chongs · worship

Eight years ago, I read Dan Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics for the first time as a second-year seminary student. Much has changed since then, but in the Lord’s kindness, this past weekend I had the opportunity to present a paper virtually at the Text & Manuscript Conference, hosted by Dan Wallace and the team from the Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts in Plano, Texas.

Previous Text & Manuscript conferences focused on the themes of “Pen, Print & Pixels” and “Intersection”. This year’s topic was The Editio Critica Maior: Exegesis & Translation, and included a stellar line-up of plenary and seminar speakers (plus a star-struck student from New Zealand!)

Staying home in Auckland admittedly meant some not-so-great schedules (including 2 am starts…). However, the inconvenience was more than repaid for with a veritable feast of scholarship, as well as hearing first-hand a number of discoveries and potential “revelations” that might change how, and even what we read in our Bibles in future.

For those interested in some of the latest research in New Testament text and manuscript studies, I’ve jotted down a range of notes and reflections of each session I got to listen in on (live and delayed), and included some potential implications for bible scholars and students in future. While I’m not sure yet if recordings will be published in future, some of these papers will likely end up in a future monograph on conference proceedings or published elsewhere. If you’re interested in my paper on some of the punctuation and paragraphing changes in ECM Revelation, you can read the outline here, while the rest of it will hopefully end up in my PhD dissertation as part of a comparative methodology chapter.

General reflections

There were two overall key “aha moments” (and one “uh-oh” one) for me personally:

• Just because the Editio Critica Maior has published a textual decision (e.g. a new initial text, split guiding line, or segmentation in the case of Revelation), it doesn’t mean that scholars will agree with or adopt these decisions (see Greg Beale’s paper in particular), or that individual decisions won’t be revisited later on (which Matt Solomon highlighted regarding 2 Peter 2:18). It’s important to remember the initial text in the ECM isn’t presented as once-for-all infallible: it’s ultimately a Greek text based on decisions made by editors drawing from the knowledge, experience and resources they have at the time.
• Scholars are keen to engage with the ECM if given the opportunity and time to do so. On this, INTF (the publishers of the ECM) have been very forthcoming with updates, including pre-releasing the text of ECM Matthew online (available here). In the Q&A / panel discussion, Greg Paulson (one of the ECM editors) confirmed that the next books to be completed and published will be: ECM Matthew (INTF), Luke (INTF), Pauline Epistles (IGNTP), and Hebrews (Wuppertal). I assume the last of the NT volumes will be John (also IGNTP).
• Slightly controversial was when one presenter (see below) engaged with textual changes to ECM Galatians, which turned out to be based on unpublished details gleaned from a work-in-progress update at the SBL 2025 meeting. This meant none of us could actually look up “ECM Galatians”, nor comment further on some of the possible textual changes without the actual text in front of us. In an age where anything publicly shared becomes virtually impossible to redact or retract, I guess there needs to be some caution behind how much to release to the general public, and when.

Day 1 papers

In the first plenary, Greg Beale (RTS Dallas) read portions of his paper titled, “The Editio Critica Maior’s New Preferred Readings of the Solecisms in the Book of Revelation” (available here). It’s long been known that the Greek text of Revelation contains numerous instances of solecisms (i.e. where the grammar appears to be incorrect / inconsistent). Beale argued that the recently published ECM Revelation (searchable here) should not have removed some of these solecisms in favour of grammatically correct readings. His full paper cited textual changes in Rev 12:5 (NA28: ἄρσεν / ECM: άρρενα), Rev 4:7 (NA28: ἔχων / ECM: ἔχον) and Rev 5:6 (NA28: ἔχων / ECM: ἔχον) — he also touched on Revelation 12, although due to time constraints a lot of his paper was left unread. I appreciated the depth and detail in his paper, which was accompanied by a firm appeal for NT textual critics to retain the goal of determining the “original text” (an endpoint more recently phrased as “initial text”).

Next, Bruce Griffin (Keiser University, Nicaragua) provided an overview of how and why “the replacement of Erasmus’ textus receptus with Westcott-Hort seems to have had no substantial impact on theology in either Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant circles”. I learned that one of the reasons for this is because, for Roman Catholics, theology and dogma are derived from more than just the text. Griffin mentioned the identity of the woman in Rev 12 being a point of contention among Catholic authors that trundled along without reference to text-critical issues.

In the parallel seminar session, Liz Polczer Schrader (Villanova University) argued that the large number of split readings in ECM Mark (some with significant details included / excluded), supports considering Mark’s Gospel not as a singular entity, but as evidence of “narrative variants” and “pluriformity” at the origins of textual transmission. She expands on this argument in her book, An Abundant Bouquet (forthcoming 2026 with SBL Press). As I listened, I did wonder if by encouraging scholars to rethink the goal of textual criticism (searching for the original text / initial text) in this manner, we end up undermining confidence in one’s ability to study and refer to the “Gospel according to Mark” objectively. Then again, much of its contents were first orally narrated (and then translated and written down in Greek), so Mark and the earliest copyists / scribes may have had multiple accounts to contend with (certainly when it comes to the ending of Mark). It was a very stimulating paper, and I appreciated the opportunity to think deeper about what we mean when we say “Mark’s gospel”.

Next, delegates reconvened together to hear Jeff Cate (California Baptist University) detailed nine examples in the forthcoming ECM Matthew where intrinsic evidence may have been overlooked when determining the “Matthean muddles”. Cate pointed out overlooked intrinsic evidence that could help explain textual variants at Mt 27:17-18 (“Jesus Barabbas”), Mt 5:44 (“bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you”), Mt 16:2b-3 (regarding the weather and signs of the times), Mt 17:21 (“this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting”), Mt 18:11 (“for the Son of Man came to save the lost”), Mt 19:20 (“from my youth”), Mt 23:14 (whole verse), and Mt 27:49 (spear piercing). I don’t think I managed to follow this paper as closely (could have been the 4.15am local time slump – but as my daughter commented, 9 examples equates to about 3-4 minutes on each one!). Thankfully, Cate has at least shared his slides (on the CSNTM website and his Academia profile) – though the eventual published version may help readers to make better sense of his arguments.

After “lunch”, Elizabeth Shively gave the second of four plenary sessions focusing on the impact of ECM’s textual changes on literary and theological readings in Mark’s gospel, focusing mainly on the prologue and ending(s) of Mark. Amidst her detailed engagement with some of the the textual changes (as part of a forthcoming commentary), she made two helpful points: “Textual criticism does not precede exegesis: it shapes it.” Also, “What matters is not how much MSS support there is, but also what it does regarding exegesis.” I found it encouraging to see both plenary speakers on Day 1 willing to engage with the textual changes in the ECM as they are preparing their commentaries. In far too many biblical commentaries, the text is just received as is with little to no discussion of text-critical issues.

Matt Solomon (who has previously studied the entire textual transmission history of Philemon) presented a paper titled: “ECM and the Text of 2 Peter: Observations and Explorations”. He honed in on 2 Peter 2:18 and the impact of the change between the editors preferring ὀλίγως in the 1st edition of ECM, and ὄντως in the 2nd edition for ECM (the impact of the textual change is that it’s not just new converts who are being deceived, but a more seasoned one). Again, I appreciated the exegetical value of thinking deeply about textual criticism.

Tyler Craft, Mikael Parsons/Spencer Danley and Matthew Whidden presented while I was making final preparations and presenting my paper, so I didn’t get to engage with these papers as much. Mikael Parsons and Spencer Danley engaged with ECM Acts by pointing out that many of the textual changes in there aren’t covered in Hugh Houghton’s latest textual commentary. Tyler Craft’s research focused on how κύριος without ὁ in the Synoptic gospels and Acts would be an argument in favour of viewing the use of κύριος as a title, akin to LORD in English (I’ll have to dig deeper, but he seemed to have a lot of data on his side). I’m also looking forward to digging deeper into Matt Whidden’s research into preparing an archetypal family 1 witness for ECM Matthew and Mark (which will eventually be added to the digital ECM directly).

Day 2 papers

Greg Paulson (Research Associate and Project Coordinator at the INTF) gave a thorough and helpful plenary that explained the Coherence-based Genealogical Method that sits behind the ECM textual decisions. He looked at eight sample passages in order to show the usefulness and limitations of the CBGM method in their work. It was helpful to hear him explain the working behind the ECM in an accessible way (which he has also done in this article: https://criticaltexts.com/the-one-with-the-cbgm/). He was also open about the limitations of the CBGM, citing in particular 2 Peter 3:10 where the method wasn’t able to help their decision-making at all. However, this made me wonder why the editors of ECM Catholic Epistles decided on printing a conjecture οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται “not be found / disappear”, if there was no helpful evidence from CBGM to back up a change to earlier NA editions (SBLGNT and THGNT omit the οὐχ). If applying intrinsic text-critical principles, εὑρεθήσεται could be the more difficult reading (and thus could have been kept as is)?

Another split session followed. In the main hall, Christopher Hutson (Abilene Christian University, Texas) presented a paper detailing some exegetical reflections on upcoming changes to the text of Galatians based on the CBGM. As per his abstract: “The ECM text of Galatians includes eleven changes from NA²⁸. Six are inconsequential; two significant for understanding the structure of Paul’s argument; and three for thinking about Paul’s theology.” However, the fact that these changes haven’t actually been officially published yet (a point Greg Paulson brought up in the ensuing Q&A) means more qualification would have helped. Perhaps “Exegetical Reflections on Potential Changes to Galatians in the ECM” would have been a more appropriate title!

Nevertheless, the paper did spark some reflection on what would happen if ECM Galatians did commit to these textual changes (whether as the new initial text, a split guiding line, or something else). Of these, I personally think the most notable would be a decision in Galatians 2:20 between υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (“son of God”, with most manuscripts and a B rating in UBS6) and θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ (“God and Christ”, with P46 and 03).

If the ECM editors end up picking the latter reading, not only could it impact debates around πίστις Χριστοῦ (faith in Christ / faithfulness of Christ), we would end up with a Greek edition (and subsequent Bible translations) with an unexpectedly direct declaration of the divinity of Christ from an undisputed Pauline letter: “And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God and Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (this isn’t unprecedented in the NT though: we have 1 Timothy 2:13 “God and Saviour Jesus Christ”, and a similar address also appears in James 1:1 “James, bondservant of God and Lord Jesus Christ”). Hugh Houghton’s latest textual commentary seems to maintain the status quo “in keeping with the immediate context and Pauline theology more generally” (Houghton TCGNT, 456), but if we applied the “harder reading to be preferred” principle, or followed more recent evidence from Stephen Carlson and Tommy Wasserman, then θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ could well become the new initial text in ECM (and subsequently in UBS7 or NA30 at the earliest). It’ll be interesting to follow the eventual decisions of the ECM on this and other textual changes to Galatians and the rest of the Pauline epistles in the coming years.

It was unfortunate how parallel scheduling prevented more people hearing Oleksandr Okhrimenko (University of Birmingham) present a wonderful paper on Apostolus Christinopolitanus, a 12th century manuscript that contains the oldest and most complete Cyrillic translation of Acts and Epistles. Amidst the backdrop of ongoing war in Ukraine, it was an honour to hear first-hand about this biblical manuscript, a cultural treasure produced in medieval Ukraine during a time of cultural flourishing. Featuring text and annotations interfacing Cyrillic, Greek, Latin and even some Glagolitic script (I had to look it up too!), the manuscript attests to exceptionally capable and cross-cultural transmission of the Word of God. Remarkable!

Martina Vercesi (part of the BICROSS team at Leuven University) presented another bombshell paper showing that, based on comparative study between the Greek and Latin texts in bilingual manuscripts (e.g. GA629 and 79), so-called “Western” unique readings in the Greek text of 05 and 06 are more likely influenced by the interlinear Latin text alongside it. If true, these Greek textual variations need to be reconsidered as having Latin textual ancestry (something NT text critical methods, including the CGBM, isn’t really able to account for). For those of us who read bilingually (e.g. English and Chinese) on a regular basis, this makes such intuitive sense, and it will be very interesting to see where this research leads and how it will affect the ECM text and its presentation in future (for example, if the IGNTP team already tag Gregory-Aland numbers with an additional “k” for catena manuscripts, perhaps bilinguals could be treated in a similar fashion).

After lunch, Travis Williams (Tusculum University) presented an excellent paper on the use of “our” / “you (pl.)”. You can read his paper in full here, but basically, he used a range of statistical methods to comb through every instance of similar-sounding 1st and 2nd-person plural pronouns (e.g. ἡμεῖς/ὑμεῖς) across the extensive witness data now preserved in the ECM text. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman have previously advanced arguments of intentional and theologically-motivated scribal changes (“the orthodox corruption of the New Testament”). Based on very detailed analysis of the ECM textual base and applied specifically to 1 Peter, Williams argued that rather than random changes, scribes tended to change from “you” to “we” (perhaps for communal inclusion), did so more frequently within the epistle text genre, and did so more frequently in passages of theological or soteriological importance. Based on this, he also offered good evidence for reconsidering some of the textual changes in ECM (e.g. he argues for 1 Peter 2:21 “Christ also suffered for you/us”, and 1 Pet 2:24 “He himself carried up our/your sins in his body on the tree”). I personally wondered if this research would have more of an impact in parts of the NT where the difference between “you” and “we” would be more exegetically significant. Nevertheless, this is groundbreaking work that’s possible with the availability of MS transcriptions (created by hundreds of volunteers over the years).

Nelson Hsieh (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and author of this helpful dummies guide to reading the NA28 apparatus!) closed out the presented papers with a considered analysis of how often the ECM and THGNT text has shifted closer to the Byzantine text, which has historically been disregarded or downplayed by earlier editors of the UBS and NA editions that we rely on today. It was a helpful summary on some of Hsieh’s dissertation work (memes and all!), and I look forward to reading the published monograph version (I think it’s forthcoming with Brill).

For any other readers who were also at the conference, what did you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

In the next two weeks, some of the best and brightest New Testament scholars will be descending upon Boston, Massachusetts for the ETS and SBL Annual Meetings. For a certain group of Bible nerds, the highlight of the event will undoubtedly be the Monday 24 November all-day feast of sessions relating to New Testament textual criticism (NTTC). There’ll be an important update on ECM Matthew, and one of the TC sessions will be completely focused on discussing the contents and impact of one book – A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Hugh Houghton. Why?

Anyone who’s read a UBS Greek New Testament will have at some point come across the seemingly arcane collection of letters and symbols at the bottom of each page. For example:

Hugh Houghton’s book patiently walks through over 1000 of these textual unit variations, and gives a reader-friendly summary of why the UBS text printed has been chosen, what are other possible options regarding the earliest text, and what issues to consider in order to discern the most appropriate translation of the NT text there.

The last Textual Commentary like this was written by Bruce Metzger (1st edition 1971, 2nd edition 1994), and is still the go-to resource for almost every serious student, pastor and scholar interested in the Greek New Testament. Indeed, Houghton has published a once-in-a-generation commentary full of helpful, up-to-date insights that will shape biblical studies in the decades to come.

But… I don’t think you should buy it just yet.

Not because it’s no good. It is excellent! From what I’ve read so far, it certainly is a worthy successor — and in many places, I dare say an improvement — over Metzger’s textual commentary. Even Houghton’s introduction alone (pp. 1*–36*) is worth the price of the book, and ought to be essential reading for anyone engaged in biblical studies. In less than 40 pages, he provides an excellent summary of everything related to establishing the New Testament text, in language that’s not overly technical, and abreast of the latest research and advances in textual criticism. In places, there are even some helpful correctives for much of the prevailing scholarship in support of a thoroughgoing alteration or “orthodox corruption” of the NT text in the earliest manuscripts (e.g. Bart Ehrman).

Unfortunately though, there’s a growing list of all kinds of errors scattered throughout the 1st edition (currently the only available edition worldwide). As of today, there’s already 30 different items on the list of corrigenda (things to be corrected). And on that basis, I would actually suggest Greek NT students and translators etc. wait until a corrected edition (in print or digital form) comes out before purchasing a copy. You can read more details and some examples in the following short note (also available on my Academia page) – and I’ll add a few screenshots below of corrections I’ve had to make to my personal copy.

What are your thoughts? What have you seen in Houghton’s new textual commentary that excites or concerns you? 

Baptism sermons can be hard. A busy auditorium, lots of first-time visitors, the anxiety of giving a “home-run” talk… and an order of service with more moving parts than usual. How good it is that our Father delights in us already through His Son, even before we have uttered a word for Him! What I’ve learned so far from trial and error, from experienced preachers like David Cook and Sam Chan, and trusting the Holy Spirit’s guidance amidst my inexperience, is to plan and prepare sermons on special occasions like you would for a wedding: a milestone moment, with all kinds of people there, but not to see you. And time is short. So on days like these, I’m slowly learning to keep my sermons simple, expository and practical.

For context, this past term our church has been going through our statement of faith line-by-line during our sermons (at PCBC English we’ve called the series “This We Believe”). So with our church’s teaching on the Trinity relatively fresh in my mind, at short notice I was able to take the passage on Jesus’s baptism in Matthew 3:16-17, and prepare that as a shorter sermon (which was superbly translated into Cantonese by Ps Barry, another proud dad!).

Thankfully, during a baptism service you also get to lean in on how powerfully and vividly the gospel is proclaimed and pictured during the rest of the worship service. In our case, to hear five clear testimonies of faith in Jesus (including our eldest child!), and to play a small part in “picturing” the death and rebirth of each follower in Christ, all helps to take the pressure off coming up with unrelated illustrations, and just simply preaching a clear message from a Bible passage.

At the same time, because of the nature of the service (lots of non-Christians and visitors from different church backgrounds), I personally have found it helpful at some point in the sermon to give a brief apologetic for why our church practises believer’s baptism, and to offer a gospel invitation (something I learned from Joe Fleener’s many excellent wedding sermons).

Here’s my script from that morning, lightly edited for clarity (you can also listen to the sermon preached in English and Cantonese here).

Signs of Love 愛的記號 (Matthew 3:16–17)

Sermon #279 preached by William HC on 2 November 2025 for PCBC’s Combined Baptism Service. Big idea: Our triune God pictures a perfect family, provides a promised salvation, and presents a pattern for unity.

[Read Matthew 3:16-17]
[Introduce myself and Ps Barry, acknowledge family & friends]

About Baptism

Let us explain baptism briefly. Here at PCBC, we don’t baptise babies. Nor do we baptise every adult. Rather, we baptise believers as one of the family habits the risen Lord Jesus instructs his followers to do as we make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19-20). To be immersed under water and raised again vividly portrays the spiritual rebirth each believer has experienced by God’s grace (c.f. Rom 6:1-4). Like a wedding ring symbolises the union of marriage, baptism symbolises every believer’s journey from death to life in Jesus.

To Annie, Jun, Stacy, Eden and Kardia… we’re so grateful for the Holy Spirit’s work in you already. At the end of your water baptism, you will receive gifts and well-wishes. You will be formally added to the membership of PCBC (make sure you sign the big book on your way out!). Yet by God’s grace, you still get to decide, day after day, to keep trusting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

And to family and friends, I know that today the thing that would bring these five the most joy would not be simply to receive a gift from you. Rather, if you are here and do not know Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, their greatest joy would be to know for certain you too have received the free gift of God’s grace. As Romans 10:9 states: “…if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Introduction: 💖

Let me ask a question: How do you show love? Turn to the person next to you for a quick experiment. And on the count of three, show them some love. 3… 2…1…

Who showed it this way? [hand heart / 心形手勢]
Who showed it this way? [finger heart / 手指心形]

There’s lots of other actions that symbolise love, of course. A phone call to ask: “Have you eaten yet?” A bouquet of flowers. An act of service. Affirming words. We all show love differently.

And yet here is how God shows love: by appearing to our world as Father, Son and Spirit. One God in three persons: our blessed Trinity.

Now I get it – for many of us, talking about the Trinity feels as exciting as answering the final question on a maths exam. “No thanks – I’ll leave it to the experts.”

Yet listen to Gary Millar explain in his book, Need to Know:

“It may seem strange now, but for the first 400 years or so of the Christian church, more energy was poured into working out the right beliefs about the Trinity than anything else. Men like Irenaeus, Augustine and Athanasius… made it very clear that to know God is to meet the Trinity.”

Each of you have professed to know God and live for Him. This is why in a few moments, you five will be baptised in the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And before we do so, I’d like to briefly explain three lovely things our triune God shows us from this passage we just heard (Mt 3:16-17): a perfect family, a promised salvation, and a pattern for unity.

So let us first consider how:

1. Only our Triune God pictures a perfect family

Listen again to Matthew 3:16:

“As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.””

Author and podcaster Glen Scrivener, reflects on this scene this way: “to know God we should look at him. And what do we see? A loving Union of three…”

Here is Matthew —an eyewitness and one of Jesus’s close followers—paying careful attention to the events that took place at Jesus’s baptism. And in the same waters where God’s people once made a risky crossing into new beginnings (Joshua 3-4), our Triune God announces a new beginning: as a picture-perfect family. With a proud Father who declares to the world: “This is my beloved son. I’m so pleased with Him.”

Of course, we are two proud dads here [~don’t cry!]… and two thankful pastors. Like many of you, we are so grateful for God’s gracious hand in our families.

Yet how much more delighted must God the Father be at Jesus’s baptism… when he speaks over his one and only Son – “I’m so pleased with you!” How special it must have been for our Lord to experience the closeness and delight of his Father, and the presence of his Spirit.

The photos you take today will be treasured memories. Yet here at Jesus’s baptism is a more perfect picture. This is the gospel: when you unite in faith to our triune God, you go from being a total outcast… to delighting in the closest, deepest love ever known. You become fully known, fully loved in Jesus, by the Father, with the Spirit.

A precious family. One that has always been, and will always be, full of love. Only our Triune God pictures this.

But not only that, for every believer here…

2. Only our Triune God provides a promised salvation

One thing you’ll have noticed by now is that there are differences between Jesus’s baptism, and the ones here today. For starters, behind us is Auckland water, not water from the Jordan River. We’re in an auditorium in Pakūranga, not in the wilderness of Judea. And the ceremony is conducted in English and Cantonese, not Aramaic or Greek.

Yet just as today’s baptisms point to deeper spiritual realities, Jesus’s baptism points to deeper spiritual realities for each of us today.

Because here is a picture of Father, Son and Spirit, presenting a long-awaited redemption. When our first parents failed to obey God’s good word in the garden, all seemed lost. But the Father promised that one day, a son of Adam would crush the serpent’s head. And now, the voice of Heavenly Father here (Mt 3:17) in actual fact echoes an important verse from the Old Testament.

600 years before Jesus’s baptism, the prophet Isaiah predicted this Chosen One with these words:

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.”

A delighted voice. A chosen servant. God’s Spirit upon him. Sound familiar?

Here at Jesus’s baptism, the spotlight shines on the chosen one all of humanity has been longing for. As Matthew and the other gospel writers go on to describe, only Jesus had his Father’s authority to forgive sins, to calm the storms, to feed the multitudes, to heal the sick, to raise the dead – including his own body, after He dies for sinners on the cross. This is the greatest symbol of love (†) – do you believe this?

Yet the Bible is also clear that every member of our Triune God saved us. As Ephesians 1 tells us: praise the Father who chose us, The Son who saved us, The Spirit who seals us (Eph 1:3-15). To paraphrase our opening hymn: “God in three persons, saving you and me.” (♪ 三位一體神，拯救你同我 ♪)

And just as we needed our Triune God to save us…  we need God in three persons to keep growing us. None of us can live the Christian life alone! It is the Spirit who will grow in us fruit such as faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5:22-23). It is the Son who is the Author and Finisher of our faith as we run the race He has pioneered (Heb. 12:1-2). It is the Father who will keep delighting in us and showing His steadfast love to us, just as he did the day He made us.  

To the five of you, I can’t wait to see what kinds of spiritual gifts God grows in you, as you keep trusting and following Him. Some of the most faithful prayer warriors in God’s army are the older saints among us like Annie. Some of the best missionaries in God’s service are next generation believers like Eden, Kardia, Jun and Stacy, who cross cultures with their identities firmly anchored in Christ.

And yet each of you belong in God’s family – not because of your gifts, or your talents, or your achievements. You’re not worth more or less based on the language you speak, the years you’ve lived, the gender God gave you. Rather, your true identity and worth comes from being loved by our Triune God who has provided His promised salvation.

And finally, very briefly,

3. Only the Triune God presents a pattern for unity

Look again at our verse. Did you notice at Jesus’s baptism how each member of the Trinity plays a different part? The Father is not hovering like a dove. The Spirit didn’t get wet. There is unity and difference. Yet no one is worth more or less. Here in the life of our Triune God, we are offered a pattern for unity in diversity.

Brothers and sisters, our church is in the midst of many big changes. They are rebuilding the roads right outside our doorstep. Four of you have committed to our church family despite many uncertainties about our English ministry in 2026. And just 7 days ago, our church couldn’t reach a consensus over calling an Assistant Pastor.

So how do we show love amidst these challenges? Whether you show love this way [finger heart]… or this way [hand heart]… only our Triune God presents the ideal pattern of unity. After all, there is no blame game within the Trinity. No finger pointing or resentment between Father or Son. No unforgiveness or bitterness between Son and the Spirit.

And so in that case, let us keep in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:13-26). Let us unite under our Father’s will. Let us repent and believe in the Lord Jesus day by day. Because just as Paul once told the Corinthians, it is the same Spirit, the same Lord (Jesus), the same God (and Father) who is at work in every church, no matter how chaotic. (1 Cor 12:4-6). Praise God for showing us unity comes not from our skin colour, or what language we speak, but from our triune God… who pictures for us a perfect family, who has provided a promised salvation, and who presents us a pattern for unity in the days ahead. Let’s pray.