31 Thanksgivings

I've spent 31 Thanksgivings with my wife. We celebrated one together the year before we were married, and the next 30 as husband and wife. It is the first we've ever spent just the two of us, without any family. Our first year of marriage we celebrated Thanksgiving in Canada with a bunch of expatriates studying at Canadian Theological College in Regina, Saskatchewan, so I suppose that one also could count as one we spent without family, but we were certainly not alone.

We actually were invited to neighbors' yesterday, and spent the day with them, but I found it so unsatisfying not eating my wife's cooking that we decided to redo it, today.

Though we desperately miss our two sons -- this was our first Thanksgiving without them since they were born -- we managed to enjoy each other and be profoundly grateful. We prayed, ate, then read John Piper's, Don't Waste Your Life, out loud to each other. It's a good celebration.

I am very thankful to God. I am grateful for my wife. She is truly the Proverbs 31 woman. I am grateful for my two boys. I learned a lot about God's love when I first tried to comfort a collicky first son and was overwhelmed by a sense of love for him that has only grown over the years. I am grateful for my second son whose joy-filled faith seems to have grown since leaving home.

Hidden Learning a Good Thing

I'm rereading Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. I read it once before from beginning to end and have reread many of its chapters on occasion as needed. I have the same reaction to this book that I have to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's sermons; both men hide their learning. They use very simple language to express profound thoughts informed by extensive reading and research. This is an example to emulate.

Age and Study

This past weekend I submitted an application for the M. Div. program at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary beginning, D.V., January 18th.

It would seem an odd thing for a 51-year old to do. It's fairly common for 50ish types to change careers, but it's not too common for them to choose second careers that require at least 3 years of schooling before they can get started. By the time I finish I will be close to 55.

Age is irrelevant, though, if you don't think about retiring. If your criterion for evaluating options turns from what I can do to be most comfortable in retirement to what I can do to be most of service for the remainder of my life, however long that might be, then a seminary education looks appealing. If we are called to love God with all our strength, and education adds to our strength, then the 3 years are worth it.

Rights from Wrongs

I spent the day, yesterday, preparing myself to read Alan Dershowitz's new book, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. He wants to argue that human rights do not need to be transcendent, that is, they are not derived from natural law or nature's God. At the same time, he recognizes that having no external source of rights may create a problem for the concept of minority rights. If rights are simply an expression of societal will, then rights are conveyed always, and only, by the will of the majority.

Dershowitz proposes an experiential theory of rights. It seems to be very much like Justice Potter Stewart's approach to obscenity laws, "I can't define it [obscenity], but I know it when I see it." We cannot define rights a priori, but we recognize their violation when we see it. Human rights evolve through some sort of trial and error approach. Rights are not transcendent, but are a response to recognition of wrongs.

Again, I haven't yet read the book, so it is probably premature for me to even be writing this much, but I am eager to see how he handles this. I am eager to see who, in his scheme, is responsible for identifying these wrongs and rectifying them. If it is the popular will, then we're back to a majoritarianism that excludes minority rights. I suspect he will argue that it is the responsibility of judges, or an enlightened few, and we are left with the kind of thinking that gave us Lawrence v. Texas where cloistered judges respond to the latest thinking of the lawyers' guild, among whom Dershowitz and other Harvard and Yale law professors, his peers, take a lead.

How did I get myself ready to read this book? Very simply. I read the Declaration of Independence. "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people ... to assume the ... equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them" and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The ignorance displayed by the media in ridiculing Bush's assertion that freedom is God's gift to man, an ignorance of our own Declaration of Independence, only reveals that they have already bought into Dershowitz's arguments, probably without even being aware of it.

As I get older, I become more convinced that God must be presupposed if knowledge, morality, and human rights have any validity. If we begin with ourselves, we end up with solepcism.

Thomas Sowell on Specter

Thomas Sowell has an interesting series on Arlen Specter beginning with this piece:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041109.shtml

He reminds us of the Bork hearings -- the lies and smears perpetrated against an eminently qualified, honorable man. If the Democrats want to find the real source of division in this country they ought to review their behavior in those hearings. Those hearings made me a Republican.

Bush, Fallibilism and Health Care

I am writing this in response to recent comments about Bush’s arrogance and the insinuation that he sees himself as infallible, that he does not listen to his advisors, that he believes that his personal intuition is the will of God, and that he has a messiah complex. I was especially dismayed by John Piper’s recent Fresh Words in which he contrasts Lincoln’s humility with the absence of confession of personal fallibility by both Bush and Kerry.

It is absolutely true that Bush is not the orator Lincoln was. He often seems uncomfortable except in extremely partisan settings where he is guaranteed a sympathetic audience. He speaks in sound bites, pausing awkwardly in the midst of sentences, indicating that the teleprompter controls his delivery more than the meaning of his statements does. It is also true that he is often his own worst advocate and is too defensive to freely admit to errors and miscalculations. (I happen to believe his defensiveness is justifiable given his treatment by the mainstream media.) However, it is clear that Bush’s policies and decision-making assume human fallibility where Kerry’s do not.

Decision-making

Bush is a satisficer; Kerry an optimizer. Satisficing is a model of rational decision-making first described by Herb Simon, I believe, in his Administrative Behavior. It assumes that human reason is both limited and bound. Perfect information is impossible; even if perfect information were available, the human mind is limited in its capacity to process it. Therefore, decision-makers and problem solvers ought to search for solutions that are good enough -- that is, satisfactory -- not necessarily optimal. Once we know that we have identified a good course of action – that is, doing something is substantially better than doing nothing -- the additional cost we incur to find the optimal course, even if it were possible to find it, would eat up all the benefit of that better solution. The additional costs may take many forms: delays, costs of information gathering, human costs, etc.

What does a satisficer look like in the real world? Often it will look like he makes decisions prematurely. Optimizers, especially, will accuse him of making decisions without enough information. He is free to take bold action. Knowing that he can never know exhaustively the consequences of his decisions, he will act with principle as his guide. He can make a best guess as to the outcomes of his decisions, but, ultimately, he will base his decisions on what is right on philosophical or moral grounds. Because he knows every decision he makes is wrong to some extent -- it is after all non-optimal – he sees no point in dwelling on errors and mistakes. Second-guessing decisions after the fact is as useless and costly as seeking the optimal solution before-hand. It is more useful to consolidate the gains achieved by actually doing something.

An optimizer, on the other hand, rarely acts. He assumes that perfect solutions are possible and that the cost to attain the optimal solution is irrelevant. Can there be any question that Kerry is constantly in the process of gathering information and refining his positions? His constant criticism of Bush only makes sense if he assumes perfect decisions are possible a priori. Is it at all surprising that Kerry made his name in the Senate only as an investigator, not as a legislator? At least in the arena of decision-making, it is Bush who humbly embraces human fallibility and Kerry who arrogates to himself the possibility of exhaustive knowledge. Bush is a leader; Kerry a legal engineer.

Health Care

Bush’s domestic policies assume human fallibility as well, exemplified by his health care plan.

Both candidates seem to recognize that financing American health care is messy. Normal market models do not apply; not because health care decisions are somehow not economic decisions -- they are. Economics simply deals with the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses. As much as people wish the opposite were true, health care is a scarce resource. Rationing does, and must, occur. There are also alternative uses for health care. Any elective surgery provides a good example for this, especially cosmetic surgery. We must admire the knowledge and skill demonstrated by plastic surgeons in these extreme makeover shows on TV; but we also recognize that there is an unlimited demand for their services and a variety of alternative uses of their skill.

The mechanism for allocating resources in a market economy is price set by supply and demand. Prices serve the very useful function of impersonally enabling millions of transactions between consumers and suppliers. Prices are, in essence, ambassadors conveying messages about the desires of consumers and suppliers and negotiating a compromise agreement between them. However, the fundamental laws of supply and demand, assuming a transaction between consumer and supplier, don’t really apply in health care; the consumer, purchaser and payer are all different parties. Generally, the employer is the purchaser. Benefits managers within our large corporations evaluate the prices and quality of services of different health plans. The employee is the one who actually then uses the service. The insurance company, or the government, pays for the service. So, market forces are muted and confused in our health care system.

Once we recognize that our health care system is an economic hybrid, we can devise a couple different strategies to fix it, to purify it, if you will. The first, Bush’s, is to introduce more elements of a standard market economy into health care financing, to reunite consumer and purchaser. The intent of health savings accounts, and cost sharing mechanisms, is to involve the consumer of the health care service in the purchasing decision so that standard laws of supply and demand can work, and so that price can play its normal very useful role in allocating health care resources.

Kerry’s strategy, on the other hand, remains a hybrid but moves away from a market model for health care toward centralized control. It reunites payer and purchaser, but not consumer. The consumer is even more insulated from the purchase decision than before. Kerry would deny that. He argues that his is an entirely voluntary plan. However, everyone who has worked in health care knows that the 80/20 rule applies: 20% of the cases generate 80% of the cost. (Actually in the studies I’ve been involved in a much smaller percentage of cases generated a greater percentage of the cost.) Kerry’s plan is to reduce employer-based health insurance premiums by making the 20% of cases and 80% of cost the responsibility of the government. There is absolutely no question health insurance premiums will go down, and no employer would continue to offer private insurance plans for catastrophic health care. However, the actual aggregate cost will not go away but will probably increase because of administrative inefficiencies.

Under Bush’s proposal, the market guides millions of individual health care decisions. Otherwise the health care system is too complicated, and unintended consequences of policies too varied and unpredictable, for the limited human mind to fully comprehend. Under Kerry’s plan technocrats will deliberately steer health care decisions through the creation of “self-executing rules” similar to those already in play in the Medicare system. Bush’s plan assumes limitations of human understanding; Kerry assumes an intelligentsia can overcome these limitations.

Isn’t the summary of Kerry’s befuddled campaign simply this, “I’m smarter, more competent and can second-guess anything!” Bush, in spite of a swagger and cocky smirks, assumes human fallibility and reveals humility where it counts.

The Period of the Judges

The Bible summarizes the period of the judges, after the death of Joshua, with an indictment of lawlessness, “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6 and 21:25) God, in His mercy, raised up judges both to deliver the nation from oppressors and to remind them of the covenant—to call the people back to the rule of law.

I generally dislike parallels drawn between the US and OT Israel. However, I am shocked by the contrast between our period of judges and the biblical one. Our Supreme Court judges seem intent on undermining the rule of law in favor of an absolute right of autonomous liberty.

The most shocking thing about the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas is not that it overturned Texas’s anti-sodomy laws but its basis for doing so. The court based its decision on the due process clause of the 14^th amendment, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But its reasoning is absurd. Under “substantive due process” any law that abridges fundamental rights violates the due process clause. It is not a question of legal procedure or fair application of law; it is a question of the content of the law. A law that abridges a fundamental human right violates “due process” and is inherently unconstitutional. (Liberty consists in the free exercise of fundamental rights. The right to privacy -- read “abortion” -- is such a constituent element of liberty.) But with Lawrence v. Texas, the court introduced absurd tautological thinking: one of the constituent rights of liberty, they say, is the right to liberty. We have an absolute right to liberty that cannot be abridged, limited, or constrained. No law can restrict my freedom – even as I choose to define it for myself. Since the purpose of law is to constrain behavior in some way, and constraint is unconstitutional, there is no longer any role for law in human society.

Note Justice Stevens’ statement from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, quoted by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion of Lawrence v. Texas.

“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

Justice Stevens (quoted by Kennedy in majority opinion)

Although our first impression is that this is a judge getting carried away with his own poetic language once we realize it is meant to ground the findings of the Supreme Court we have to become intensely concerned. Either it means nothing and shows the vacuity of the court’s reasoning, or there is no longer any place for law. Antonin Scalia gets it (Thank God for Antonin Scalia.)

“And if the Court is referring not to the holding of Casey, but to the dictum of its famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage, ante, at 13 (“‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life’”): That “casts some doubt” upon either the totality of our jurisprudence or else (presumably the right answer) nothing at all. I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law. “

Antonin Scalia (dissenting opinion)

Obviously, Supreme Court justices would not explicitly dismiss the rule of law; however, Lawrence v. Texas proves that this Supreme Court is much too comfortable with an extreme subjectivism under the guise of the defense of private human rights. They ultimately substitute their own opinions about morality for law. Ironically, no one saw this more clearly than Alexander Hamilton in his defense of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.” (Federalist No. 1)

The biblical judges recalled law and liberated the people; our judges assert autonomous liberty and will ultimately substitute their own will for law.

Messianic Complex

I am in the middle of trying to rebuild my computer after a terrible crash. However, I can't resist commenting on Chris Matthews' show, today, in which he showed excerpts from the third presidential debate where Bush talked about how often he prays and how he derives comfort from prayer. Rather than admiring Bush's faith and humility, he used these excerpts to lead a discussion as to whether Bush saw himself as a messianic figure. Matthews simply doesn't understand the religious impulse. He has lost it. I once enjoyed watching Hardball, but in the last couple months he has engaged in such absurd partisanship that I can't bear to watch him any longer.

Political Credibility

Warning! This one's political. But, it's also short.

I just heard, yet again, a news commentator repeat the charge that Bush has diminished American credibility in the world. I am completely bewildered by this charge. When did the U.S. have all this credibility in the world? And, why would finally doing what you say you're going to do diminish credibility rather than enhance it?

I am the son of an expatriate businessman. We lived in Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Lebanon. I reluctantly came to the U.S. for college. To me the U.S. was a foreign country we visited only on occasion to see grandparents. I was always very anxious to go home after our brief stays here. I simply didn't like it.

Except for Latin America's brief fascination with JFK, I don't remember the US ever having any credibility. The anti-American feeling was very strong then -- enough so that I still remember having rocks thrown at me just because I was a gringo. Latin Americans ridiculed Americans for their uncouth, loud behavior, their extreme naivete and provincialism, their habit of saying one thing and doing another. And, I agreed. I was embarrassed by the U.S.

More recently, I worked as the Chief Information Officer of a German company, one of the DAX 30 along with other giants such as SAP and Siemens. The German attitude toward the U.S., even during the so-called world-wide empathy for America immediately after 9/11, was precisely the same as what I encountered growing up. I heard snide comments about the U.S. that could have been verbatim quotes of comments I heard in Germany in the '70s.

When was this so-called golden age of American credibility? What evidence is there that the U.S. has ever had any credibility to lose? Are we supposed to have had credibility under Clinton? There's no question he was likeable to Europeans, especially because of his sex scandals seemed so very European and impeaching him for it so very Puritanical. But are we now equating being liked with being credible?

And, how does UN-centered multilateralism convey credibility? Weren't 17 UN resolutions proved to be laughably empty?

I just don't get it!

The Presence of God Better than a Beautiful House

Job 1:21 The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.

We have just put our house up for sale. The real estate agent is walking through measuring each room for her flyers as I type this. It's a difficult day for us. We have loved this house. It is more than we ever imagined we would have.

And that is the key to winning any internal struggles we may have. This house was an unsought gift. We even struggled to accept it as a token of the extravagant grace of God simply because it was so much more than anything we've ever expected. Yet, we were persuaded that God intended us to have this house, and we bought it. We have always acknowledged it as purely a gift from God.

Now, though we never wanted anything like this in the first place, it's difficult to let it go, and, once again, we need to argue with ourselves. (The first mark of sanity is talking to yourself.) The argument is obvious. God has not changed. If He was gracious in giving, He is gracious in taking. It is far better to love the Giver than the gift. It is a good thing to let go our earthly treasures; it demonstrates that a heavenly treasure is far more precious. It is absurd to seek to hold onto what we cannot keep.

All of these arguments are true. However, they are not sufficient in themselves to suppress the struggle. I know what would. I have had, in the past, such a sense of the intimate presence of God that nothing else matters. I have "seen" the glory of Christ. I have known the love of God. Even the memory of it is enough to compel me to seek a change. I pray that Asaph's confession would be mine, "But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of all Your works." (Psalm 73:28) Or, David's, "You will make known to me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy." (Psalm 16:11)

May He give us a sense of His presence! But even if He doesn't, "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

One Thing

¹ You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? ² This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? ³ Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? ⁴ Did you suffer so many things in vain-- if indeed it was in vain? ⁵ So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

(Gal 3:1-5 NASB update)

One thing!

One thing would conclude the dispute between Paul and his opponents. One thing would fix Galatian loyalty. One thing would expose their confusion to be a bewitched denial of the meaning of Christ’s death. One thing would keep them from making even their own previous suffering meaningless. One thing would make it blatantly obvious to them how the Christian life is to be lived. One thing would settle the matter. “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (v. 2)

This is surprising. This is the most passionately urgent of Paul’s letters. He lets it all hang out. He is intensely concerned over the Galatians.

Look at the beginning of this series of questions, “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?”

Look at the beginning of the letter. It’s the only one of his letters to the churches, besides 2 Corinthians, without a thanksgiving section (compare Rom 1:8ff; 1 Cor 1:4ff.; Eph 1:15ff; Php 1:3ff.; Col 1:3ff; 1 Th 1:2ff; 2 Th 1:3ff.) 2 Corinthians still begins with an encouraging affirmation; in the midst of his opening blessing he affirms, “our hope for you is firmly grounded” (2 Cor 1:7). But, he doesn’t have anything good to say about the Galatians. After the normal salutation, “Grace to you …” (1:3-5) Paul exclaims, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ.” Rather than thanking God for them, he accuses them of desertion. Paul was able to thank God for the Corinthians, a church that not only tolerated incest, but bragged about it. (1 Cor 5:1,2) The Corinthians were morally confused; some advocating asceticism within marriage, some frequenting prostitutes. (1 Cor 7:1; 6:16) They were also so doctrinally confused that they denied the resurrection of the body, not knowing that necessarily implied a denial of the resurrection of Christ, too. (1 Cor 15:12-14) Yet Paul is somehow able to give thanks for them, and call them saints. He has no such nice things to say about the Galatians, neither addressing them as saints nor giving thanks to God for them. Paul’s urgency in this letter is unparalleled.

Look at the solemn curse he pronounces on anyone who would distort the gospel -- not once but twice! “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!” (1:8,9) Paul believes that blessing and curse is at stake in this letter. The false teachers in Galatia are distorting the gospel to such an extent that they have brought eternal condemnation upon themselves. The Galatian Christians have to be shaken out of their befuddlement to see for themselves the very real danger they are in. They are at risk of falling from grace, denying Christ, and being cursed.

Look at the shocking language he uses. Paul is so angry he wishes these false teachers would even castrate themselves. (Gal 5:12) If they are so eager for circumcision, let them Bobbetize themselves! Can you imagine a pastor saying anything like this from the pulpit, today?

There can’t be any question that the issues Paul deals with in this letter are urgent. Paul dispenses with his usual formalities at the beginning of this letter, he pronounces a solemn curse on his antagonists, and he uses shockingly strong language to denounce them. Yet, he says, “this is the only thing I want to find out from you … “

Paul is obviously appealing to the Galatians’ experience. And this raises many questions for us[1], but the most important – the most urgent -- is this, would Paul’s argument work on us? Are we so intimately familiar with the Holy Spirit that this is where Paul would begin with us? Is our own experience of the Spirit’s ongoing ministry so real that Paul could use it as the foundation for a defense of justification by faith and an explanation of the believer’s freedom from the Law? Do we know the Spirit as a Person? Do we know His ministry as teacher, guide, comforter, sanctifier, witness, as the one who enables all our worship, as the one who will transform our bodies? Would one thing settle the matter for us?

---

[1] For example, aren’t arguments from experience, especially experience of the Spirit, dangerous? Aren’t we notoriously prone to misinterpreting our own experience at the expense of sound doctrine? To what extent does experience outpace our theology and so guide our thinking? To what extent does sound doctrine precede and determine whether our experience is valid? How do we keep this tension in balance? None of us fully understands all that is happening when we are first converted; we take a lifetime to grow into our initial experience. Isn’t this true too of our experience of the Spirit?

Shame, Sex, and Honor

Webster’s Dictionary defines shame as “the painful feeling of having done something dishonorable or improper.” The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “the feeling of humiliation or distress arising from the consciousness of something dishonourable or ridiculous in one’s own or another’s behaviour or circumstances, or from a situation offensive to one’s own or another’s sense of propriety or decency.”

So, shame is a painful emotion, a sense of dishonor, impropriety, and disgrace.

If there is anything characteristic of American culture it is a fear of painful emotion. The worst offense anyone can commit these days is to make someone feel bad, especially ashamed.

Clearly, though, shame can be a good thing. It is the right response to God’s condemnation of idolatry. Look at Paul’s indictment of the human race in Romans 1:18 through 3:20. The climax of that indictment is that “every mouth must be closed.” (3:19) No one, Gentile or Jew, has any excuse before God. There is nothing we can say in our defense, nor to mitigate our crime. We have no excuses. (1:20 and 2:1) We have nothing to say. We must be silent in our guilt. We must be overcome by our sense of accountability to God, stare at our shoes, and not say a word.

But it is not just guilt that ought to overwhelm us; we ought also to be overcome by shame. We ought to lose all color in our faces. We ought to go weak-kneed. We ought to faint. We ought to feel intense humiliation. God intends to shame us. Rom 1:24, “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.” Rom 1:26, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions.” Rom 1:28, “God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.” Rom 2:23, 24, “You who boast … do you dishonor God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” Dishonored bodies, degrading passions, depraved minds, doing what is not proper, and dishonoring God. The healthy response -- the appropriate, true and accurate emotional response -- to this, is shame. A lack of shame is pathological.

Although we all shy away from physical pain, an absence of pain is very dangerous. I remember many years ago as a newborn Christian, I was very impressed with a pair of missionaries with the Christian & Missionary Alliance who worked at a leper colony in Vietnam. I was very taken with them and spent as much time with them as I could. They explained to me that the worst part of leprosy was the loss of the sensation of pain. Their Vietnamese leper friends could not feel the cuts, scrapes and lacerations they’d often get as they walked around in the jungles. They’d get infected and ultimately lose their limbs — it was unfortunately most common for them to lose their feet, though it was also common for them to be oblivious to burns on their hands and fingers. They had lost the sense of pain that should have been the signal that something was wrong. Pain was a good thing. They longed for a recovery of painful sensation. In the same way, we ought to long for a recovery of shame.

One of the reasons our culture seems to shy away from shame is that it is often tied to sexuality. It is thought that shame is a holdover from a sexually repressive, immature society. It is a Victorian-era emotion, to be sloughed off by sexually enlightened moderns. We know too much about sex to give in to old superstitious cultural taboos. But what is striking is how biblical, not just cultural, shame over sex is, or ought to be. The New Testament doesn’t quite put it that way; instead, the New Testament associates sex with shame’s opposite, honor. “This is the will of God, your sanctification; that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like [those] who do not know God.” (1 Th 4:3-5) “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed be undefiled.” (Heb 13:4) “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.” (Rom 1:24) A desire for illicit sex is a spiritual disease. It is idolatrous. Shame is the pain that warns us of it, designed to prevent the spread of infection.

When was the last time we thought about honor and sex? A focus on honor itself seems a little old fashioned. We don’t commonly think about honor except in times of war or with big sporting events such as the Olympics. Or we think of honor as a Southern thing; in the movies it‘s the Confederate officers who are obsessed with honor. We pay little attention to personal honor day-by-day, even less with respect to sex. It certainly doesn’t seem a strong enough motive to really move us. Yet, it ought to be; eternal life is for those who seek honor. (Rom 2:7)

We need for the sake of the health of our own souls to recover a true sense of honor and of shame.

Paul's Autobiography in Galatians

I had a new thought today about that autobiographical section in Galatians beginning at chapter 1 verse 13 and extending all the way through to the end of chapter 2. Almost all outlines I've seen regard this as a defense of Paul's independent credentials as an apostle. The idea is that the Judaizers, Paul's antagonists, have called his apostolic authority into question. They have probably claimed for themselves that they have been deputized by the apostles in Jerusalem to clear up Paul's distorted teaching, especially with regard to the practices of the Gentiles. They therefore appeal to Jerusalem for their authority. Paul responds by establishing his independence from Jerusalem putting himself on a par with the reputed pillars of the church, but also affirming that his message has been recognized as consistent with theirs. The focus of this section, then, is Paul's status and authority as an apostle.

I realized, today, that can't be Paul's emphasis, because he's already said that if he himself were to preach a gospel different than what he had already preached to them, then he is accursed. He calls down a curse upon himself if he veers from the content of the gospel. It's the gospel that's at issue, not his, nor anyone else's authority. If he distorts the gospel then he has no authority; he is damned. The truth of the gospel stands independent of its proclaimers. It is is no respecter of persons, whether they are the reputed pillars of the church, the beloved Barnabas, or, even, Peter.

It is true that Paul outlines his independence in this section, but I think that serves first, to make it clear that the gospel he preached to the Galatians is unalterable because it is a divine revelation, and, second, to assert that he has been faithful to keep the gospel pure and undistorted. The gospel he preached to them doesn't need any modification or correction.

So, the focus in this autobiographical section is not Paul's authority, but the purity of his gospel. His authority is meaningless if he has not faithfully preserved the gospel he received.

This may seem a distinction without a difference; but I think it makes more sense of the context. The flow of Paul's argument makes more sense to me. Verses 10 through 13 in chapter 1 all begin with a "for" and are clearly intended to explain and support the paragraph in vv. 6-9, as is that entire autobiographical section (though Paul makes some very strong doctrinal points along the way building to a climax in Gal 2:11-21.)

I am currently working on a detailed outline of Galatians for my own use. I am convinced that the series of rhetorical questions in Gal 3:1-5 form the center of Paul's argument in this letter rather than simply being a rhetorical ploy, an appeal to the Galatians experience to draw them into his reasoning. I believe that we have often missed the point of this letter. I've heard countless sermon series that assume that the primary issue in this letter is justification by faith. The book of Galatians is a defense of justification. I don't think that's true. I think the real issue has to do with the role of works of the Law in the life of the Christian. Paul argues that we are free from the Law. The Judaizers raise a number of objections to this. For example, implied in chapter 5 is that freedom from the Law would lead to licentiousness. Paul's argument is that it is the ministry of the Spirit that prevents license. The Christian is free from the Law but follows the Spirit. Christians begin by the Spirit and end by the Spirit. The ministry of the Spirit, I believe, is the central theme of this letter. However, I am seeking, by writing a detailed outline of Paul's argument, to verify whether this is so. It's in the midst of writing out my outline on these first two chapters that I had this "Aha!" moment about how the autobiographical section follows from 1:6-9.

Creative Love

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us.

We love, because He first loved us.

(1 John 4:10, 19)

My wife is lovely. She has a smile that could light the city of Chicago. I still vividly remember the day, almost 31 years ago, when I held the door open for her into what was then called the CI at Duke University, now called the Alpine something-or-other. I got lost in her beautiful eyes. It seemed to last forever. I can still reconstruct in my imagination the unusual mixture of colors that make up her hazel eyes. I saw every color on that day. (She doesn’t even remember that event.) We have now been married for slightly more than 29 years, and I am constantly impressed by her loveliness, especially her beauty in “the hidden person of the heart.” (1 Peter 3:4) My love for her is a response. I respond to all that is lovely in her. Her beauty, her character, draw out my love for her.

God’s love is not like that. He does not respond to our loveliness. We know that because He’s told us what would constitute loveliness in us. It is not appearance. God is not captivated by a smile or beautiful eyes as I am, “for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7) Instead, to God loveliness is whole-hearted love: love to God with all our heart, strength and mind, and love for our neighbors as ourselves. But God’s love precedes this love. We love, Him and our neighbors, because He first loved us.

God’s love is creative. It creates loveliness in us. Because, “we have come to know and have believed [by the testimony of the Spirit (v. 13) the love God has for us” (v. 16) we abide in love. We genuinely do love God and our neighbors, though imperfectly. If we do not love, we have not come to know God.

So, God’s love always precedes and always creates. It is never a response. It is not a love because; it is a love in spite.

God’s love, though, is similar to mine for my wife in one sense. It is a distinguishing love. I do not love all women the same. I love my wife uniquely. God, too, has set his love uniquely on a people. Why? Because He has set His love on them. No reason other than His own will. It truly is a preceding, creating love. Nevertheless, it is passionate, never-ending, delighting.

No Double Jeopardy

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

(1 John 1:9 NASB update)

Why would God’s righteousness be compromised if He did not forgive sin? This verse tells us, “He is … righteous to forgive.” Does confession create an obligation on the part of God to forgive, an obligation He’d unjustly violate if He didn’t forgive? Is His righteousness the same as His faithfulness, so that faithful and righteous is simply a more forceful expression of God’s commitment to fulfill His promise of forgiveness? What is the basis of our expectation of forgiveness—is it God’s righteousness or God’s benevolence? When we so readily quote this verse to assure ourselves, or one another, of God’s forgiveness, do we wonder at it?


We’d normally expect John to affirm God’s grace in forgiving sin, “He is faithful and gracious to forgive us our sins.” We normally appeal to God’s mercy for forgiveness in spite of God’s righteousness; not because of it. We recognize that God’s righteousness requires judgment, not forgiveness. We take great comfort from the first part of God’s self-revelation to Moses, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin;” but we tremble over the second part, “yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Ex 34:6,7)


We know that “our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God” (Rom 3:5) not because God forgives but because He judges. He is Himself justified—shown to be personally righteous—when He pronounces judgment on sin. (Rom 3:4) In fact, God’s forbearance of sin raises questions about God’s own righteousness. Is He too pure to look upon sin, or not? Doesn’t He in fact tolerate sin? He may occasionally reveal His fury against irreverence, such as in His outburst against Uzzah (2 Sam 6:1-9), but more often He is silent. (When we read this shocking passage our reflex is to ask, “How can God do that?” though the question we ought to ask is, “Why doesn’t He do that all the time?” If God is so offended by the careless irreverence of a man simply reaching out to steady the ark of God, if this seemingly innocent act is worthy of death, then how is it possible any one of us continues to survive for a single second? We offend God, treating Him as less holy than He is every second of every minute of every day. How could God bring the flood to destroy the earth in the days of Noah when His evaluation of human character is the same immediately afterwards as before? The intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth. (compare Gen 8:21 with 6:5)) God must acquit Himself against the charge of too readily overlooking sin. He must prove His righteous revulsion against sin. (see Rom 3:25,26) It is strange for us to rely on His righteousness for assurance of forgiveness.


The key to understanding this verse is found in the first two verses of chapter 2, “And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world.” It is really found in the word, propitiation; it is because of propitiation that God’s righteousness is at stake in our forgiveness, that we can count on God to be righteous to forgive.

Propitiation refers to the work of Christ in averting the righteous wrath of God. It’s very important for us to be clear about how this works. The editors of the Revised Standard Version, for example, translated the Greek as “expiation” rather than “propitiation” because they thought the idea of propitiating the wrath of a personal god too heathen. A heathen worshipper appeases his angry god, in essence, by bribing him, by presenting an offering that’s valuable enough to convince his god that it’s preferable befriending him than harboring anger. But Christ’s offering is far from a bribe, and He does not propitiate God simply by changing His mind. Instead, He offers Himself—an infinitely valuable offering, it is true—not to divert God’s wrath and fury but to absorb it. Christ is our propitiation because God’s fury toward sin was fully unleashed on Him. It was fully expressed, given full vent, and exhausted. Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” because He really had! Jesus felt the alienation from God, the wrath of God, our sins deserved. The resurrection proves to us that God’s wrath is removed. The Father receives His Son with a smile. If God had simply changed His mind about us, there’s no reason He couldn’t change it back. There would be no reason He couldn’t revert to His previous anger. But if, instead, He has fully punished our sins with infinite fury, then it would be wrong for Him not to forgive, “He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins.” There is no double jeopardy with God.[1]

But if this is true, why is forgiveness conditional upon confession, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive … ?”

Christ’s propitiation is effective for those who are really united to Him.[2] Faith is what unites us to Him so that His propitiation is for us. We might look at our union with Christ from two different perspectives. From God’s perspective, we are united with Christ in principle in election. This, then, is effected by His calling us and subsequently baptizing us with the Spirit into Christ. (1 Cor 1:30; 12:13) From the human perspective, it is faith that unites us to Christ. Our hearts, that is, all our affections, are drawn out toward Christ in love, trust, hope, and so on. Faith is an affectional union with Him. (I see little difference between loving God and believing Him.) Confession, too, is an expression of faith, and has the same dynamic, effecting a mental union with Him. To deny that we have sinned is to call God a liar. (v. 10) That is the very opposite of faith. Faith regards God as trustworthy; to deny that we have sinned is to accuse God of lying about us. It is to claim that His evaluation of us is untrue. On the other hand, to confess our sins is to agree with God’s testimony against us. We are of one mind with God about ourselves. Confession is a condition for forgiveness because union with Christ is a condition of His propitiation being for us, faith is what effects that union, and confession is an expression of that faith.

---

[1] Double jeopardy is not just the round where Ken Jennings really racks up his winnings; it is remaining liable to judgment for a crime for which one has already been acquitted. The American justice system prohibits double jeopardy. No one can be retried for a crime once they’ve already been found innocent. A person who’s been found guilty, on the other hand, often looks for a retrial.

[2] He is given as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world in the same sense that “there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we may be saved” (Acts 4:12) There is one name for the whole world; there is one propitiation for the world.

A Special Word about Free Will

Although “God is not willing that any should perish,” salvation is not God’s only, or even His ultimate, goal. God saves in order to glorify Himself and His Son. Salvation is a means to this further end.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

(Rom 8:29)

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; And deliver us and forgive our sins for Your name's sake.

(Psalm 79:9)

Nevertheless He saved them for the sake of His name, That He might make His power known.

(Psalm 106:8)

For the sake of Your name, O LORD, revive me. In Your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble.

(Psalm 143:11)

⁹ "For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off. … ¹¹ "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.

Isaiah (48:9,11)

"But I acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made Myself known to them by bringing them out of the land of Egypt.

(Ezek 20:9)

"But I acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, before whose sight I had brought them out.

(Ezek 20:14)

"But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.

(Ezek 20:22)

"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.

(Ezek 36:22)

"So now, our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplications, and for Your sake, O Lord, let Your face shine on Your desolate sanctuary

"O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake, O my God, do not delay, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name."

(Dan 9:17,19)

God’s ultimate purpose is not to preserve the integrity of human free will. God is free to move in the hearts of men and to determine the outcomes of their free decisions.

The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.

(Prov 21:1)

²² And they observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had caused them to rejoice, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them to encourage them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

(Ezra 6:22)

²⁷ Blessed be the LORD, the God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to adorn the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem, ²⁸ and has extended lovingkindness to me before the king and his counselors and before all the king's mighty princes. Thus I was strengthened according to the hand of the LORD my God upon me, and I gathered leading men from Israel to go up with me.

(Ezra 7:27,28)

The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

(Prov 16:1)

18 Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, "Behold, we are your servants." 19 But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in God's place? 20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. 21 "So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones." So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

(Gen 50:18-21)

³⁰ But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as today.”


(Deut 2:30)

⁵ Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, ⁶ I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. ⁷ Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations.

¹² So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." ¹³ For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants, ¹⁴ And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped." ¹⁵ Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. ¹⁶ Therefore the Lord, the GOD of hosts, will send a wasting disease among his stout warriors; And under his glory a fire will be kindled like a burning flame. ¹⁷ And the light of Israel will become a fire and his Holy One a flame, And it will burn and devour his thorns and his briars in a single day.

(Isaiah 10:5-7, 12-17)

²⁷ "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

(Acts 4:27,28)

²² "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- ²³ this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

(Acts 2:22,23)

God glorifies His mercy and grace more fully by not choosing some but dealing with them only according to justice and merit.

²² What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? ²³ And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, ²⁴ even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

(Rom 9:22-24)

The Nature of Unconditional Election

Election is to faith and salvation; not just reward, office or mission.

Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

(James 2:5)

²⁶ "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; ²⁸ and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. ³⁰ I and the Father are one."

(John 10:26-30)

³⁶ "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

⁴³ Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”

⁶³ "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. ⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. ⁶⁵ And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

(John 6:26-40, 43-45, 63-65)

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

(Acts 13:48)

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

(Acts 16:14)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹ not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. ¹⁰ For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

(Eph 2:8)

¹³ But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. ¹⁴ It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2 Thess 2:13,14)

Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

(1 Tim 6:12)

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

(Heb 9:15)

¹ Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen ² according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

(1 Pet 1:1,2)

not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

(1 Pet 3:9)

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

(1 Pet 5:10)

⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love ⁵ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

(Eph 1:4-6)

Election is of individuals; not of nations.

⁶ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; ⁷ nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac your descendants will be named." ⁸ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. ⁹ For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." ¹⁰ And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; ¹¹ for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, ¹² it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." ¹³ Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

(Rom 9:6-13)

²² What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? ²³ And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, ²⁴ even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

(Rom 9:22-24)

²⁶ For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; ²⁷ but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, ²⁸ and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, ²⁹ so that no man may boast before God. ³⁰ But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, ³¹ so that, just as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."

(1 Cor 1:26-31)

Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

(James 2:5)

Election is eternal; not in time as a consequence of faith.

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.

(Eph 1:4)

who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

(2 Tim 1:9)

because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

(2 Thess 2:13)

Election is loving; not impersonal and arbitrary.

⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love ⁵ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

(Eph 1:4-6)

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

(Col 3:12)

knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;

(1 Thess 1:4)

¹³ But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. ¹⁴ It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2 Thess 2:13,14)

¹ Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ: ² May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.

(Jude 1,2)

⁶ "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. ⁷ "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, ⁸ but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

(Deut 7:6-8)