Read on Twitter
Thread on the inseparable nature of glory and humility (and why we work so very hard to divorce them).
The first time I noticed this was when reading Philippians with Mark Stirling in St. Andrews (His work at https://chalmersinstitute.org/ is worth being aware of)
He pointed out that Philippians 2:6 is almost always mistranslated to something along the lines of:
He pointed out that Philippians 2:6 is almost always mistranslated to something along the lines of:
'...Christ Jesus, who, π‘βππ’πβ he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.' (ESV)
In actual fact, the meaning is almost entirely the opposite: It's more like 'Christ Jesus, πππππ in the form of God...'
In actual fact, the meaning is almost entirely the opposite: It's more like 'Christ Jesus, πππππ in the form of God...'
That is, it was not πππ πππ‘π his divinity but rather πππππ’π π of it that he did not feel the need to cling to his divine status.
He has an unwavering yet pride-less security in who he is, and so does not grasp, but humbles himself in service.
He has an unwavering yet pride-less security in who he is, and so does not grasp, but humbles himself in service.
The meaning is clear - it is because he is great that he humbles himself, and it is because he humbles himself that he is glorified
I recently saw a very similar occurrence: Mark 10:45
The ESV reads: "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
But that's not a justifiable translation.
The ESV reads: "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
But that's not a justifiable translation.
'Even' is a feasible if uncommon translation for ΞΊΞ±α½Ά, & I can't remember a single time that it was rendered such when followed by Ξ³α½°Ο.
"ΞΊΞ±α½Ά Ξ³α½°Ο" indicates not a surprise, but rather an 'of course' - it suggests that what follows is the natural conclusion to what preceded.
"ΞΊΞ±α½Ά Ξ³α½°Ο" indicates not a surprise, but rather an 'of course' - it suggests that what follows is the natural conclusion to what preceded.
E.g. In 1 Cor 12:13 the ESV just translates it as 'For' and leaves ΞΊΞ±α½Ά as the invisible conjunction that it is.
In 1 Corinthians it is used to say that of course we are one body... FOR we have all been baptised with one body.
In 1 Corinthians it is used to say that of course we are one body... FOR we have all been baptised with one body.
And so, when reading Mark, I was surprised to see Jesus teaching the disciples that those who are great are those who serve... that is, and then be all like "EVEN I did it AND I will suffer".
But where is the indication that this is against the natural order of things?
But where is the indication that this is against the natural order of things?
In fact, so natural is the connection between suffering and glory, that the disciples, who aren't always brilliant at tracking with Jesus' teaching, connect the two without even realising that they're doing it - seriously, look:
In the section of Mark held in chapters 8-10, Jesus predicts his death 3 times:
Mark 8: Jesus predicts his death and Peter ππππ’πππ him, we are told because he had his eyes set on the things of men - Peter didn't think crucifixion was an appropriate way to be glorified.
Mark 8: Jesus predicts his death and Peter ππππ’πππ him, we are told because he had his eyes set on the things of men - Peter didn't think crucifixion was an appropriate way to be glorified.
Mark 9: Jesus predicts his death again and he disciples learn (or mislearn) from Paul's mistake and so fall silent... but then they talk amongst themselves... about what? About who is the greatest.
Mark 10: Jesus predicts his death again and James & John ask to be honoured in Jesus' glory.
They CANNOT stop thinking about glory whenever the sacrificial suffering of the cross is mentioned, EVEN though the way they speak of it shows that they don't understand.
They CANNOT stop thinking about glory whenever the sacrificial suffering of the cross is mentioned, EVEN though the way they speak of it shows that they don't understand.
That's the context of Mark 10:45 - which, having run past my favourite Wycliffe translator to check, should read something along the lines of "π΄ππ‘ππ πππ, the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many"
In Philippians & in Mark, the following is clear - those who will be great will suffer & serve. Itβs not just that they should, it is engrained in the order of things: The great will suffer and serve.
And the greatest, who is Christ, will suffer the most and will serve the most, because Jesusβ suffering does not lead only to his own glory - The suffering of Jesus leads many to glory.
That famous verse is not saying 'for even the Son of Man...'
It is saying that it is SO TRUE that the great serve, that you can see that the greatest serves the most.
And yet we are desperate to treat this as surprising.
It is saying that it is SO TRUE that the great serve, that you can see that the greatest serves the most.
And yet we are desperate to treat this as surprising.
There is nothing remotely surprising about the incarnation sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus inasmuch as it pertains to his character or status (which are inseparable).
The great serve. That's not an imperative. It's a description. That's what great people do.
So if you're not willing to serve, you simply are less great than those who are... that's the Bible's simple statement on greatness.
So you don't ever graduate above suffering & serving.
Weirdly, many, many Christian organisational structures are based on the opposite mentality
So you don't ever graduate above suffering & serving.
Weirdly, many, many Christian organisational structures are based on the opposite mentality
OK, myth time (it's related):
When Gaius Mucius Scaevola was appointed by the Roman leaders to assassinate the Etruscan King who laid siege to Rome, he snuck out of the city gates, found the finest tent in the enemy encampment, and slayed the man in the finest robes.
When Gaius Mucius Scaevola was appointed by the Roman leaders to assassinate the Etruscan King who laid siege to Rome, he snuck out of the city gates, found the finest tent in the enemy encampment, and slayed the man in the finest robes.
Unfortunately, he had killed the royal secretary instead, and was immediately captured and brought before the Etruscan king who sat in front of the campβs fire. They prepared to interrogate him, but before they could begin...
...Gaius stuck his hand into the flame and watched the flesh burn off it, saying - βwatch that you may know how cheap the body is to men who have their eye on great gloryβ.
I wonβt tell you the full story, but Gaius was indeed honoured above all others in Rome, when victory was finally accomplished. He was a man who understood both the chronology and the connection between suffering service and glory.
Cranmer, too, when he watched his hand burn away, had his eye fixed upon great glory.
So...you who would be great, don't burn your hand off just yet... but understand that suffering service is literally a part of being great.
Until the new creation, it is literally inseparable
So...you who would be great, don't burn your hand off just yet... but understand that suffering service is literally a part of being great.
Until the new creation, it is literally inseparable
Even then, remind me, what does that lamb covered in glory and greatness look like? (Rev 5:6)
