Justin Taylor's Blog, page 26

Why the Bad Will Get Worse and the Good Will Get Better

Theologian John Murray once defined common grace as “every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God” (Collected Works, II:96).

Pastor-theologian Sam Storms writes:

As we approach the second coming of Christ, whether that be one year or one-thousand years in the future, I believe the presence and power of common grace will progressively diminish.

The restraining power of the Spirit on the sinful souls of men and women, as well as on the natural creation, will incrementally weaken.

The manifestation of human sin and wickedness and unbelief will therefore expand.

Common grace is much like the emergency brake on a car that is parked on a steep incline. The weight of the car, together with the force of gravity, would naturally result in its descent down the road and its eventual crash. But the emergency brake resists and impedes this otherwise natural inclination. So, too, with human sin. The Holy Spirit is like an emergency brake on the human heart. But one day, perhaps imperceptibly and certainly in gradual fashion, the restraint on the sinful and depraved inclination of the human soul will be removed.

But here is the good news. I also believe that together with the progressive withdrawal of common grace will be a corresponding increase of special grace!

The people of God will experience fresh and ever-increasing manifestations of divine favor and power and blessing and anointing simultaneously with the withdrawal of the Spirit’s common grace work of curbing the sinful impulses of the lost.

This is why there will be an increase of wickedness and persecution (and, yes, martyrdom) in the world at large at the same time there is an increase of righteousness and perseverance in the church in particular.

My “theory” (which I do believe has Scriptural support) is that the Church will experience great revival, ever-increasing impartations of supernatural power, unprecedented expressions of love and unity, all the while she is being oppressed and persecuted and increasingly hated by the unbelieving world. Special grace will intensify even as common grace will diminish.

I should also point out that this process will culminate eternally in what we know as heaven and hell. Heaven is the unabated overflow of special grace. Hell is the utter absence of even common grace. Forever.

Storms asks what this means in terms of how we should act:

We should . . . flood the people who are suffering with expressions of kindness and compassion and generosity, knowing that such devastation could as easily fall on us (cf. Luke 13:1-5). As the Spirit’s provision of common grace diminishes, may the recipients of his special grace overflow in the goodness of Jesus to the glory of God the Father.

You can read the whole thing here.

If You Have Ever Been Tempted to Take Your Bible for Granted, Consider Watching This Video

This video, captured in 2010, show the Kimyal Tribe of Papua, Indonesia, celebrating the arrival of the New Testament in their own language.

5 Questions—5 Scholars: Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Paul’s letter to the Romans has been well-served by Reformed and evangelical commentaries.

I asked five of my favorite commentators on the book if they would tackle five questions: from Paul’s purpose in writing the letter to why they love it (including questions about the hardest verse for them to exegete and whether they have changed their mind over the years on Romans 7).

Here are the respondents:

Douglas Moo is the Kenneth T. Wessner professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. He is the author of the commentary on Romans in Eerdmans’s New international Commentary on the New Testament series (1st ed., 1996; 2nd ed., 2018).
Thomas R. Schreiner is the James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament interpretation and professor of biblical theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of the commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series (1st ed., 1998; 2nd ed., 2018).
David Peterson is emeritus faculty member at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia. He is the author of the commentary on Romans in B&H’s Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series (2017).
Frank Thielman is Presbyterian chair of divinity at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University. He is the author of the commentary on Romans in Zondervan’s Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series (2018).
Robert Yarbrough is professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary. He is author of the forthcoming commentary on Romans in Crossway’s ESV Expository Commentary series (2021).


1. Why did Paul write this letter to the Roman church?

Doug Moo

Paul writes with multiple purposes:

to secure support for his mission to Spain,
to unify Roman Christians around his law-free but OT-affirming gospel, and
to elucidate that gospel in the face of opposition and misunderstanding.

Tom Schreiner

Division existed between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, which explains why Paul focuses on

the guilt of both Gentiles and Jews,
the role the law plays in God’s purposes,
the place of Israel in God’s plan (since many Gentiles were being saved), and
the matter of clean and unclean foods.

Paul wanted to unify both Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome under his gospel. By embracing his gospel together, the Roman churches would serve as a launching pad for the proposed Pauline mission to Spain.

David Peterson

Although much of Romans is given over to theological exposition and ethical application, the epistolary framework in which this is presented is significant. Three critical issues are raised in Romans 1:1–17 and then developed in the body of the letter: (1) the centrality of the gospel to what God is doing in the world, (2) Jesus Christ and what God has accomplished through him as the focus of the gospel, and (3) Paul’s God-given role in the exposition and propagation of this gospel.

The particular significance of the Roman Christians within this wider movement is revealed when Paul records his gratitude to God for their faith, mentions how he regularly prays for them, and asks that God would make it possible for him to visit them soon.

In the closing sections, he returns to the theme of his commission to preach the gospel to the nations and sets his writing to the Romans within that context (Rom. 15:14–16:27). As well as ministering to them in person, he wants to win their support for the next stage of his ministry by writing to them as he does.

In the body of Romans, Paul expounds his law-free gospel and its implications, while dealing with specifically Jewish issues concerning their heritage as God’s covenant people. At the very least, Paul must have thought it important to equip the Roman Christians for debates with Jews in their city. Moreover, his readers could hardly have supported Paul’s missionary endeavors without being convinced of his stand on the sort of critical issues addressed in the defensive passages. The interweaving of gospel exposition and defense against Jewish arguments in this letter was partly driven by the nature of Paul’s own apostolic ministry and experience, and partly by his knowledge of the context in Rome, which had particular expression in the conflict addressed in Romans 14:1–15:13.

So Paul’s intentions were theological, pastoral, and missional.

Frank Thielman

I think Paul wrote Romans for a variety of reasons.

First, he was at a critical juncture in his church-planting career. He had nearly finished his work of proclaiming the gospel in the eastern Mediterranean region and was now looking west to Spain. He planned to visit the Christians in Rome on his way to Spain and hoped they would support his church-planting efforts there.

Second, Paul wanted the Roman Christians to pray for the success of his relief mission to Jerusalem, a project that had engaged his attention for several years and that would show the unity of Jewish and non-Jewish believers through their common faith in Christ.

Third, Paul was concerned pastorally about the Romans themselves. They were experiencing disunity over the extent to which Jewish practices carried over into Christianity. They needed to hear the unifying message of the gospel again and to understand the implications of the gospel for the way they treated each other.

Fourth, at a couple of places in Romans Paul hints that some Roman Christians may have misunderstood Paul’s gospel of God’s free grace. Did Paul emphasize God’s grace to the point that he implied believers were free to sin?

For all these reasons, a letter to Rome before his own visit to Rome made sense to Paul.

Bob Yarbrough

Among obvious reasons, much discussed among commentators:

Paul wanted to connect for the sake of his future plans to travel to Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28).
He wanted to further his apostolic and missionary goal of bringing about the obedience of faith among the Gentiles (Rom. 1:5, 16:26)—and in terms of the Roman empire, the city of Rome was the Gentile capital.
He had a longing to encourage, and be encouraged by, the Roman congregation/s (Rom. 1:11–12).
He was eager to preach the gospel there and witness its powerful work (Rom. 1:15) as he had in so many other Gentile cities.

Further, there is something to be said for a reading that acknowledges that the letter would be read and taught to the Romans congregation/s by the pastoral leaders there (probably overseeing house churches). Romans 16:17–20 serves as a directive to those leaders summarizing how and why they should administer the substance of Paul’s entire communique. Seen in that light, Paul wrote to stabilize and strengthen pastoral instruction and care of souls.

Finally, it bears mention that if we believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture, why Paul wrote Romans (in terms of his intentions and the letter’s effects then and there), while foundational, may not begin to exhaust God’s wider gracious and providential purposes. For example, I can’t imagine Tom Schreiner not mentioning “to glorify God” as a reason Paul wrote Romans. And he would be right (see inferential evidence at Rom. 11:13; 15:6, 9).

2. What do you take to be the central verse or passage or thesis of the Letter to the Romans?

Doug Moo

Romans 1:16–17 is as close as we get to this in Romans. “Gospel,” which I take to be the leading theme of the letter, is prominent; and included also are other prominent letter themes:

God’s provision in the gospel for our ultimate salvation (chaps. 5–8),
the combination of precedence for Jews with inclusion of Gentiles (chaps. 9–11),
God’s righteousness unveiled (chaps. 1–4).

Tom Schreiner

I think the thesis is in Romans 1:16–17. The gospel is God’s power unto salvation because in the gospel the saving righteousness of God is revealed for all who believe.

David Peterson

Structurally, Romans 12:1–2 is a turning-point in the argument, as the apostle moves from exposition to exhortation. God’s “mercies” in Christ, which are wonderfully outlined and celebrated in earlier chapters, are the basis for Paul’s appeal to live in a way that is consistent with the gospel. The exhortation to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God” restates the pivotal challenge in Romans 6:12–14, using the language of worship. A parallel exhortation about not being conformed to this age, but “transformed by the renewing of your mind,” offers believers the possibility of discerning and doing the will of God in everyday life. These two verses together proclaim a reversal of the downward spiral depicted in Paul’s portrayal of fallen humanity in Romans 1:18-32. Paul’s challenge in Romans 12:1–2 is immediately followed by an exhortation to serve one another in the body of Christ with different gifts and ministries. But the challenge to love is then broadened to include persecutors and unbelieving outsiders. In Romans 15:14–33, Paul uses the language of service to God to describe his own particular calling as apostle to the Gentiles and to invite his readers to share with him in the next stage of his gospel ministry.

In short, Paul proclaims the possibility of a new kind of service to God, because of the sacrificial death of Jesus and its transforming implications (Rom. 3:24–26; 8:1–4).

Frank Thielman

Paul states his thesis clearly in Romans 1:16–17 where he explains the gospel in terms of the righteousness of God that powerfully saves every individual who believes the gospel. God does this in fulfillment of Scripture and without prejudice toward any particular social group.

Paul sums up the letter’s message in Romans 15:7–13 where he pictures Christ himself directing a multiethnic choir of believers who are filled with the joy and peace that comes from their trust in God.

Bob Yarbrough

Commentators are largely agreed that the theme of Romans is found in Romans 1:16–17. The beauty of those verses, in addition to their redemptive truth, is their versatility. The powerful “good news” of which Paul is not ashamed sheds definitive light on any number of issues that world fallenness and the human dilemma pose.

Do you seek personal salvation? Many thank God for the direction of Romans 10:9–10.
Does a believer seek a road map for daily living? It’s hard to beat Romans 12:1–2.
Is the need for grasping the human condition and God’s assessment of it? See Romans 1:18–3:20.
Is the question how God justifies the ungodly? Romans 3:24–26 covers the mechanics of the atonement, augmented by the equally significant resurrection (Rom. 1:4; 4:25).
Do we need help with ecclesial identity? Since Christians are children of Abraham through faith, Romans 4 is more important than is often realized.
Is the need to make sense of the world’s paroxysms and pathologies, including Christian suffering? See Romans 8.
Are there questions about the abiding importance of Israel, about how the gospel can be true if most of the descendants of Abraham in Paul’s time are rejecting it, or how God can be regarded as faithful to his old covenant promises when the Gentiles have eclipsed the Jews in their embrace of the gospel? See Romans 9–11.

This just scratches the surface of major issues to which Romans speaks authoritatively. Others are Christology, missiology, reconciliation, bibliology, sanctification, eschatology, adiaphora, and more.

All that said, to summarize: the central thesis of Romans lies in the application of Christ’s lordship as the gospel heralds it for all situations in which it is brought to bear.

3. In writing your Romans commentary, what verse or passage was most challenging to exegete?

Doug Moo

Romans 11:26—I went back and forth for weeks on “all Israel being saved.”

Tom Schreiner

I would select two passages.

Romans 3:1-8, which is difficult because the discussion is abbreviated so that it is difficult to trace the contours of the argument.

And Romans 7 since good arguments can be made for the “I” being Adam, Israel, or Paul. Further, it is difficult to know whether Romans 7:14–25 refers to a believer or unbeliever.

David Peterson

Probably Romans 7:14, which I would translate “we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin.”

The first part of the sentence is a confessional statement, which implies that his readers share the same view. The first-person singular in the second part also appears to be a representative statement, in which Paul includes himself.

A problem for this view is that Romans 7:14, 23 seem to be incompatible with what is said about the believer’s liberation from captivity to sin in Romans 6:6, 14, 17–18, 22; 8:2. So, most of the early church fathers thought that Paul was describing an unregenerate person, and some modern commentaries argue with Moo that, “Paul is looking back, from his Christian understanding, to the situation of himself, and other Jews like him, living under the law of Moses.”

I argue that Paul speaks as one who belongs to the new era of Christ and the Spirit, but knows that he is still “fleshly,” and caught in the overlap of the ages. He does not argue this way to commend obedience to the law to Christians, but to highlight the need for the radical death to the law outlined in Romans 7:4–6, before moving on to expound the “new way of the Spirit.” Even those who delight in God’s law and desire to keep it find that they cannot adequately obey the law and please God, because of the ongoing power of sin and the flesh.

Frank Thielman 

I have always found Romans 3:5–7 difficult.

Who is asking the questions here? Is it Paul, or his imaginary interlocutor?
What is the logic behind the question in Romans 3:7?
Did Paul actually know people that made this sort of objection to God’s right to condemn the sinner?

Bob Yarbrough

Romans 11:26 is probably the verse about which I am the least certain that my interpretation is the best one. No matter which view I adopt, I see merit in other ones.

4. Who is Paul talking about in Romans 7 (and have you always believed what you believe now about the answer to that question)?

Doug Moo

I had originally held the erroneous (!) view that it referred to the “normal” Christian.

I now am pretty convinced he is referring to the Jew under the law.

Tom Schreiner

Some think the text isn’t difficult, but I have wrestled with the passage over and over, and I suppose I am not yet finished.

I would argue that

Paul writes about his own experience, and
Paul’s experience mirrors the experience of Adam and Israel.

In Romans 7:14–25 the fleshiness of the “I” is featured, and of course unbelievers are dominated by the flesh. But I think Paul also includes believers here in the sense that he considers the intrinsic capacity of the “I,” and such relates to believers since the flesh isn’t absent until the day of redemption.

David Peterson

It is important to distinguish between

what Paul says about the coming of the law and its effect historically (Rom. 7:7–13), and
the present-tense description of those who desire to keep the law, but discover that they cannot, because of sin and the flesh (Rom. 7:14–24).

For a long time I held the view that in the first of these paragraphs Paul is simply speaking in the name of Adam or as a representative of humanity in Adam.

Now I would add that he also seems to link Israel’s reception of the law at Sinai with Adam’s disobedience to the command he was given, which brought sin and death into the world. This composite biblical perspective is expressed in the first-person singular, not just for rhetorical vividness, but because of Paul’s “deep sense of personal involvement, his consciousness that in drawing out the general truth he is disclosing the truth about himself” (Cranfield). As noted in my answer to the preceding question, I see Paul in the second of these paragraphs speaking as a representative of those who may seek to keep the law in order to please God, but find themselves hindered by sin and the flesh. While this may have some retrospective reference to his life before Christ, it is also a testimony to his struggle as a Christian and a challenge to pursue “the new way of the Spirit” he outlines in Romans 8.

Frank Thielman

I have thought for a long time that the key to interpreting Romans 7 is not the identification of the “I” in the chapter, but Paul’s description of the toxic interaction between sinful humanity and the Mosaic law. His purpose is not to tell his own story, or any story, but to explain more fully the negative statements he has made up to this point about the Mosaic law. Paul has said that

the law brings knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20),
the law brings wrath (Rom. 4:15),
sin increases in the presence of the law (Rom. 5:20), and
the law arouses sinful passions (Rom. 7:5).

If all this is true, how can the law be “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12)?

In Romans 7, Paul explains that the fault lies not with the law but with the inability of human beings to extract themselves from their own tendency to rebel against God. The “I” is a rhetorical device that lends vividness to Paul’s argument by making it personal and individual, but it does not correspond exactly either to Paul himself or to any other person (such as Adam) or group (such as Israel). The interaction between Eve, Adam, and God’s commandment, and between Israel and the Mosaic law, as those interactions are described in Scripture, thoroughly inform Paul’s perspective in Romans 7, but the “I” is not a cypher for any of these people or groups.

Bob Yarbrough

Over the years I have been impressed by all the major options. There is textual warrant to varying degrees for each of them. Now in my 60s, I have returned to my original conviction that the core of the chapter (Rom. 7:7–25) describes a dedicated and growing Christian believer.

More particularly, the passage describes both:

how God’s law (which is spiritual, Rom. 7:14) by the Spirit’s aid, administers the conviction of sin (an emphasis of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones), and
how grace triumphs over the stubborn sarx (flesh) so that in the midst of our wrestling not against flesh and blood, we can exclaim, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (7:25)

Why? See Romans 8:1. But being in Christ Jesus does not relieve believers of, it rather consoles and stabilizes and guides them in, the struggles of Roman 7.

5. Why do you love the book of Romans?

Doug Moo

As one who has always been drawn to theology and the “big picture,” I love the way Paul in this letter tackles some of the most pressing theological issues in his day—and in ours: God’s gracious provision in Christ for salvation for all humans, the way salvation history fits together, and the imperative and shape of living out the gospel in daily life.

Tom Schreiner

I love the book of Romans because it clearly sets forth the gospel, reminding us that we are entirely saved by the grace of God and not by our own achievements. Romans reminds us that all the glory goes to God in our salvation and all the glory goes to God in redemptive history. He is working out his wise purposes, and thus we have massive reasons for hope. One of the greatest temptations is to give into despair and discouragement, and Romans shows us the splendor and majesty of God in the saving work of Christ, which is applied to the hearts of God’s people by the Holy Spirit. Romans is also great in that it teaches us that our love for one another can only come from the gospel of Christ. No other ideology, no other strategy will truly bring people together. We will only find unity in the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

David Peterson

I love it because it is such a carefully argued presentation of the gospel in the light of human need, both Jewish and Gentile.

I love it because Paul explains at length the power of the gospel to transform lives and enable a life of loving service to God and to other people.

In particular, the missiological dimension to Romans shows how belief in the gospel and love of neighbor should lead to gospel proclamation and the support of those who on the front line of gospel work.

Frank Thielman

I love Romans because it is such a clear, hopeful, joyful explanation of (1) who God is, (2) who we are as human beings, and (3) what God has done for us through Jesus Christ. It explains all this in a way that puts the whole Bible together.

At the same time, it is a practical text written to help every believer live a faithful life of service to God and others in the complex and difficult circumstances we face each day.

Bob Yarbrough

Calvin in his Romans commentary remarks how easily a question like this becomes a snare. Addressing a question similar to “Why do you love Romans?” namely, “What is the value of this epistle?” he expressed uncertainty—an uncertainty “due only to my fear that since my commendation of it falls far short of its grandeur my remarks may only obscure the epistle.”

But Calvin went on immediately to state why Romans deserves to be loved, and why I am partial to it myself: “among many other notable virtues the epistle has one in particular which is never sufficiently appreciated. It is this—if we have gained a true understanding of this epistle, we have an open door to all the most profound treasures of Scripture.”

In a word, I love Romans because more than any other single document of the Protestant canon, it is Romans that serves as unerring guide to the gospel meaning of the other parts as well as the whole. In concert with the rest of Scripture, it expounds eloquently how grace teaches the convicted human heart to fear, and how grace relieves those same fears, uniting the ungodly with Christ via imputation to them of Christ’s righteousness as the heard word ignites in them saving faith (Rom. 10:17).

Four Daily Prayers from John Calvin

In 1542, John Calvin published Catéchisme de l’Eglise de Genève (Catechism of the Church of Geneva). At the end of it, in an appendix entitled “Several Godly Prayers,” he included prayers that could be prayed through the day. The following were translated by Henry Beveridge and can be found in John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Tracts Relating to the Reformation, Volume 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 97. I have lightly updated updated the spelling and punctuation.

Prayer before the Day

My God—my Father and Preserver—who of your goodness has watched over me during the past night, and brought me to this day, grant also that I may spend it wholly in the worship and service of your most holy deity.

Let me not think, or say, or do a single thing which tends not to your service and submission to your will, that thus all my actions may aim at your glory and the salvation of my brethren, while they are taught by my example to serve you.

And as you are giving light to this world for the purposes of external life by the rays of the sun, so enlighten my mind by the effulgence of your Spirit, that he may guide me in the way of your righteousness.

To whatever purpose I apply my mind, may the end which I ever propose to myself be your honor and service.

May I expect all happiness from your grace and goodness only.

Let me not attempt anything whatever that is not pleasing to you.

Grant also, that while I labor for the maintenance of this life, and care for the things which pertain to food and raiment, I may raise my mind above them to the blessed and heavenly life which you have promised to your children.

Be pleased also, in manifesting yourself to me as the protector of my soul as well as my body, to strengthen and fortify me against all the assaults of the devil, and deliver me from all the dangers which continually beset us in this life.

But seeing it is a small thing to have begun, unless I also persevere, I therefore entreat of you, O Lord, not only to be my guide and director for this day, but to keep me under your protection to the very end of life, that thus my whole course may be performed under your superintendence.

As I ought to make progress, do you add daily more and more to the gifts of your grace until I wholly adhere to your Son Jesus Christ, whom we justly regard as the true Sun, shining constantly in our minds.

In order to my obtaining of you these great and manifold blessings, forget, and out of your infinite mercy, forgive my offenses, as you have promised that you will do to those who call upon you in sincerity.

Grant that I may hear your voice in the morning since I have hoped in you.

Show me the way in which I should walk, since I have lifted up my soul unto you.

Deliver me from my enemies, O Lord, I have fled unto you.

Teach me to do your will, for you are my God.

Let your good Spirit conduct me to the land of uprightness.

Prayer before Going to School

O Lord, who is the fountain of all wisdom and learning, since you of your special goodness has granted that my youth is instructed in good arts which may assist me to honest and holy living, grant also, by enlightening my mind, which otherwise labors under blindness, that I may be fit to acquire knowledge; strengthen my memory faithfully to retain what I may have learned: and govern my heart, that I may be willing and even eager to profit, lest the opportunity which you now give me be lost through my sluggishness.

Be pleased therefore to infuse your Spirit into me, the Spirit of understanding, of truth, judgment, and prudence, lest my study be without success, and the labor of my teacher be in vain.

In whatever kind of study I engage, enable me to remember to keep its proper end in view, namely, to know you in Christ Jesus your Son; and may everything that I learn assist me to observe the right rule of godliness.

And seeing your promises that you will bestow wisdom on babes, and such as are humble, and the knowledge of yourself on the upright in heart, while you declare that you will cast down the wicked and the proud, so that they will fade away in their ways, I entreat that you would be pleased to turn me to true humility, that thus I may show myself teachable and obedient first of all to yourself, and then to those also who by thy authority are placed over me.

Be pleased at the same time to root out all vicious desires from my heart, and inspire it with an earnest desire of seeking you.

Finally, let the only end at which I aim be so to qualify myself in early life, that when I grow up I may serve you in whatever station you maye assign me.

Amen.

Prayer before a Meal

All look unto you, O Lord; and you give them their meat in due season; that you give them they gather: you open your hand, and they are filled with all things in abundance (Ps. 104:27.)

O Lord, in whom is the source and inexhaustible fountain of all good things, pour out your blessing upon us, and sanctify to our use the meat and drink which are the gifts of your kindness toward us, that we, using them soberly and frugally as you enjoin, may eat with a pure conscience.

Grant, also, that we may always both with true heartfelt gratitude acknowledge, and with our lips proclaim, you our Father and the giver of all good, and, while enjoying bodily nourishment, aspire with special longing of heart after the bread of your doctrine, by which our souls may be nourished in the hope of eternal life, through Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen..

Prayer before Bed

O Lord God—who has given man the night for rest, as you have created the day in which he may employ himself in labor—grant, I pray, that my body may so rest during this night that my mind cease not to be awake to you, nor my heart faint or be overcome with torpor, preventing it from adhering steadfastly to the love of you.

While laying aside my cares to relax and relieve my mind, may I not, in the meanwhile, forget you, nor may the remembrance of your goodness and grace, which ought always to be deeply engraven on my mind, escape my memory.

In like manner, also, as the body rests may my conscience enjoy rest.

Grant, moreover, that in taking sleep I may not give indulgence to the flesh, but only allow myself as much as the weakness of this natural state requires, to my being enabled thereafter to be more alert in your service.

Be pleased to keep me so chaste and unpolluted, not less in mind than in body, and safe from all dangers, that my sleep itself may turn to the glory of your name.

But since this day has not passed away without my having in many ways offended you through my proneness to evil, in like manner as all things are now covered by the darkness of the night, so let everything that is sinful in me lie buried in your mercy.

Hear me, O God, Father and Preserver, through Jesus Christ your Son.

Amen.

The Kingdom of God — 5 Questions: 2 Scholars

I’m starting a new, unofficial series today, asking two experts the same set of questions but allowing them to give their own answers. Today I’m pleased to welcome two pastor-scholars to the blog:

Patrick Schreiner, author of The Kingdom of God and the Glory of the Cross , is assistant professor of New Testament language and literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon.
Nicholas Perrin, author of  The Kingdom of God: A Biblical Theology , is the Franklin S. Dyrness professor of biblical studies at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.

Their books are each part of excellent series designed to help the church have accessible introductions to key themes in biblical theology.

Schreiner’s book is in Crossway’s Short Studies in Biblical Theology series, edited by Dane Ortlund and Miles Van Pelt.
Perrin’s book is in Zondervan’s Biblical Theology for Life series, edited by Jonathan Lunde.

I asked them the old journalistic questions—who, what, when, where, why, how—about the kingdom of God.

1. What is the kingdom of God? How would you define it?

Schreiner:

Two difficulties present themselves in defining the kingdom.

First, since the kingdom is nowhere defined in the Scriptures, people tend to pour in their own meaning.

Some have equated it with heaven, saying the kingdom is the place where we go when we die.
Others have understood kingdom as referring to the church, equating the two.
Still others have seen the kingdom of God as simply ethics, Jesus’s announcement is a call to social action.

The second problem is that the kingdom of God is a huge concept that resists categorization. It is like trying to define America or Africa; they are too encompassing to delineate. Nick Perrin therefore calls it a tensive symbol: one that suggests multiple meanings. While I agree, this still leaves the concept rather abstract. Therefore, it is good to begin with a simple definition which incorporates the primary aspects.

I define the kingdom most simply as “the King’s power, over the King’s people, in the King’s place.”

These three loci (power, people, place) interrelate, and although they can be distinguished they never can be separated. They are like strands of a rope tightly twisted together.

Perrin:

Virtually by definition, the kingdom of God resists definition. Nevertheless, here goes . . .

First, I want to say that the kingdom of God is a story, traceable through the pages of the biblical canon. This is not to say that the kingdom is a fictive fairy tale or a metaphor. Rather the kingdom is a divinely orchestrated narrative that has been unfolding within history—from Adam to Jesus Christ and beyond.

Second, the kingdom is an eschatological society partially but not completely overlapping with the church. (Since the kingdom includes Jesus Christ at the center, along with a countless host of heavenly beings, it is not enough to say that the kingdom is made up of merely human people.)

Third, the kingdom is a sphere of reality conspiring with a community of human image-bearers in the task of restoring creation to the worship of the one true Creator God. In this respect, the telos of the kingdom is liturgical—oriented to worship.

2. Who rules over—and who lives within—the kingdom of God?

Schreiner:

God rules over the kingdom.

Numerous references speak of God as the everlasting king.

Psalm 45:6 says of God, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.”
Psalm 93:1–2 says, “The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty. . . . Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.”
In Psalm 47:2, the Lord is called “a great king over all the earth.”

However, God also chose to exercise his kingship through his agents.

Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were to be his kings, but they all failed. So a new and true King is promised. Through Jesus, Israel’s God reclaims his sovereign rule over Israel and the world.

If this is the case, then those who surrender to God’s chosen King are those who live within the kingdom. This means Christians already inhabit the kingdom as they are united with Jesus, but also await the coming of the kingdom in its fullness (see the next question).

Perrin:

If Adam was the initial royal-priestly ruler of the kingdom, Jesus Christ is our Second Adam, the singular one who through his death, resurrection, and ascension earned the right to reign over the kingdom of God eternally. Yet until Jesus returns in glory, the kingdom remains a conflicted reality.

In one sense, when someone comes to Jesus by faith, that person “enters the kingdom.”

Yet we have to remember that this is actually shorthand way of saying, “This person is joining the visible community that will in turn principally operate on the charitable assumption that such confessions are credible.”

Absolute certainty regarding one’s participation in the kingdom will not be finally secured until the end of history. At that time we will reign with Christ. The distinction between the present community and the eschatological community is crucial not least because it is important to distinguish the kingdom of God from the visible church.

3. When does the kingdom come? Is it already here, yet to come, or somehow both? 

Schreiner:

The kingdom is both here and not fully here (already/not yet).

The presence of the kingdom is affirmed in numerous texts.

Jesus announces that at the start of his ministry the kingdom of God is at hand (Mark 1:15).
Jesus asserts that the kingdom is here in Jesus’s body: “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:20–21).
The Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24). But Jesus says the presence of the kingdom is evident in the exorcisms. “If it is by the power of the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Jesus therefore is the kingdom in person (αὐτοβασιλεία). He is the king of the kingdom and therefore at his coming the kingdom arrived.

However, there are also indications that the kingdom was not present in its fullness.

In Luke 19 Jesus tells a parable because they supposed the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
In the Lord’s Prayer he teaches his disciples to pray that God’s kingdom would come.
Paul speaks of people not inheriting the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9) and Jesus handing the kingdom over to the Father at the end (1 Cor. 15:24).
In Revelation it speaks of the kingdom coming.

Therefore, it is best to let these two realities stand side by side rather than abandoning one of them. The kingdom has come, but is also still coming.

Perrin:

Vos and Ladd were right: the kingdom is, paradoxically, an already but not yet reality. But how we break this paradox down may leave room for variation and disagreement.

For my money, the appearance of Jesus signaled a definitive and all-encompassing arrival of the kingdom on the level of eternity, but also an arrival that is neither definitive nor all-encompassing in our perception of time. When Jesus appeared, he introduced a new era that involved not just a chunk of chronological time but within that timespan something we call eternity.

Think of it this way: If I were to put a stick of dynamite in a watermelon and explode it, all I would see would be a singular event (BOOM!). However, if we were to film the same event using time-lapse photography, we would see that the same explosion could also be understood as a series of mini-events (the skin of the watermelon breaking, the first pulp penetrating the outer shell, the shattering of the fruit—all in successive order). The kingdom is already and not yet because we have two different frames of reference: temporality and eternity. Both are true without contradiction. You might even say that Jesus changed the very nature of time.

4. Where is the kingdom found? Is it only a dynamic rule, or does it also have boundaries and inhabit space?

Schreiner:

The dynamic sense (rule or power) of the kingdom has been the leading view since Gustaf Dalman’s study Die Worte Jesu in 1898. George Eldon Ladd popularized this view in his numerous works on the kingdom, arguing that the abstract idea is the primary meaning.

However, power is empty without people and place. Place also affects people, and people affect place. This interrelationship between the three concepts is not meant to bewilder you, but to show that these concepts are concomitant; we can’t rip one of them out and use it as a primary definition or description of the kingdom. Gerhard Lohfink memorably said, “A kingdom without a people is no king at all but a figure in a museum.” What this means is that the kingdom does have boundaries and inhabits space.

This space is defined not only physically, but relationally and ideologically. John Howard Yoder was right to assert, “The kingdom of God is a social order, but not a hidden one.” The primary boundaries of the kingdom in the present are therefore found in the church. While the church is not the kingdom in its fullness, the church is a manifestation of the kingdom, or an outpost of the kingdom. As the church follows the King, they create spaces that look and smell like the kingdom. These spaces are both physical and relational.

Perrin:

The kingdom of God occupies a definite space, even if that space cannot be easily staked out in our three-dimensional reality.

When people say that the kingdom is God’s dynamic reign but not a space (a typical Platonic move very commonly found in the scholarly literature), they are effectively forcing their definition of the kingdom to fit their neat categories of space. (This is similar to the problem of how we think about time.)

But think about the inconsistency here, at least for scholars who—like myself—insist on Jesus’s ability to perform miracles or rise from the dead. On the one hand, if we insisted that Jesus’s miracles must obey the laws of scientific predictability, we would quickly conclude that the miracles never happened. (A number of Jesus scholars have taken this route.) However, the very logic which asks us to be open to the miraculous (a logic which usually asks us to check our naturalistic assumptions) should also invite us to construe kingdom space not as a mere metaphor but as a reality taking shape in history only to be finally realized at the eschaton.

5. How—and why—are Christians to live in the kingdom today?

Schreiner:

If the kingdom is the King’s power, over the King’s people, in the King’s place, then followers of Jesus are called to imitate Jesus in how he interacted with these three concepts. We are to employ the power God has given us, for the welfare of people, to bring them to their true home. We are to do this because Jesus called his disciples to exemplify and spread the same kingdom message as Jesus.

Though the Wisdom Tradition is regularly disconnected from the kingdom story, they give a helpful vision of what life in the kingdom looks like.

Life in the kingdom means delighting in the law of the Lord. The Psalms open by saying, “Blessed is the person who walks not in the counsel of the wicked . . . but his delight is in the law of the LORD” (Ps. 1:1–2).
Life in the kingdom means fearing the Lord. “Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccles. 12:13). These commandments are specified by Jesus as loving God and others.
Life in the kingdom means the people of the king will suffer righteously for the Lord.

Job, the Psalms, and Lamentations all concern the suffering of God’s people but points to how the kingdom will come.

Jesus came embodying these three realities. He delighted in God’s will, feared God, and suffered righteously. He did this for the sake of his people, to bring them to their true home. He demonstrated his power over the forces of darkness and the reign of sin. However, his power was perfected in his suffering on the cross. If the kingdom was the goal, then the cross was the means. At the cross, the people of God are saved from death, delivered from their sins and dark spiritual beings, and set on the path to returning home to their place. But this only happens through blood.

What this means for people today is that they best way to embody the kingdom is to take up our cross, follow Jesus, link arms with other believers in the church, and tell others about Jesus and how they can enter this good kingdom.

Perrin:

Jesus’s kingdom has its own distinctive set of ethical standards—ways of doing business. One could do no better than to say that hospitality, forgiveness, and faithfulness are the three outstanding values of the kingdom. By sharing bread, offering forgiveness, and remaining faithful, we set ourselves apart as image-bearing royal-priests. These three ideals (each tied to specific practices, qualities, and attitudes) set Jesus’s kingdom followers apart.

We have also been tasked with “signing” the kingdom. Such signing occurs when we proclaim the gospel, carry out spiritual warfare (exorcism), and offer healing (physical, emotional, or spiritual—the ancient world did not neatly distinguish between these three). Jesus performed these kingdom signs as an indication that new creation was on its way. In Acts, Luke tells the church’s story in such a way to underscore that the apostles were up to much the same thing.

Our job as Christians is not first and foremost to convert others but to sign the kingdom and then let the “fishing of men” take its natural place within that agenda. We operate this way not because God needs us, but because this is the appropriate response to the divine drama that through Christ is unfolding in our midst.

5 Rules to Help You Fail Less Often with Social Media

In his new, thoughtful, helpful book, The Common Rule: Habits of Purpose for an Age of Distraction (IVP, 2019), Justin Whitmel Earley talks about five things he has started doing to retain some sanity when it comes to social media.

First, I try to open a media site only when I have need to post or respond.

I don’t open it because I’m bored or have a spare moment. Those spare moments are reserved for staring at walls, which is infinitely more useful.

This is to say, I try to treat social media like work. I go to it once in the morning, once in the early afternoon, and once in the evening to put out content that I think will help someone or to engage with someone who is responding in a healthy way.

Second, I avoid unplanned scrolling.

Unplanned scrolling usually means I’m hungry for something to catch my eye—and plenty of strange, dark, and bizarre things are happy to catch the eye on social media.

Planned scrolling can be very different. If you carefully curate what is in your feed and when you will scroll, the dynamic radically shifts.

But in general, I believe we should be wary of the flicking thumb notion. The restless thumb often correlates to the restless heart.

Third, I turn off notifications.

There is no good reason I (or any human being) needs to know in real time who is liking my posts when and how much. There are some useful purposes for these stats, but not as an every-moment affair.

Fourth, I don’t use social media in bed.

Beds are most useful for rest and sex (and sometimes reading a book).

Social media is many things, but it is not a place of rest and should not be a place of sex—even though there are colossal temptations to use it for both.

Mixing social media and bed tempts me to confuse these lines and there is an easy way out of this unfair fight: throw the phone out of the bed.

Fifth, when I come across mean things said about me or someone I love, I employ the timeliness strategy of any veteran parent: ignore the temper tantrum. 

Words are not nearly as useful as silence. Social media is a useful medium for some things but anger is not one of them.

Earley goes on to write:

The more I use social media, the more I realize that the great danger is not in simply overusing social media, it is in living through social media.

The problem is not so much the way it wastes time, it is the way it frames time.

Without limits, we begin to see our whole life through it.

We see our whole day through a possible post.

We look around, wondering what in our field of view is worth taking a picture of.

We listen to every conversation for a tweetable quote, instead of trying to understand the human being who is talking.

We avoid disagreement in public, yet we express our most ardent emotions in carefully crafted Facebook replies or all-cap tweets.

This is no way to live.

In fact, it’s a miserable way to live. There is no love of neighbor in it, and there is no solution for it outside of becoming formed in the love story of Scripture.

If we wake every morning to social media, we will be formed in its lens on life and all the envy and self-righteousness that goes with that.

But fortunately there’s a different way.

The Bible tell us a story of us, not as people who were made to see and be seen or judge and be judged, but as children who were made to love and be loved. Only when we feel that in our bones can we use social media to love neighbors instead of trying to get their love.

 You can get the book or peruse the website.

J. I. Packer on the One Thing More Important Than Our Knowing God

J. I. Packer:

What matters supremely, therefore, is not, in the last analysis, the fact that I know God, but the larger fact which underlies it—the fact that he knows me.

I am graven on the palms of his hands [Isa. 49:16].

I am never out of his mind.

All my knowledge of him depends on his sustained initiative in knowing me.

I know him because he first knew me, and continues to know me.

He knows me as a friend, one who loves me; and there is no moment when his eye is off me, or his attention distracted from me, and no moment, therefore, when his care falters.

This is momentous knowledge.

There is unspeakable comfort—the sort of comfort that energizes, be it said, not enervates—in knowing that God is constantly taking knowledge of me in love and watching over me for my good.

There is tremendous relief in knowing that his love to me is utterly realistic, based at every point on prior knowledge of the worst about me, so that no discovery now can disillusion him about me, in the way I am so often disillusioned about myself, and quench his determination to bless me.

—Knowing God (20th anniversary ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 41–42, emphasis added.

“But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.” (1 Cor. 8:3)
“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Matt. 7:22–23)
“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?” (Gal. 4:9)
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Cor. 13:12)

How Traditional Marriage Became De-Condensed

Sarah Perry argues that virtually every technological advance is an example of “de-condensation.”

In the past, she writes, “time, artifacts, institutions, and even people are more condensed.”

But today:

Almost every technological advance is a de-condensation:

it abstracts a particular function away from an object, a person, or an institution, and

allows it to grow separately from all the things it used to be connected to.

Writing de-condenses communication: communication can now take place abstracted from face-to-face speech.

Automobiles abstract transportation from exercise, and allow further de-condensation of useful locations (sometimes called sprawl).

Markets de-condense production and consumption.

Alastair Roberts picks up on this theme and explains how marriage in particular has been de-condensed:

Marriage traditionally functioned as a socially integrating institution and has been regarded as sacred or holy by many societies as a result, right down to the present. Although the form it took could vary considerably from society to society, it generally served to unite or strengthen the bond between a range of different persons and practices.

It bound the generations together.

It bound different families together.

It related the sexes together.

It strengthened communities and cultures as marriages became the bearers of religious and social meaning.

It connected sex with procreation.

It connected private life with communal life.

The power of marriage and family as an institution arose in large measure from the vast array of functions that were condensed within it:

provision,

security,

welfare,

healthcare,

education,

investment,

employment,

public representation,

community,

religious practice, etc., etc.

However, over the last few centuries marriage has been radically de-condensed, many of its former functions outsourced to other institutions or drastically reduced through new technologies.

Whereas marriage was once a deeply meaningful necessity for people’s physical and social survival, now it is steadily reduced to a realm of sentimental community.

Without the force of necessity holding people together, the deeper integrating goods that marriage once represented are harder to perceive and its meaning is drastically diminished. Marriage becomes much weaker as an institution.

Marriage once powerfully represented

the condense and integrated meaning of human sexuality,

a deep mystery of the union of man and woman,

the wonder of the other sex and the deeper reality of our own,

the most fundamental common project of all human society,

the union of our most animal of drives with the highest of our ideals,

the connection between our bodies and our deepest selves,

the significance of the loving and committed sexual bond as the site where the gift of new life is welcomed into the world,

the difference between human making and human begetting,

the miracle of the development of new life,

the wondrous natural blossoming of private sexual unions into public families,

a bond that stretches over generations,

the deep union of blood,

the interplay and union of the sexes in all areas of human life and society,

the maturation of man and woman together and in union through all of the seasons of their lives, until they cross the threshold of death.

This meaning hasn’t entirely disappeared, but it is fast fading. Through many and various developments, the meaning of marriage in relation to human sexuality has been slowly eroded. Human sexuality is being de-condensed.

Contraception and prophylactics separate sexual relations from procreative potential and reduce the need for discriminating choice of partners, reducing sex to primarily genital stimulation.

Porn offers to satisfy our unruly lusts, compartmentalizing our sexuality.

Reproductive technology separates procreation from sexual congress. It abstracts bodily material from persons and biological parenthood from social parenthood.

Surrogacy abstracts child-bearing from motherhood. The coming together of bodies is no longer presumed to necessitate a uniting of selves.

Sexual reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy reinforce the abstraction of one’s gender from one’s natural bodily sex.

Social science de-condenses the function of ‘parenting’ from the condense reality of being a mother or father.

He goes on to argue that de-condensation directly threatens human beings themselves:

It isn’t just our tools, institutions, and societies that are being de-condensed, but our very selves. The humanity that will result will be much reduced in stature. What it means to be a mature human being, to be made in the image of God, is closely bound up with our creative and procreative activity and both of these dimensions of our humanity face imminent threats. Even if we survive such developments in relative material comfort, it will most likely be in a sort of puerile dependency on a stifling government.

You can read the whole thing here, where he applies the concept to work and other areas.

How We Can Know the New Testament Teaches that Jesus Is God

Jesus is not God the Father. He is God the Son.

As the Chalcedonian Creed teaches, the Son has always been truly God, consubstantial (of the same substance or essence) as the Father. In the incarnation, he assumed a human nature, making him truly man, consubstantial with us.

Some, however, deny that the New Testament calls Jesus God.

The NT often uses “God” (Greek: theos) as synonymous with “God the Father”—and, as  noted above, Jesus is not the Father.

But the NT also frequently uses “God” as the more generic term for the divine nature.

So we could put it this way: “God” is not always a reference to the Son in particular, but the Son is always God.

There are several examples where Jesus is explicitly called God. Here are the clearest ones:

John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [= Jesus] was God.”

John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God; the only God [= Jesus], who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

John 20:28, ”Thomas answered him [= Jesus], ‘My Lord and my God!’”

Romans 9:5, ”To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

Titus 2:13, “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”

Hebrews 1:8, ”But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.’”

2 Peter 1:1, ”To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

But the evidence for Jesus’ divinity is hardly limited to these examples where he is explicitly identified as God. Murray Harris, who wrote a definitive treatment on this question (Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus) has a helpful summary of the broader lines of evidence:

Even if the early Church had never applied the title [‘God’] to Jesus, his deity would still be apparent in his being

the object of human and angelic worship and of saving faith;

the exerciser of exclusively divine functions such as creatorial agency, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment;

the addressee in petitionary prayer;

the possessor of all divine attributes;

the bearer of numerous titles used of Yahweh in the Old Testament; and

the co-author of divine blessing.

Faith in the deity of Christ does not rest on the evidence or validity of a series of ‘proof-texts’ in which Jesus may receive the title θεός but on the general testimony of the New Testament corroborated at the bar of personal experience.

[Murray J. Harris, “Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce, ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 271.]

An excellent book that lays out all of the evidence—going beyond just the New Testament to include the Old Testament, the history of the church, the place of contemporary culture, and the role of missions—is The Deity of Christ, edited by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson as part of the Theology in Community series.

One of the most accessible books on this topic is Robert Bowman and Ed Komoszewski’s Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. They provide a helpful way to remember the case for Christ’s divinity through the acronym H.A.N.D.S.

Jesus deserves the Honors only due to God

Jesus shares the Attributes that only God can possess,

Jesus is given Names that can only be given to God

Jesus performs Deeds that only God can perform

Jesus possesses a Seat on the throne of God

Finally, it’s worth remember the helpful summary by the late great church historian Jaroslav Pelikan:

The oldest surviving sermon of the Christian church after the New Testament opened with the words: “Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God, as the judge of living and dead. And we ought not to belittle our salvation; for when we belittle him, we expect also to receive little.”

The oldest surviving account of the death of a Christian martyr contained the declaration: “It will be impossible for us to forsake Christ . . . or to worship any other. For him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs . . . we cherish.”

The oldest surviving pagan report about the church described Christians as gathering before sunrise and “singing a hymn to Christ as to [a] god.”

The oldest surviving liturgical prayer of the church was a prayer addressed to Christ: “Our Lord, come!”

Clearly it was the message of what the church believed and taught that “God” was an appropriate name for Jesus Christ.

[Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 173; emphasis added.]

The Two Questions That Will Determine Whether Our Culture Accepts Infanticide

Few people understand the culture of death in American law and medicine like Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. He has a blog post over at First Things identifying the two questions society has to answer, which will determine how accepted and engrained infanticide becomes.

Here is his conclusion:

How is it that infanticide has become justifiable when it was unthinkable in the years following World War II (German doctors were hanged at Nuremberg for killing disabled babies)?

The answer involves an increasing clash between contesting first principles vying for societal dominance.

Is human life sacred,

or does our moral worth depend on relevant personhood characteristics?

 

Is society’s ultimate purpose to protect all innocent human life

or to eliminate suffering—a category which both includes eliminating the sufferer, and, as with an unwanted fetus or newborn, the perceived cause of suffering?

The answers we ultimately give to these questions will determine whether infanticide is finally established as unexceptional.

You can read the whole thing here.