Psalm 78:69 says something amazing about Israel’s Temple: God “built the sanctuary like the heights, [He built the sanctuary] like the earth which he has founded forever.” this tells us that in some way God modeled the Temple to be a little replica of the entire heaven and earth. Yet, in Is. 66:1 God says, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for me?” God never intended that Israel’s little localized temple last forever, since, like the Eden temple, Israel’s temple was a small model of something much bigger: God and His universal presence, which could never eternally be contained by any localized earthly structure.
Israel’s tabernacle and temple were a miniature model of God’s huge cosmic temple that was to dominate the heaven and earth at the end of time. That is, the temple was a symbolic model pointing not merely to the present cosmos but also to the new heaven and earth that would be perfectly filled with God’s presence. That it was a miniature symbolic model of the coming Temple that would fill heavens and earth is evident from the following figurative features of the three sections of the temple: the holy of holies, the holy place, and the outer courtyard.
G. K. Beale
Category: Theology
Luther On Imprecatory Prayer
We should pray that our enemies be converted and become our friends, and if not, that their doing and designing be bound to fail and have no success and that their persons perish rather than the Gospel and the Kingdom of Christ.
– Martin Luther
If we are serious when we pray “thy Kingdom come” then by necessity we need to pray that those Kingdoms that oppose the Lord Christ and the people who animate those satanic Kingdoms would be destroyed. Naturally, when we pray that way our immediate desire is that God’s enemies would be converted so that they would become His friends. However, as Luther notes above, if the enemies of God kick against the goads and refuse to repent then it is in keeping with the Lord’s Prayer (thy Kingdom come) that we pray that God would remove them from their positions of influence even if doing so means that they perish. Kings and all men must Kiss the Son lest the Son be angry and they perish in the way.
Still, we earnestly hope and pray that God would grant them life from the dead.
In our prayer life let’s not let our sentimentalism get in the way of the advance of God’s Kingdom.
Thoughts and Notes On John 13:31-35
I.) The Purpose Of Christ’s Humiliation — God’s Glory
A.) The connection between the betrayal and the glorification (now)
Judas has just left to do his Judas-work. Christ knows what is before him. The purpose of the 1st advent of Christ is steamrolling forward. With Judas departure the sense of inevitability grows.
It is interesting that the greatest work ever accomplished was preceded by the vilest deed ever committed.
Perhaps this should remind us that all things work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose. We struggle with the problem of evil … and rightly so. But here in this betrayal we are staring monumental evil straight on and yet God is using that evil to accomplish the Salvation of the world. That does not negate the evil of the betrayal but it does suggest to us that when evil comes into our lives that we can trust God, no doubt with great difficulty, to turn whatever adversity He sends us in this sad world to our good and His glory.
Judas’ betrayal does not overcome God’s intent and control.
B.) The connection between humiliation and glorification
1.) It is interesting that at this point where Jesus is about to enter into His deepest humiliation He speaks instead of His glorification. We make necessary distinctions between the humiliation of Christ and His Glorification but as glorification could not be arrived at apart from going through humiliation it is reasonable to speak of one’s humiliation as being intimately connected to one’s glorification. As such, even though we may think of the humiliation and the glorification of the Lord Christ as being opposite it really is the case that there is a fitting dialectic between the two that brings them into harmony. If one cannot be glorified without being humiliated then their humiliation is their glorification.
2.) But there is another way to think about this humiliation / glorification as well.
The Lord Christ elsewhere in John speaks of glorification in relation to His own Death
cmp. vs. 23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him. 27 “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”
a.) The “Humble Glory” of the Son (Origen)
In both John 12 and John 13 there is an intimate connection made between the Humiliation of Christ and His Glorification. How is this so, we might ask.
The Son of Man is Glorified in His humiliation because the purpose of the Son of Man’s coming was to seek and save that which was lost. In the Cross that seeking and saving comes to its penultimate fulfillment. Christ is glorified in His humiliation because in His humiliation He accomplishes the seeking and saving of His people.
The Son of man is Glorified in His Humiliation because the Son of Man was the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. In His humiliation the Son of man is Glorified because in His Cross death the Son of Man began fulfilling His purpose as the spotless lamb of God who takes away sins. His humiliation is thus His glorification.
The Son of Man’s purpose, by His own words, was to come to this hour of humiliation. By His dying Humiliation he brings many sons and daughters to Salvation and so is Glorified.
So … there is no contradiction here for the Lord Christ to tie his humiliation to His glorification, for if they are understood in their proper connectedness they can be spoken of as much the same.
Of course all this speaks the Gospel. All this speaks of the reality that we, as those justly under the intense disfavor of God, could only be saved quite apart from our contribution to our cause. The Son of Man undergoes all this saving work are our representative head and in His standing in for us and as our substitute He does all the saving. The Son is glorified in this, His humiliation work, and when we deny that the Son alone saves we attempt to steal from His glory in an attempt to secure some of that glory for ourselves.
b.) The Glorification of the Father by the Son
Well, we might ask how it is that the Father is glorified in the Son.
First, we might offer that the Father is glorified in the Son in as much as the Son of Man did not seek His own will but the will of the Father who sent Him. Jesus came to do the will of the Father who sent Him, and so when the Father’s will is done in the connection with the Lord Christ’s obedience the Father is glorified. The Father is glorified in Christ because the Lord Christ always did those things that pleased the Father.
Second we would offer that the Father is glorified in the Son of Man because in the work of the Son of Man God’s name is cleared of any possible impugning. God had, in times past, overlooked men’s sins. A charge of injustice might conceivably be brought against the Father. He had not brought the full death upon mankind that mankind deserved. But now God is glorified in the self surrender of the Son of Man to a death that bore the full expression of the First person of the Trinity’s justice upon the Incarnate second person of the Trinity so that God’s just wrath upon sinful man might be justly spent. God is glorified in the Son because in the Son and His work, the Father’s name and reputation are cleared of any possible charge. According to the Father’s will the Son of Man, in His life, fulfilled all that was required in God’s law and and in His death withstood all the penalty that the law required against Sin. In the accomplishing of that the Father was glorified.
And allow me to add a slight wrinkle here,
Just as the Father’s name can no longer be impugned so the Son of Man’s name, having so accomplished redemption, will not be able to be impugned when the Son of Man finally crushes the opposition. Because of His finished work he has been commanding through His servants for men to be reconciled to God. He, through His servants, has been commanding all men everywhere to repent and if they refuse to reconcile … if they refuse to repent there will be no shadow cast upon His character when He finally thoroughly crushes His enemies, but only the Praise of His Saints.
c.) The Glorification of the Son by the Father
Well, might we ask how it is that the Son is glorified by the Father.
A hint of that answer is found in John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Clearly Christ is looking past the humiliation to His resurrection and ascension. The Father will glorify the Son by the resurrection and ascension thus putting the Father’s seal of approval upon the Son’s work and so vindicating Him. The fact that Jesus speaks in the future tense (“will glorify”) is suggestive that the Son is looking beyond the Cross to the Throne.
By the use of the word “immediately” in vs. 32 we know that the glory that Jesus anticipates will come swiftly upon His humiliation.
Just a point of application here,
Just as it was for the Lord Christ that humiliation preceded glorification so it is with His people. Indeed the Lord Christ can say in this same upper room discourse,
John 15:18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
And in his Epistle St. John 3:13 can write,
“Do not marvel brothers if the World hates you.”
Phil. 1:29
29 For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
Romans 8:17
17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
II Timothy 3:12
12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
So, we must not shy away from this kind of reality nor trim our sails so as to avoid this. We must speak up for Christ and as Christ despised the cross, enduring the shame, so must we on a much much smaller scale do the same for we know that this light and momentary affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison.
3.) Significance of Son of Man statement
This is Jesus favorite self designation occurring over 80 times in the Gospels. It is only on the lips of anyone else twice (Stephen upon his Martyrdom [A. 8:56] and the inquirers probing into the meaning of Jesus usage of the term [John 12:34].) The fact that it is almost completely unique to Jesus combined with the fact that others have to inquire as to its meaning suggest that it was a fairly unknown title for the Messiah. In the usage of this title the Messiahship of Jesus could be cloaked against the wrong expectations of Messiah as developed by the low information and misguided Jew. So, in its being unknown Jesus can fill it with the meaning that He desires to fill it with and so seek to correct wrong concepts about the Messiah.
In the way that the Lord Christ uses the term we discover that it is a reference for both the “heavenly Son of man who comes in glory,” and “the Son of Man who suffers to bring salvation.” So, even in the term “Son of Man” we see a combination of humiliation and glorification that we spoke of earlier.
Leon Morris offers,
“The term ‘Son of Man,’ then points us to Christ’s conception of Himself as of heavenly origin and as possessor of heavenly glory. At one and the same time it points us to His lowliness and His sufferings for men. The two are the same.”
In 13:31 we see the two themes brought together.
Between Christ’s statement regarding glorification and His Precept to Love one another Jesus speaks a few words regarding the immediate future of the disciples.
We want to note especially the tenderness with which Jesus addresses the disciples.
“Little Children”
This is a common phrase that John uses in his 1st epistle. It is a term of endearment and reminds us of Jesus love for His people. One could surely excuse the Lord Christ for being more preoccupied with what is before Him then what is before His disciples and yet His mind is upon them and He prepares them for what lies immediately ahead.
III.) The Precept Upon Christ’s Humiliation — Love One Another as I have loved you
A.) Consistent w/ the OT?
The commandment of the OT (Lev.19:18, Prov. 20:22, 24:29) is tweaked.
Whereas the commandment of the OT is for us to love our neighbor as ourselves the commandment from Jesus is that we love one another as he has loved us.
Of course Jesus is demonstrating this love before them (cmp. 13:1) and will continue to do so.
Jesus revealed His love to them by looking not after His own needs but also the needs of other. The love that Jesus has for the disciples is a self sacrificing love. That is the way we as God’s people are to love one another. The standard for loving someone else is no longer “how would I love myself,” the standard for our loving one another is “How did Jesus love us.”
And Jesus loved us by fulfilling all that God’s law required of us. So, our sacrificial love, one for another, must also be consistent with God’s revelatory Law. We do not love sacrificially one another, if we are loving one another in ways that are defiant of God’s revelation of Himself in His law. We do not love the brethren if we encourage them in their sin. We do not love the brethren if we ignore how they know Jesus in a strange way. We do not love the brethren by letting them go on in harm’s way when we know that the way they are going is harmful. We do not love the brethren by protecting ourselves from their wrath by not warning them against some danger we see them headed towards.
Note that we can only have this love one for another as we all have love for Christ. Our mutuality of love for one another extends out of our love for Christ, which itself extends out of an understanding of His love for us. Herein is love, not that we first love him, but that he first loved us and gave Himself as a propitiation for our sins.
So, ultimately the way to grow in love for the Brethren is by plumbing the depth of the Triune Godhead’s love for His people.
B.) The Evangelistic Effect of Love
Tertullian — he one of the ECF — contrasted Christian love with pagan idea.
“But it is mainly the deeds of a love o noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. ‘See’ they say, ‘how they love one another,’ for they themselves (the pagans) are animated by mutual hatred; ‘see how they are ready even to die for one another,’ for they themselves (the pagans) will rather put to death.” (Apology XXXIX)
Our love in the community of faith for one another is to be the kind of thing that causes people who only have competition and temporary alliances w/ other people, to want what is found in the confines of the Church community. In the words of Dr. Fancis Schaeffer, “Love is the final apologetic.”
But again … not some syrupy sentimental love that is defined by the world but the love of Scripture that has sinews and tendons all about it. The love that is measured and defined. Not the love that is whatever makes us feel good.
This passage is a beautiful passage for the Church but we run the danger of shrinking it because of how the word love is so abused and ill defined today.
Conclusion
Recap
An Egalitarian Advocate vs. A Covenantal Ordering Advocate Conversation
Egalitarian wrote,
I’ve heard a lot of these arguments from patriarchalists, and I’ve still concluded that egalitarianism is the way to go. A sharp eye to culture and language is key to understanding Paul, and Jesus’ treatment of women was always inclusive and equalizing.
Response
Really?
Is that why Jesus chose 12 male disciples?
Secondly, Are we to believe that for the last 500 years the Reformed Church has failed at having a sharp eye for language and culture and only now are we being brought into the promised land of the Egalitarian hermeneutic?
Thirdly, the 5th commandment forbids all egalitarian readings of Scripture. The Scriptures at every turn are opposed to egalitarianism.
For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly eschews egalitarianism as seen it is treatment of the 5th commandment with all its languages about inferiors and superiors.
Question 126: What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
Answer: The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.
Question 127: What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors.?
Answer: The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.
Question 128: What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
Answer: The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.
Note — What else could we conclude but that the Westminster Divines would have seen feminism as a sin since feminists, like the one we are dealing with here, rebel against the person and places of their Covenant Head husbands?
Question 129: What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
Answer: It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God has put upon them.
Question 130: What are the sins of superiors?
Answer: The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.
Question 131: What are the duties of equals?
Answer: The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each other’s gifts and advancement, as their own.
Question 132: What are the sins of equals?
Answer: The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement of prosperity one of another; and usurping preeminence one over another.
Clearly, the Scriptures are diametrically opposed to the strictures of egalitarianism.
Egalitarian wrote,
He also appeared to women first in a culture in which they were not considered court-worthy witnesses. Paul also mentions many women he refers to as partners with him in his work, including Priscilla, who took a man aside and taught him to be a better teacher.
Response,
No … actually it was both Priscilla and Aquila who took Apollos aside. You failed to mention Priscilla’s male covenant head. Second the fact that Jesus and Paul have women as supporters (though clearly not leaders) in the ministry only reveals that Christianity is not, unlike feminism, misogynist.
Secondly, if one follows the narrative of the Bible one is not surprised that Jesus appears first to women after the resurrection just as the angels appeared first to Shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus. In both cases those who were first engaged were not court-worthy witnesses. So, in light of the fact that the Shepherds and women have in common this low ranking on the scale of the social order we must conclude that the purpose of this is not tied to sexuality (after all the Shepherds were male) but rather it is tied to a theme that we find throughout Scripture and that is God uses the weak to confound the wise. However, that God uses the weak (shepherds and women) to confound the wise in the Scripture cannot be used as a proof that women should be leadership roles. Also we need to keep in mind that the descriptive accounts in historical narrative are not necessarily prescriptive. It is a strange way to argue that because Jesus appeared to women after the resurrection, as presented in a historical narrative, that therefore proves we should have women Pastors and Elders. The explicit texts I cite later in this response reveals that the clear didactic teaching of the Scripture is clearly opposed to what you are advocating.
Egalitarian writes,
As many women and men can attest, gifts are self-evidently not gendered, and I don’t think there’s anything in the passages about gifts to suggest such a thing.
Response,
Self evident to who? Not to me. Not to many Reformed people I know. Allow me to suggest that they are only self evident to egalitarians because you begin with egalitarian presuppositions — presuppositions that I believe can not be supported by the weight of Scripture.
In terms of the passages about gifts… well, those have to be read in conjunction with the passages on leadership and those passages expressly and self-evidently prohibit women serving as leaders.
Egalitarian,
Much of the “usurp authority” language is used in the context of a culture in which goddess-worship was prominent (Ephesus) and many egalitarians think the specific problem here was false teachers in a city in which women were already more involved religious work than men, and so were possibly causing problems in the Church with pagan teachings. It is necessary to remember these are letters.
Response,
This is a fine theory but it really doesn’t hold water. In other passages, such as Jude and Timothy, the Apostles go out of their way to warn against heretical men. If it were a problem in the Churches where both men and women were the problem then the Apostles would have given a warning that was more generic in terms of gender silencing all false teaching as opposed to just silencing women. However, as the problem is clearly women usurping authority (as Eve did in the Garden when she usurped Adam’s authority and ate the fruit) so the Apostle forbids women from usurping proper covenantal authority.
And to be precise … they are inspired letters. This is God speaking in these letters.
Egalitarian,
As to patriarchy being instituted in the Garden of Eden, Tessa is saying, I believe correctly, that that verse IS a part of the curses of sin. It comes right after pains in childbirth–it’s a result of the fall.
Response,
The curse of sin is found in Eve desiring the position of her husband. The promise that God will not let the curse overwhelm is found in God’s statement …”But he shall rule over you.” This promise is reinforced in the NT where wives are clearly and explicitly told to “obey their husbands.”
Egalitarian,
In the poetic form of Chapter 1, the liturgical piece that begins the book, it talks about the creation of man and then of woman, but the recap in the following chapter just says God created man in his own image, male and female he created them. Again, it’s a matter of literary style.
Response,
First … Genesis 1-11 is not Poetic genre. It is Historical genre.
Hebrew narrative always starts with a QAL (past tense) verb, and from then on, all the main verbs are VA-YIQTOL (future tense converted to past tense by the vav-conversive). That’s exactly how Genesis 1 is structured.
In the beginning, God created (QAL) the heavens and the earth. (Verse 2 is made up of 3 disjuctive clauses…i.e. they begin with a vav on a noun, not a verb…so they aren’t part of the main verbal chain)
Then:
Verse 3 – And God said (VA-YIQTOL)
Verse 4 – And God saw….and God separated…both VA-YIQTOL
Verse 5 – And God called…and there was…both VA-YIQTOL
etc. throughout the passage.
That’s just factually and objectively how narrative is constructed in Hebrew. Pick any OT Bible story that’s taken as history, and it’s structured exactly the same way. Poetry is never structured this way.
Second, the flow of the narrative makes it clear that woman was made for Adam to be his help-meet. The rest of Scripture confirms this as I cite below.
Third, the fact that the serpent went to Eve for the temptation reveals that even the Serpent understood he was bypassing God’s covenantal ordering. Instead of going to the covenant head, the serpent bypasses Adam’s headship and overturns Adam by overturning Adam’s helpmeet. (There also may be a hint in the Genesis record that Adam failed in His covenant responsibilities by not protecting and serving his wife by keeping the serpent out of the garden.)
Egalitarian,
As for Ephesians 5, there’s an arbitrarily added subject heading that says ‘wives and husbands’, but the verse immediately preceding this says “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” The following verses are dependent clauses–wives and husbands submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, here’s why (marriage is a big deal). We’re partnering to show something.
Response,
This is an inaccurate understanding. What is going on in Ephesians is that Paul gives a general command (“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”) and then he follows that with particular examples of what that submission to one another out of reverence for Christ looks like. What “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ,” looks like is, “wives submitting to husbands, servants submitting to Masters, and children submitting to parents. Any attempt to universalize the submitting so that husbands submit to wives and masters to servants and parents to children does severe violence to the text and to God’s original intent.
Egalitarian
I don’t think the Bible ever suggests “women should submit to men”. Even if you don’t agree with my reading of Ephesians, I think you can only take it as far as wives and husbands. As far as Galatians 3:18 goes, “there is no Jew or Greek” obviously doesn’t mean ethnicity doesn’t exist or shouldn’t be celebrated, but it DOES mean those with different ethnicities are absolutely equal in the family of God.
Response,
No … Galatians 3:28 does not mean that different ethnicities are absolutely equal (i.e. — the same) in the family of God. Galatians 3:28 isn’t teaching that. Gal. 3:28 is teaching that when it comes to access to a right standing with God through Jesus Christ none of the very real social order differences that exist in Church and culture bar anyone from having that access. Both genders, all ethnicities and both servants and masters can come to Christ. Your reading of this text has origins that are very recent.
Some texts that deal with the issue at hand.
1 Cor 14:34-35,37 — Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1 Cor 11:3-10 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. …
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Colossians 3:9-10 & Genesis
Colossians 3
1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry.
6 Because of these, the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience,
7 in which ye also once walked, when ye lived in them.
8 But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Do not lie one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds,
10 and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him,
Because of our identification with Christ (cmp. 3:1-4;”Risen w/ Christ” … “Ye are dead” … “Life is hid w/ Christ in God” … “When Christ, who is our life,”) Paul leverages a “therefore” in vs. 5 and so exhorts the Colossian believers to live in light of the fact that they are living in the Established New Creation (cmp. 1:13f). They are to be distinct from those who are not living in the new Creation. The labor of Col. 3:5 – 4:6 is to tease out that contrast.
In Col. 3:9-10 St. Paul uses the phraseology of “put on the new man.” The imagery here is of having put on a different set of clothing. The allusion of putting on new clothing may hearken back to Genesis 3:7. There we find that Adam and Eve sought to clothe themselves apart from God, perhaps to hide from God and from each other. What happens though is that God clothes them with clothing He provides thus suggesting that a Restoration of Adam and Eve has begun (Gen. 3:21). What we have here then is that their old clothes were taken off and they put on the new clothes provided by God. Hence, should we see that there is a relationship between who they were as constituted by the fall and as seen by their autonomous clothing they self provided and their restoration to God begun as signified by God’s clothing of them we may see in Col. 3:10 with it’s “put off the old man with his deeds and put on the new man” language a reference back to God’s restoration after the fall.
G. K. Beale puts it this way,
“The clear implication is that their first suit of clothes was taken off and replaced by divinely made clothing, indicating that the self made clothing was associated with their alienated condition and sinful shame (Gen. 3:7 – 11) and was an insufficient covering for those who have begun to be reconciled to God.”
So … this putting off … putting on language is indicative that we are no longer related to Adam (who is the consummate old man) and are now related to Christ (who is the consummate new man). It is important to note this Federal – Covenantal language. It is not that we have gone from one subjective state to another subjective state, as if we were once nasty people but now we are nice people. Rather, it is language that is speaking about covenantal realities. This language is talking about covenantal positioning. Once in Adam … now in Christ. In this putting on of Christ (the new man) we are now restored and will go from restoration unto restoration until the fullness of the present NOW will be Consummated in Christ.
Here we find the anti-thesis introduced again by St. Paul, for one is either part of the Dead humanity that is identified with Adam or one is united to the living community that is found in union with Christ Jesus.
Early Christian tradition took this quite seriously for in their Baptism services their would be a clear change of clothing given to the baptized after their baptism.
Now, as those who have been returned to the image of God (see vs. 10) we are now what Adam and Eve were intended to be in the Garden (cmp. Gen. 1:26-28). We are the re-creation of humanity, created, to rule, subdue, and to be fruitful and multiply. In Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, and in Col. 3:9-10 we, the brethren of Christ are, because of being united to Him, the image of God. We are called to do then, what Adam failed to do. The idea that we are to be a ruling people is hinted at in 3:1.
Because we are now these renewed image bearers who are identified with Christ, and so are part of the New Creational existence, where we rule, subdue, and have dominion under King Christ, our High Priest mediator, our calling is to disassociate from who were were in Adam, and reflect who we are in Christ.
Now a word about St. Paul’s phrase, “renewed unto the knowledge of Him.” Adam and Eve failed at this Godly knowledge in as much as they failed to remember God’s word. Being renewed unto a knowledge of the image of God will guarantee that the Colossian believers won’t make the mistake of the 1st Adam who was “deluded with persuasive argument,” (2:4) and “taken captive through … empty deceit” (Col. 2:8).