What sustained Jesus on that dark Friday we now call “Good,” on the single most horrible day in the history of the world? Joy. He saw ahead and was satisfied enough that what joy he tasted even then sustained him through the agony, distress, and anguish. Unlike the animals who stood in temporarily as substitutes for God’s people in the old covenant, Jesus willed it, with his human will. He embraced it. It pleased him to give his own life as a substitute for sinners — for the joy of the many who would believe and the glory of his Father. What wondrous love is this.

For every look at yourself, take ten looks at Christ.
Those are the words of Robert Murray M’Cheyne, a pastor in Scotland in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was born in Edinburgh in 1813, and what’s striking about his life (and that some still remember him today) is that he lived only twenty-nine years. He died of typhus fever in 1843.
Two years later, his friend and a fellow minister Andrew Bonar published Memoir and Remains of the Rev. Robert Murray M’Cheyne, which in time came to be published in over a hundred English editions. In Memoir and Remains appears a letter M’Cheyne wrote to a friend:
Learn much of the Lord Jesus. For every look at yourself, take ten looks at Christ. He is altogether lovely. Such infinite majesty, and yet such meekness and grace, and all for sinners, even the chief! Live much in the smiles of God. Bask in His beams. Feel His all-seeing eye settled on you in love, and [rest] in His almighty arms . . .
Let your soul be filled with a heart-ravishing sense of the sweetness and excellency of Christ and all that is in Him. Let the Holy Spirit fill every chamber of your heart; and so there will be no room for folly, or the world, or Satan, or the flesh. (293)
Ten looks at Christ for every one look at self. I suspect M’Cheyne’s counsel was striking in his day. But now, some 180 years later, what are we to make of it, living in an age so saturated in, so dominated by the ruse of the almighty self?
Ten looks at Christ for every one look at self was a countercultural word in M’Cheyne’s day. And how much more so for us now? And what healing might there be for us in heeding his counsel? How impoverished are we for our subtle and overt fixations on and fascinations with self, dwelling in a generation that both nourishes the love of self in us and conditions us for greater and deeper attention to self than we otherwise might dare venture?
So I want to ask you to come with me on a journey. I invite you in these moments — as much as you’re able — to put self aside, and together let’s take ten looks at Jesus. In this first session, we’ll take five looks at him from eternity past to the cross, and then in the second session, from his resurrection to eternity future. And with each look, we’ll anchor our glance at his glory in at least one key biblical text and also a key theological term that seeks to capture some of the majesty we find in Christ. So, ten looks at Jesus.
Look #1: He delighted his Father before creation.
Not only did he exist before creation — with all its implications for his deity — but, as divine Son, he delighted his Father, as we’ll see. First, John 1:1–3:
In the beginning was the Word [that is, the divine Son, who would come as Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jesus — the divine Son, who would, in time, become man — existed in the beginning with God the Father. John says (1) he was with God (literally, “toward God,” as in face to face) and (2) he was himself God. Before anything was created, he was. “All things were made through him, and [if that’s not clear enough, then] without him was not anything made that was made.” The Word, the divine Son, was not made. He was not created. He himself is God — God’s own fellow and God’s own self.
Our key term for Look #1 is preexistence. The divine Son, the second person of the Trinity, who we now know as Jesus of Nazareth and as the Christ, preexisted his human life (and all creation as well). Which we see deeply embedded in various ways throughout the New Testament:

First, he came. Mark 10:45: “The Son of Man came . . . to give his life as ransom of many.” John 3:13: “The Son of Man descended from heaven.” Hebrews 10:5: “Christ came into the world.” 1 Timothy 1:15: “Christ came into the world to save sinners.”
Second, he was sent. Galatians 4:4: “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman.” The owner of the vineyard sent his Beloved Son (Mark 12:6).
Third, he was given. John 3:16: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Romans 8:32: God the Father “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all.”

So, fully God himself, Christ was given, he was sent, he came. And he preexisted not only his coming but the whole creation. So what was he doing for the endless ages of eternity past before there was time itself? He delighted his Father. And Proverbs 8:22–31 personifies God’s wisdom in such a way that for two thousand years Christians can’t help but see the preexistent Christ here. Divine wisdom speaks,
The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work,the first of his acts of old.Ages ago I was set up,at the first, before the beginning of the earth. . . .When he marked out the foundations of the earth,then I was beside him, like a master workman,and I was daily his delight,rejoicing before him always,rejoicing in his inhabited worldand delighting in the children of man.
Divine wisdom rejoiced in God, and God delighted in his wisdom. Or, Son rejoiced in Father, and Father delighted in Son. And this delight of the Father in his Son, before creation ever was, helps to explain the amazing claim of Hebrews 1:1–2:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Did you catch that? The Father appointed the Son “heir of all things,” and then Hebrews adds “through whom also he created the world.” First, the Father, delighting in his Son, before creation, appoints him to be “heir of all things.” Then, with that appointment in view, God makes the world in order to fulfill his plan. Which means God made the world, and all its history, to give it as a gift to his Son.
So, Look #1, the eternal Son delighted his Father before creation, and from that delight, the Father appointed to make a world and a story that would make much of his beloved Son, that would have him as its center and climax.
Look #2: He became man.
The preexistent Son — eternally begotten, not made — became man. So not only was he sent and given and came, but he became. John 1:14: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The eternal Word, whom we heard about in John 1:1, “became flesh.” Meaning, he became man. He took on our flesh and blood, our humanity. 2 Corinthians 8:9: “Though he was rich [as God], he became poor [as man].”
But his becoming might pose a problem to our minds, depending on how we think about “becoming.” Does his becoming man mean that he ceases, somehow, to be God? Does he somehow empty himself of some of his deity, as if that were possible, so that he might become human? Do humanity and deity operate on the same level of reality, so to speak, as a zero-sum game?
Addition, Not Subtraction
Philippians 2:5–7 is the key text about his emptying:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, [being] in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [We’ll come back to verse 8 in a few minutes.]
What does it mean that he “emptied himself”? Three observations:

Note his deity. “In the form of God” coordinates with “equality with God.” He shared in the Godhead, as one divine person among others, and as God in his own right.
This emptying of himself related to prerogative, we might say, not divine power. He did not grasp or cling to divine rights that might have kept him from entering into the finitude and limitations of humanity, and our fallen world, and the suffering that would come to him by virtue of his being human and coming as a creature.
This emptying, then — as Paul clarifies in the next line — was a taking, not a losing. He “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

So, in becoming man, he did not jettison his deity, as if that were even possible, but he took our humanity — not subtracting deity, but adding humanity to his person — and thus he became man as well as God. Without ceasing to be God, he added humanity. He became the God-man.
Read More
Related Posts:

The woman has an incredible responsibility for the future blessings of her home. She gets the right and the privilege of finding the kind of man who will love her like Jesus loves the church. And once she has found that man, she gets to help, encourage, and spur him on so that everyone and everything her marriage touches will be blessed. Far from being a trophy wife, she is central and critical to the blessings of her home. 

3 The older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. – Titus 2:3-5 NKJV

Where We Have Been
As you will remember from last time, the apostle Paul used the word blasphemy when it comes to denying God’s view of womanhood. He was saying that if there were any older women, or anyone else for that matter, who was teaching a view of femininity that is contrary to God’s vision, then they have blasphemed God’s Word (a crime punishable by death in the Old Testament). Yeah, God takes womanhood that seriously. 
Instead of blaspheming God’s Word, Paul instructs older women how to come alongside the younger married women in the community. He calls on them to teach the younger women how to love their husbands and their children. Instead of loving them in a purely sacrificial way, which is so common for women, Paul admonishes the young women to become joyful “husband lovers.” Paul’s goal was not for women to slave away in the kitchen and dutifully serve their families as embittered slaves. On the contrary, he was calling women to be the lifeblood of the home. To fill the atmosphere and the aroma of her castle with abundant mirth, overflowing joy, and infectious delight for all who know her. 
These were the first two of seven essential concepts about womanhood that Paul was teaching, and again, we looked at these things in part 1. This week, in part 2, we look at the final five concepts that the older women are to teach to the younger women so that the Word of God will not be blasphemed. 
Supposing you are still here because you would not like the Word to be blasphemed, I say onward. 
#3 Teach Them to be “Moderate”
In addition to husband-loving and child-loving, Paul calls younger married women with children in the community to adopt a moderate lifestyle. The word he uses for sensible in the NKJV above (σώφρων – Soph-ron) really means embracing a life of moderation by living in the middle. He is encouraging women not to find themselves on the polls of things or to live in the extremes but to find her place somewhere in the balanced middle. Paul says if life were like a seesaw, then stand on the pivot point. This contributes to healthy womanhood. 
Now, before anyone can accuse Paul of being a world-class sexist, remember that he just commanded the men to be moderate as well (Titus 2:2). And, when we remember that Paul also gives this character qualification for anyone aspiring to the office of eldership (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8), we should not view this as being peculiar to women, but simply an excellent quality to cultivate for any human. Paul is not saying that men are more moderate and women have some work to do. He says we are all prone to excess, and both genders need work here. 
For instance, Men are disproportionately prone to the kinds of immoderation that lead to risk-taking, aggressiveness, adventure and merry-making, overworking, accumulating shotguns and rare bottles of whiskey (on the gluttony side of immoderation), and neglecting emotional aptitude, communication, relationship-building, and physical health (on the anorexic side of immoderation). While women can certainly be immoderate in these ways, it is far more likely that a woman will struggle with moderation in spending, emotional overexpression, communication, comparison, dieting, perfectionism (On the high side), and isolation, bitterness, and jealousy (On the low side). 
These are generalizations, but Paul’s point in this passage, in particular, is for women to live moderate lives. To be content with that, she has. To avoid excess. To avoid asceticism. To live in the middle. And by doing that, she will live richly and conform to the pattern God has for her. 
#4 Teach Them to be Pure
Along with moderation, Paul encourages younger women to remain pure and chaste in their behavior and life. Like a young virgin who is keeping herself pure for her future marriage (1 Corinthians 11:2), and the man who sets His mind on the pure truths of God (Philippians 4:8), the godly woman will also keep herself pure in mind, heart, and body within her marriage. She will prioritize holy purity with her God. She will weed out sin, give no occasion for the enemy, and offer to her husband the continual gift of tender, loyal, and loving fidelity for a lifetime. This, of course, will bless and build up womanhood. 
#5 Teach Them to be Workers at Home
Some of the strongest language in the Bible has to do with when, where, and how men and women will spend their time. For the man, He must leave the home to gather resources. If he lazily loiters around the house all day, twiddling his thumbs and refusing to go to work and provide for His family, Paul says that man is “worse than an unbeliever” and that he has “denied the faith” (1 Timothy 5:8). Ouch! On the other hand, a wife is called to stay home. And this is not unclear in this text. Paul says if a wife and mother leave their home to join in the rat race, neglecting her house duties, her husband-loving, and all the needs of her children, then she has blasphemed the Word of God. 
The reason Paul speaks this way is because men and women are not the same. We are equal in personhood yet distinct in our roles. As male and female, we have a divinely appointed complementarity in the roles God has given us. 
Read More
Related Posts:

The pastors, who have been aiming all along at the holy and enduring joy of their people, have their own joy made complete in seeing the advantage and gain of the flock. So it is, in the apostles’ complementary callings on the pastors and their people, a kind of holy conspiracy of joy: the leaders aspire to the work and joyfully do it; the people “let them do this with joy,” striving to not give their pastors reasons to groan; and that joyful labor by the pastors then brings about the greater joy, advantage, and benefit of the whole church.

Money and joy. Across the passages in the New Testament that speak to Christian leadership, these are the two most repeated themes. And we might see them as two sides of one motivational coin. That is, what gain are pastor-elders to seek (and not seek) in becoming and enduring as local-church leaders? Why pastors serve really matters.
What Makes a Pastor Happy?
The apostle Paul worked with his own hands, making and mending tents — which made him a good man to make the case for “double honor” (respect and remuneration) for pastor-elders who give themselves to church-work as their breadwinning vocation. However, necessary and good as it is for staff pastors to receive pay, Paul would not have greedy men (paid or unpaid) in either the pastoral or diaconal office. “Not a lover of money,” he specifies in 1 Timothy 3:3 (memorable in the King James as “not greedy of filthy lucre”). For deacons, in 1 Timothy 3:8: “not greedy for dishonest gain.”
So too, the final chapter of Hebrews moves seamlessly from “keep your life free from love of money” (Hebrews 13:5–6) to “remember your leaders” (Hebrews 13:7), and it’s no wonder. The one should go hand in hand with the other — as they do right at the heart of Peter’s passage for elders: “Shepherd the flock . . . , not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly” (1 Peter 5:2). The apostles would have us speak, in the same breath, of lives free from love of money and local-church leaders who exemplify that lifestyle.
The other side of the coin, then, is the positive motivation: joy. Paul begins 1 Timothy 3 by not only condoning but requiring the holy pursuit of joy in ministry: “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.” Pastor-elders must aspire to the work, that is, want it, desire it, anticipating that it will, in some important sense, make them happy. They should not have their arms twisted to serve, but genuinely desire such work from the heart — as Peter says, “not under compulsion, but willingly.” Even though prospective church leaders hear (and may have observed or even experienced) that this line of labor can be especially taxing emotionally and spiritually, they can’t seem to shake a settled desire and aspiration for the work. They desire it, from and for joy.
Gain That Matches the Work
Peter succinctly captures the two sides (not money but joy) of our motivation coin: “not for shameful gain, but eagerly.” Notice he doesn’t say “not for gain.” Rather, he says “not for shameful gain,” meaning that there is a gain without shame that he is not excluding. And in fact, he requires it. “Eagerly” presumes some motivation to gain — just that this gain is not “shameful.”
What, then, might be honorable gain in Christian leadership? We wouldn’t be right to rule out any financial remuneration (which would require ignoring Paul’s case). But we would be correct to rule out money as the driving motivation. What gain, then, are pastors to seek? We might say it like this: honorable gain in Christian ministry is benefit that befits the work. Or we might say: gain that is commensurate with the work.
Read More
Related Posts: