try and achieve it in our own strength.

So here is another manifesto: don’t think that following the religious cult is what God is seeking; it can become an end in itself and distorting of God’s true intentions. What God is seeking is righteousness, and our principal spiritual task is to pursue it.

NB there is a good song using this text on this album.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Why is this a favourite passage?
This is one of the most dense and theologically intense descriptions of Jesus. It dates from around AD 60, written by Paul, and as such it is a remarkably early statement of the significance that Jesus had for the early church. Often theological complexity is taken as being evidence of a more developed theology – and that more developed theology is taken as evidence of late composition (this often comes in discussions of John’s gospel). Yet here we have a passage that is the equal of the Johannine prologue, and it is written within a generation of the crucifixion. It is worth emphasising that, in a Hebrew context, this is rank idolatry, for it is asserting a union between Jesus and God.

Verse 15a: the word ‘image’ is the greek eikon, from which we get not just the word ‘icon’ but the entire theology of iconography. The claim of Christianity is that in Jesus we see God, he is the window through which we see the divine.
Verse 15b: this verse gave rise to all sorts of controversies in the early church, and was the sort of verse used by the Arians to assert that Jesus was a creature (ie ‘born’). The Nicene council went through all sorts of philosophical hoops to reconcile the verses here, both with each other and with other texts. Jesus is begotten of the Father but not a creature – in other words, this verse is interpreted in the light of the later verses, not vice versa.
Verse 16: I see this as an ‘unpacking’ of logos-theology – that Jesus is the purpose of creation, everything else has a derivative purpose which is only intelligible in the light of who Jesus is. I might write on another occasion about the principalities.
Verse 17: another aspect of logos-theology – it’s not just that all things were created for Jesus (ie leading towards him, what he embodies) but that Jesus is what gives integrity to the whole. In other words, Jesus isn’t just the blueprint, he is also the keystone and cornerstone of the structure itself.
Verse 18: which means the church, which is Christ’s body on earth (as well as his bride and several other metaphors!). He is the beginning in the sense that the new creation (resurrection) in which all will eventually share has begun already through Jesus. This gives Jesus the authority of the first-born, a customary attribute at the time the letter was written.
Verse 19: I have some qualms with this verse as there are interpretations of it that tend towards the docetic, ie that eclipse Jesus’ genuine humanity. It is something of a fine distinction, to distinguish between calling Jesus fully God and calling Jesus God in human form. My qualm is that Jesus becomes a superman figure, with the philosophical descriptions of omniscience and omnipotence and so on, and that this distorts his character, evacuating him of any shared humanity. I would read the ‘fullness of God’ as ascribing to Jesus not the philosophical attributes so much as the spiritual ones, most of all the overflowing sharing of love. In other words, if we see the foremost attribute of God as being one of eternal and creative love, then it makes sense to claim that this love dwelt fully in Jesus and was embodied through his life. I don’t think it makes sense to ascribe omnipotence and omniscience to Jesus as he lived on earth (which leads to a kenotic Christology of course).
Verse 20: the wonderful claim that ‘all things’ are reconciled to God through Jesus, specifically his death on the cross. This is atonement theory, and again the ghost of penal substitution hovers morbidly around the interpretation of the passage. What is important here is the global and cosmic nature of the atonement – it’s not just that specific individuals with their passwords have been ‘washed clean in the blood of the Lamb’ but that the whole of creation has been put right with God. This cosmic healing – and the way in which it is an essential part of Christianity – is a doctrine that needs to be made more prominent today.

So we have a wonderfully expressive claim about the nature of Jesus in this passage, one that is philosophically pregnant, and thus ambrosia for the systematically inclined, like me.

Passage 1: 1 John 4.7-21 (RSV) Click ‘full post’ for text and commentary.

7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
11 Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another.
12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world.
15 God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God.
16 So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.
17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgement, because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.
19 We love because he first loved us.
20 Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.
21 The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.

Why is this a favourite passage?
This was the passage that articulated my new understanding of the world after my foundational religious experience (see here), and I still see it as the manifesto for Christian faith. It functions as a description of the grammar of Christian faith, in other words, it describes what it means when Christians talk about God, about love, and how that is shown through life.

Verse 7: the passage begins with the call to love, which is, in my view, the primary Christian call. Jesus’ ministry begins with the call to repentance, which I see as closely related, but the word ‘repentance’ carries many moralistic connotations in our present day, as if Christianity was all about becoming morally respectable. We are called to love people, and that is it.
Verses 7&8: it’s not a content-free call, for the passage goes on to spell out what is meant by this call to love. The first and most primary element is the equation of God with love, and the truth that it is in loving that we know who God is, and that in loving we become children of God. The love that is shared on earth is a reflection or participation in the love of God himself, and as we know and experience what it is to truly love one another, we begin to discern what it is to share the love of God and to know Him.
Verse 9: what was the point of Jesus’ life? That we might live through him. Sometimes the emphasis there is on the through him and Jesus becomes this exclusive burden laid upon people’s backs. I read the emphasis differently: Jesus came that we might live; God’s eternal intention is for us to enjoy abundance of life. It’s a finger and moon situation – the Hebrews have got stuck on the finger, and are taking pride in the finger, so God sends his Son to point back at the moon again; but now it seems that “Jesus” has become just another finger. Instead of Jesus being the vehicle (the way, the truth and the life) Jesus has ended up being yet another barrier. The point of Jesus (the logos of Jesus) has been missed. It’s the equivalent of saying that we must all become first-century Jews in order to be saved.
Verse 10a: two very important things in this verse. The first (and most important) is about divine initiative. Love does not begin with us. We are not the source of love, we are called to be channels of the love. More than that, God’s love is being poured out all the time, eternally, and our role is simply to fall in with that constant outpouring of love. Sometimes we get snagged by thinking that there isn’t enough love to go around (there’s a good Duffy song on this theme by the way) – and that is surpassingly foolish. I love Rowan Williams’ image for this – trying to safeguard the love is like standing beneath Niagara Falls with a bucket, we simply cannot contain it. We are called to simply be vessels.
Verse 10b: The second part of this verse is one of the few that raises a concern in me, the grim shade of penal substitution. I read the language of expiation as ‘God reconciling the world to himself’ – not through being appeased but by removing the powers that destroy our capacity to live. So I read this text as: In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to [heal us from all that afflicts us]. In other words I don’t see any desire to punish in God. (I go into more detail in how I understand God’s wrath here.)
Verse 11: I tend to be suspicious of ‘ought’ and ‘should’ language – I see it as worldly, in the sense of ‘of the devil’ but the point here is a straightforward appeal to respond to what God has done.
Verse 12: the first part is explicated further in a few verses, and the second part is a reiteration of the theme of this paragraph: that we know what God is like because of the love that can be shared between human beings. Note especially the point that ‘his love is perfected in us’. I read this as meaning that when we love then God’s purpose in creation is fulfilled, is brought to completion. The Word has not proceeded fruitless but is accomplishing its purpose.
Verse 13: developing the theme by now talking about the Holy Spirit. This is how we are to understand the language of the Holy Spirit – when we love as Christ loved us, then we share in the Spirit – the Spirit is the sharing of love. There might be other things associated with that sharing, other spiritual phenomena, but those are extraneous and non-essential. The essential part of Spirit-filled worship is the love that is shared between human beings.
Verse 14: personal testimony. This is not a theory, a nice sounding speculation that is all heavenly minded but no earthly good. This is a response to a particular human being who was known directly and personally.
Verse 15: a grammatical point, which cannot be understood apart from the context. This is not a magical incantation like saying ‘Abracadabra’ to open a hidden door; it has a specific meaning in terms of what this confession commits the person to in the situation at the time. In particular it entails: i) an acceptance of the resurrection, and therefore ii) an acceptance that Jesus has been vindicated by God, and therefore iii) a commitment to the truth embodied in Jesus which is iv) the love-sharing life being explored by the Christian community. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God IS to be committed to the life of love.
Verse 16: the teaching is grounded in further experience – it is believed because it is known – and it is followed by another reiteration of the main teaching of the whole passage.
Verses 17-19: A very important aspect of the central teaching, which further develops the ‘grammar’ of what it means to love, which is that fear is banished. The context is divine judgment and the assurance given from knowing the character of God as love; in other words (and this is why I interpret verse 10b in the way I do) there is no desire for punishment in God. The primary and basic truth is that God loves us, he desires us to flourish with abundant life, and he sent his Son in order to achieve this. We leave behind the game of spiritual achievement with all the attendant neuroses of heaven and hell and simply allow God’s love to be experienced in the here and now. That gives the blessed assurance which is the spiritual fuel enabling the sharing of love in the present.
Verses 20,21: A renewed emphasis upon the link with love in the present context. Christian love is not abstract and ephemeral, it has real, concrete consequences. It is impossible to say that God is loved when the neighbour is not loved – in this situation, to use Wittgenstein’s terms, the surface grammar is being respected but not the depth grammar; we are back with fingers and not with moons. The passage finishes with a renewed appeal to follow the commandment, for that is the nature of Christian discipleship.

I see this passage as the mission statement of the faith; it captures what I see as the core element of a lived Christianity. There is a lot of doctrine embedded in it, but the emphasis is upon the difference that the doctrine makes in the life of the believer. Where the doctrine does not make a difference, or, worse, where it leads to a less-loving life, then we can be certain that the Spirit is not present. To love God is to love our neighbour, and when we love then God lives in us: we know God, and we have no need to be afraid.

(A Lenten resolution, inspired by my therapy.)