1.) basically, Spurgeon in Morning & Evening today is great
and you can sign up to receive daily emails of Romans 7 commentary at johnstott.org
2.) Romans 7 & Romans 8 really summarize the Christian experience in ways that can become so strengthening and help us remain assured of God's love in the midst of our struggles with sin. And Stott is a master teacher/explainer of God's word. I was stunned by how enlightening this morning reading was:
Paul lays down the principle which he assumes his readers know: *the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives* (1). Or better, ‘the law is binding on a person only during his life’ (RSV). The word for ‘is binding on’ or ‘has authority over’ is *kyrieuo*, which is rendered ‘lord it over’ in Mark 10:42, RSV. It expresses the imperious authority of law over those who are subject to it. But this authority is limited to our lifetime. The one thing which invalidates it is death. Death brings release from all contractual obligations involving the dead person. If death supervenes, relationships established and protected by law are *ipso facto* terminated. So law is for life; death annuls it. Paul states this as a legal axiom, universally accepted and unchallengeable.
RP: So, duh Rob, when I died with Christ.... my relationship was literally changed... I am not under its authority for salvation... all contractual obligations have ceased because.... somehow, mysteriously, I have begun the eternal life which Christ has given me. Given you! Can't you think of all the biblical passages impacting this? ("Christ has delivered us from the present evil age." etc)
Anyway, somehow, sitting there in Starbucks in between appointments... reading my email on my blackberry... the Holy Spirit birthed hope in me. And I need all the hope I can get. How 'bout you?
3.) CS Lewis in Mere Christianity has a chapter called "Christian Marriage". Excerpt:
The idea that ‘being in love’ is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds nothing, then it should not be made. The curious thing is that lovers themselves, while they remain really in love, know this better than those who talk about love. As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law is not forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that passion’s own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously something which their passion of itself impels them to do.
And, of course, the promise, made when I am in love and because I am in love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live, commits me to being true even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way. He might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry. But what, it may be asked, is the use of keeping two people together if they are no longer in love? There are several sound, social reasons; to provide a home for their children, to protect the woman (who has probably sacrificed or damaged her own career by getting married) from being dropped whenever the man is tired of her. But there is also another reason of which I am very sure, though I find it a little hard to explain. rest of chapter
