The Coherence Of The Old Testament Covenants

I liked this quotation from a paper by Michael A. Grisanti on "The Davidic Covenant":

Every student of the Bible must realize that the various biblical covenants revealed in the OT are interconnected. One must not keep the promises they contain separate from each other as mutually exclusive sets of covenant provisions (like distinct post office boxes). Rather, throughout the OT God is weaving a beautiful covenant tapestry, weaving each new covenant into the fabric of the former covenants... The recognition of continuity or sameness and discontinuity or differences in God's revelation of the biblical covenants must accompany belief in progressive revelation. As God reveals His will for mankind and Israel in particular, He repeats certain features already presented and introduces other brand-new elements. Students of God's Word must take great care not to ignore either side of that coin. [MSJ 10:2 (Fall 99), 245]

Since Grisanti is from the Master's Seminary, he might perhaps emphasize more discontinuity than I would prefer, but overall I still think the above is a good statement. No doubt the overall message of the Bible is one of renewal and not revolution. Unity, continuity and development are more essential than discontinuity and brand newness. Also, while I don't think there is necessarily a strictly linear development of the 'covenant tapestry', certainly the whole is still teleological and only comes together properly and makes its complete sense in the person of Jesus.

Packer on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics

I was reading an article by J. I. Packer called "Encountering Present-Day Views of Scripture" (originally from a 1978 publication), in the book Honouring the Written Word of God: Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer Volume 3. I thought this quote was good regarding a common malpractice in hermeneutics because of a view of inerrancy. Genesis 1 being a particular flashpoint in relation to the creation-evolution/age-of-the-earth debates, as also OT prophecy as related to millenial views and the prospects of ethnic Israel and Judaism. If you don't read Scripture the same way as someone else, there can be too quick a jump to a charge or suspicion of doubting the trustworthiness, authority, or inerrancy of the Scriptures. Anyhow, here is the quote:

A warning should perhaps be voiced here against the psychological trap (for it is psychological, a matter of falsely associated feelings, rather than logical, a formal mistake in inference) of supposing that the confession of inerrancy involves a commitment to treat all narrative and predictive passages in Scripture as if they were written according to the conventions that would apply to ordinary English prose used today for these purposes, rather than the conventions of their own age and literary genre. Put thus, the mistake sounds too silly for anyone to make, but in fact it is made frequently: hence Pinnock's complaint that not enough care is taken to attach the necessary hermeneutical qualifications to inerrancy as an idea. And one can see how the mistake happens: people feel, sincerely if confusedly, that the only natural, straightforward way to express their certainty that the contents of Scripture are contemporary in their application is to treat Scripture as contemporary in its literary form. So, for example, Genesis 1 is read as if it were answering the same questions as today's scientific textbooks aim to answer, and Genesis 2 and 3 are read as if they were at every point prosaic eyewitness narratives of what we would have seen if we had been there, ignoring the reasons for thinking that in these chapters "real events may be recorded in a highly symbolic manner," and books like Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation are expounded in total disregard of the imaginative conventions of apocalyptic. But it does not follow that be-cause Scripture records matters of fact, therefore it does so in what we should call matter-of-fact language.

Calvinism is making a comeback?

In another one of the Yahoo groups I participate in, someone pointed out this article in Christianity Today:

Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback and shaking up the church

It is an interesting read about the resurgence of Calvinistic/Reformed teaching amongst the American Evangelical scene, particularly the young Evangelicals. For good and ill, I think this last quote captures some of the distinctive post-modern essence of contemporary perspectives of Calvinism today:

It's because the young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. Whatever the cultural factors, many Calvinist converts respond to hallmark passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. "I really don't like to raise any banner of Calvinism or Reformed theology," said Eric Lonergan, a 23-year-old University of Minnesota graduate. "Those are just terms. I just like to look at the Word and let it speak for itself."

Actually, this quote reminds me of something I read in a John Frame book, called Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the One Body of Christ (full version, with some updates, available online from this page). Here is some of what he says:

My wife once regularly attended a neighborhood Bible study, with women from Roman Catholic, Charismatic, Arminian, Dispensational, and Episcopal backgrounds as well as some fellow Presbyterians. However, it never became a doctrinal battleground, she says, because the study always focused on the text of Scripture. The women sought to avoid technical theological jargon and tried simply to do justice to what the Bible taught.

Certainly they studied some passages that were heavy with doctrinal content. Romans 9 was one. When the group read Romans 9, Calvinist and Arminian together marvelled at God's control of history including the his control of the human heart. When they got to chapter 10, all with one accord were challenged with the responsibility of human beings to preach the gospel. No one insisted on the dogmatic terminology of "free will" on the one hand, or of "unconditional election" on the other. Romans 9 and 10 spoke for themselves, as it were, and bound these Christian women together in praise and fellowship. All sincerely and warmly received the scriptural message.

Perhaps someone will say that they missed something! A Calvinist might reply that unless we bring in the theological concept of unconditional election, we cannot possibly understand Romans 9, and that therefore the ladies in question were rejoicing in ignorance. An Arminian might say the same thing about "free will." But if God did not inspire Paul to write the words "unconditional election," why should we insist that those precise words-- or the words "free will"-- are necessary to express his meaning?

I have no doubt that the women understood Romans 9 and 10. Would the theological terms have helped them get a better understanding? Perhaps in some Bible studies, but not in this one. In this particular case, introduction of technicalities would have produced unnecessary quarreling-- certainly not the response the Apostle Paul (and God, the ultimate author) intended the text to evoke. And the use of such terms might have exaggerated the extent to which Paul himself had a technical theological purpose in writing these chapters. I have no doubt that an avoidance of technicalities in this particular context gave the women a better understanding of the passages than they would have had otherwise.
Paul wrote these chapters at a time when the Calvinist/Arminian, even the Augustinian/Pelagian, debates were still future. He was not trying to persuade Arminians to become Calvinists, or the other way around. It is not wrong for us today to use these passages to help resolve the controversy. It is wrong to suggest that that is their only legitimate use, or even their chief use, or that the texts can be understood only in the context of that debate. Rather, there are other contexts too; other uses-- such as the ones Paul actually had in mind.

Certainly divine sovereignty and human responsibility are major themes of these passages. But one may appreciate both these themes without concentrating on the historical controversies over them. The ladies in the Bible study praised God's sovereignty, and they accepted the scriptural challenge to their own responsibility. And they did it without argument, without debate, simply listening to the word of God. For them, for an hour or so, the church was one.

Are there not times even in our local church life when it might be best simply to let the text speak (more or less! for we are still "explaining" it to one another) for itself? Do we always have to point out, in expounding Romans 9 and 10, how our party is right and the other party wrong? Does not that very emphasis keep us from appreciating certain nuances and emphases in the passage? Does not that practice exaggerate the importance of the historical controversy?

My wife (like me a good Calvinist) says that it is not hard to convince people of Calvinistic teachings when you avoid using Calvinistic jargon. I agree. Beyond this, there is a slogan among the Reformed that "anyone who prays for another's conversion is a Calvinist." I'm not sure where that came from; it has been attributed to Warfield, Van Til, Vos.. I agree with that too. If you pray for the soul of another, then you believe that person's decision is in the hand of God, not merely a product of the person's "free agency." But many pray like Calvinists, while proclaiming Arminian theology. That doesn't seem consistent to me, but I welcome their prayers, and I'll be happy to have them pray with me for the conversion of sinners. So perhaps my wife's point can be taken a further step: for there are people around who are Calvinists in one degree or another (evidenced by their words and actions), who would not use the Calvinistic jargon, who would, perhaps, even repudiate it.

It seems to me that what we call Calvinism is simply a spelling out of the heart-instincts of all believers in Christ. I can easily persuade myself that the whole church will be Calvinist eventually, if we allow people to read Scripture as it stands, without feeling that we have to rub their noses in historic controversy. There is a certain "smarty pants" theological attitude in wanting to show people of the other party that our team was right all along. We sometimes feel that we need to do that in order to make our case maximally cogent; but in fact that attitude detracts from the cogency of our case. We give people the impression that in order to acknowledge the biblical principle they must also acknowledge us, our denomination, our historical traditions. But no. Biblical principle deserves their allegiance. Our "team" does not necessarily deserve it.

Latin and Greek Language Tools

For those whose Latin and Greek is as bad as mine or worse, here are some online language tools (or cheats!) I find useful.

Words by William Whitaker allows you to submit entire Latin phrases, and it translates each word to English, giving all possible parsing. Quite useful for reading those theological writings which have Latin quotes untranslated :-)

The Perseus Digital Library has heaps of useful tools and resources, and I particularly use it for Greek, though it also has Latin resources and more. The tools I use the most would be the Dictionary Headword Lookup (search for all dictionary entries which contain a certain string of letters) and even more the Greek Morphological Analysis (after submitting a word, generates possible morphological analyses and links to related dictionary entries). Amongst other things, the Library also allows you to look up all occurrences of words within the many texts stored in the database.

While I'm at it, another site I only recently found out about is http://www.zhubert.com/, a site by Zack Hubert, whose Bible Page has many useful tools, including hypertext information on parsing etc when you hover over words in the Greek text (works for LXX as well as GNT!). While you can also display Hebrew text, I think the Hebrew side of things is still much more a work in progress, and more underdeveloped than the Greek. But go and check it out for yourself!

What Is Love?

Recently I had to read a paper by Fritz Guy, in a book advocating a non-Calvinistic, Arminian position, called The Grace of God, The Will of Man. In Guy's chapter (called "The Universality of God's Love"), he describes the Divine love as "God wills what is best for every created entity". Guy upholds this definition, and essentially says that God must do everything within his (limited!) power to achieve the best for every single created entity, there can be no selectiveness. But this does not hold up to Scriptural scrutiny, as nice as it might sound.

For a start, such a definition immediately breaks down when one considers the devil and his demons. God gives them no opportunity for salvation at all (cf. Heb. 2:16), and they are not treated the same as humans. Already God is selective in his love and doesn't seem to "will what is best for every created entity". Further, the Scriptures are unambiguous that God is also discriminating and selective in some ways he shows his love towards mankind, such as in his loving selection of Israel rather than other nations (Deut. 7:7-8; 10:15), or in reference to Jacob and Esau (Mal. 1:2-3; cf Rom. 9:10-13). And this is just dealing with very clear texts, without specifically even getting into the whole issue of individual election unto salvation, or of considering the implications of real experience (like the fact that some people never hear the gospel, or that some people might die from famine, drought or disease, but others do not, etc).

Therefore to flatten out God's love to say there can be no particularity at all is to impose a false conception onto the Scriptures, rather than let them speak for themselves. Better to say with J. I. Packer that there is both particularity and universality in God's love: "it appears, first, that God loves all in some ways..., and, second, that he loves some in all ways... This is the clear witness of the entire Bible" (quoted out of his article entitled "The Love of God: Universal and Particular").

Abbott & Costello Learn Hebrew

This is a great bit of nerd humour if you have learnt a little Hebrew. Follow this link!

(I came across it when someone on the B-Greek email list posted about Dr. Seuss Learns Greek. But I think the Hebrew one is better!)

Ephesians 2:15 and Torah Abolished?

I was discussing Ephesians 2:15 on the Theology List, and thought I would include a compiled copy here. Essentially, the question being addressed is: What does Paul mean by the term 'the law' and in what sense is it abolished?

A common Reformed approach is to use the threefold division of the law and say that Paul is here really talking about the ceremonial law when he uses the term 'law'. Hence the ceremonial law is abolished, but the moral law remains. But while I think categorizing it to the ceremonial aspects of the Torah and not the moral law is a helpful simplification to explain what is going on, I don't think it does full justice to the text. In Eph 2:15 I think Paul means the Torah generally and as a whole, rather than a more theological distinction between ceremonial and moral law.

If we use the language of threefold distinction into moral law (ML), ceremonial law (CL) and civil law (SL), we would like to say that Torah = ML + CL + SL, as if it could be so neatly divided that way. Eg the decalogue would be ML, holiness code CL, and rules relating to Israel as a nation-state SL. And in fact, probably we can categorize it like that if it is helpful. But now let me make another category called Universal Law (UL), coining my own terminology, and define it as the universal expression of God's eternal character as it applies to humanity. The simplification we would like is to equate 'moral law' with 'universal law', as if we can seamlessly move between this concept of Universal Law, and what we can select out as Moral Law from the Torah, and really they are one and the same. But I don't think it is so simple. I would instead say that the kernel of this 'Universal Law' is contained within the husk of the Torah. In fact, ML, CL and SL (if we take them to be the constituent parts of Torah) are all expressions of UL within that husk, though perhaps ML seems most clearly so. But each are specially packaged expressions of UL adapted specifically to the OT Israel situation. When the Scriptures use the word 'law', I think usually it has Torah specifically in mind, but the emphasis may vary between UL, ML, CL, SL or Torah as a package possibly extending to the whole OT (though I can't think of a case where SL would be emphasized, except perhaps where the emphasis is on some of the penalties). Now this is still a simplification, but to me, a better nuanced one than simply ML, CL, SL.

Coming back to Eph 2:15, as mentioned already, I think Paul means Torah as a whole package in this case, and not even just the CL aspects, although they might be more prominent. I don't think he means you could literally cut up all the words of Torah, and just remove the ceremonial ones, and that is all that was abolished. IMO the Torah is the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14). The ceremonial law was the superficial and tangible expression of that difference, but I think it is much deeper than that. The Jews prided themselves as in possession of the Law as a whole (cf Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Deut 4:8) and that possession, as well as the content of the law itself, set them apart from the Gentiles, and excluded the Gentiles. But the abolishment of the husk does not mean that the kernel of 'universal law' is abolished, nor even that the Torah is abolished in some absolute sense, so as to have no direct relevance to the Christian. Rom 3:31 makes clear there is some sense in which Torah is not abolished but rather the opposite. As does Matt 5:17ff. So I think in Eph 2:15, with respect to the Gentiles, the abolishment of Torah has to do with abolishing it as a legal or constitutional document which divides Jew and Gentile, thus also separating the Gentiles from God (according to Torah).

Actually, I would clarify further and say that Paul is actually speaking at two levels at the same time. Not only did the Torah exclude the Gentile, it also condemned the unbelieving Jew, and was a burden of death to them (and I don't think it would be just the ceremonial aspects that condemned them, cf Rom 2-3). Without the Torah being written on their hearts, the Torah only condemned them, and led to hostility between Jews and God also. Hence while the Torah held the prospect of peace with God and access to God (cf Eph 2:12), in practice it still left most Jews condemned before God. And hence also in that sense Christ not only brings peace and reconciliation to the Gentile, but also to the Jew who was already 'near' (Eph 2:16-17).

So in what sense is Torah abolished, and in what sense does it remain? In the tradition of Covenant Theology, with an emphasis on continuity, I don't think things have to be repeated in the NT for something in the OT to be relevant. What the OT teaches regarding God and man (to use Calvin's paradigm) still remains relevant today, and is by no means abolished. It is only the strict legal or constitutional character that has been abolished, which by no means undermines the revelatory character of the OT. I think Paul means to talk of the Torah as a whole being abolished, but that is not to be taken as a stand-alone, absolutised statement. The best analogy I can think of is the distinction between spirit and letter of the law. The letter is abolished, but the spirit remains. Kind of like what commonly happens when one pastor replaces another in a church. In letter the old pastor may have no official relationship with the church, but in spirit he often still remains an influence (whether in person or just as a memory), though it is not usually a good thing for the new pastor ;-) But here, what remains of the Torah is a good thing and we can and should keep going back to the letter of the Torah to find that spirit. And in fact the preservation of every letter of it is important to preserve the spirit of it also.

The Apostles at Jerusalem?

In Acts 8:1 it says "At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles" (NKJV). Why did the apostles stay at Jerusalem, while the rest of the Christians scattered?

Within the book of Acts, Jerusalem seems to remain as the base of operations for the Twelve Apostles (cf. 8:14, 15:2, 15:4, 16:4). Luke doesn't seem to explicitly criticize the apostles for staying in Jerusalem.

With recent discussions about eschatology and millennialism, it got me thinking. I wonder if the Luke's portrayal of the apostles in Jerusalem is meant to be symbolic of the new Israel with its centre in Jerusalem, reminding us of the OT prophecies about the future glory of Jerusalem/Zion (the twelve apostles seeming to be the equivalent representation of the twelve tribes of Israel).

It is a common theme in the OT Prophets that Jerusalem will be restored as part of the Messianic age, after its destruction in judgement. Jerusalem will be the focal point and centre of the new kingdom to come, reigning over all the earth. Consider some of these as samples:

• "For the LORD will comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste places; He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness will be found in it, thanksgiving and the voice of melody... So the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing, with everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness; sorrow and sighing shall flee away... Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of His fury; you have drunk the dregs of the cup of trembling, and drained it out... Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city! For the uncircumcised and the unclean shall no longer come to you. Shake yourself from the dust, arise; sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!... How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings glad tidings of good things, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” Your watchmen shall lift up their voices, with their voices they shall sing together; for they shall see eye to eye when the LORD brings back Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, you waste places of Jerusalem! For the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD has made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." (from Isaiah 51-52, NKJV; note how it leads into the proclamation of the Suffering Servant who will accomplish these things)
• "For ZionÂ’s sake I will not hold My peace, and for JerusalemÂ’s sake I will not rest, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burns. The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will name. You shall also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God." (Isaiah 62:1-3, NKJV)
• "Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORDÂ’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion the law shall go forth, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." (Micah 3:12-4:2, NKJV)
• "“Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD. “Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. And the LORD will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!”" (Zechariah 2:10-13, NKJV)

The rebuilding of Jerusalem in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah when they returned from the Exile may have been a partial fulfillment of prophecies, but it seems to fall short of the fullness of the prophetic imagery. There is no king, and the 'kingdom' is still a pale reflection of its former days, the remaining legacy of the split between the North and the South. Some might still look forward to a literal restoration of the old Israel (such as the premillenialists and Zionists), perhaps even including the physical temple at Jerusalem, but this would seem like a going backwards, a downgrade, from what has happened already in Christ.

For now, in the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom of God has come and begun, and something greater than the OT Jews could have visualised has been inaugurated, things the prophets and angels desired to know about (1 Peter 1:10-12). Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), and sits at the right hand of the throne of God (Acts 2:30-36; Ephesians 1:19-23; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22), ruling as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14). And the NT emphasis speaks of a new Israel (cf. Hebrews 8:8-13) and a new Jerusalem (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24). So in Revelation we see a new Jerusalem replacing the one that is to be destroyed (Revelation 21-22). Certainly we still await the consummation of the kingdom, but it has nonetheless already begun.

So it seems (at least to me!) quite fitting to have the Apostles symbolically based in the earthly Jerusalem, to show that the OT prophecies are being fulfilled in Christ and the Kingdom he has brought into being, with the Apostles being his representatives of that reality.

He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him

I was thinking again recently about this verse from Hebrews 11: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (11:6; NKJV). Particularly the last part which tells us we must believe that God is the kind of God who is a rewarder of those who seek Him. It could be easy here to get side-tracked about ideas of merit, that rewarding is pointing to the receiving of something deserved. But I think the emphasis is not about us getting, but rather about God giving. The object of our faith is a God who gives good gifts, who rewards his people generously. The picture presented in the Scriptures is not that we have a God who merely deals in terms of justice, some kind of strict legalist, not able to exceed the boundaries of the letter of the law. There is no doubt that justice is important to God, that law is important and proper, and yet God is not a God only of justice. We could well say that as Christians we ought to diligently seek God out of mere duty, that God deserves our service, and we should not expect any reward, that we have no right to any reward. And yet how wonderful it is that we have a God who does reward, and who will reward even if there were no strict requirement to do so.

While I think there is significant appropriateness in speaking of Christ as meriting our salvation (though perhaps 'merit' can also have problematic connotations), and of understanding God's covenantal dealings with us, yet I think it would be an inadequate representation of our great God if we thought of His plans and purposes in Christ merely in terms of strict legal or commercial-like transactions. If nothing else, we should remember that in all Christ did for us, strict justice would have compelled him to do nothing for us at all, except condemn us because of our sin. If we are to speak of any compulsion, it would have to be the free love of God that compelled Father, Son and Holy Spirit to act on our behalf, for our benefit.

When God reveals himself to Moses, he accentuates that he is a God "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (Exodus 34:6-7, NKJV). The Scriptures abound with testimonies to God's love, kindness, generosity and goodness. As John writes, if we know God at all, then we will know that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). This is a truth underlined in the Bible, as if the Scriptures were using that favourite preachers' line, "If there is only one thing you remember from all that I am saying to you, remember this, God is love!"

I've also just recently worked through the book of Jonah again in the last two weeks, in a study with overseas students. Jonah knew this truth about God, concerning the loving nature of God, when he contemplated God's command to preach to the wicked city of Nineveh (Jonah 4:2). And yet while he knew the truth formally, and no doubt as a Jew and a prophet of God, had even experienced God's love as a beneficiary, he didn't really comprehend or understand this fundamental truth. Jonah did not appreciate the reality of the fact sufficiently. He was a living illustration of what not to do, concerning what the apostle John later wrote (1 John 4:8). If he really knew that God is love, then Jonah would have loved. But when he considered the possibility that God might have compassion and love towards the people of Nineveh, Jonah was filled with bitterness and hatred, angry enough to die (cf. Jonah 4:3). It is all too easy for us to be like Jonah. We know formally that God is a loving, gracious, rewarding God, yet the reality of that fact does not sink into the depths of our being and doesn't change our life. Perhaps we are like Jonah, not desiring God's graciousness towards others, because of racism, prejudice, or whatever kind of pride or selfishness it may be. In our own irrational and contradictory way, we can be miserly with God's generosity. Or perhaps we just doubt God, lacking faith concerning our own situations, that he will have no time to listen to us, or be unwilling to give of himself to us, or that his love towards us might come to an end sometime, as if the generous and rewarding God were really a stingy and miserly God. And yet many passages remind us otherwise, such as Romans 8:32, Romans 5:10, James 1:5. As also does Hebrews 11:6.

Well, really it is nothing very complex, nothing too intellectual, but something I think I need to take more time to stop and remember. I must really believe that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. At least for me, it is something too easily forgotten or passed over. I guess it is as the old Kelloggs slogan goes, "The simple things in life are often the best"!

John of Damascus on Romans 7-8

I found this good quote from John of Damascus, 8th century Christian writer. At least at face value it seems like a good interpretation of Romans 7-8, of sin dwelling in our members, in conflict with our renewed inner man, able only to overcome through the power of the Holy Spirit. Here is the quotation:

And so the law of God, settling in our mind, draws it towards itself and pricks our conscience. And our conscience, too, is called a law of our mind. Further, the assault of the wicked one, that is the law of sin, settling in the members of our flesh, makes its assault upon us through it. For by once voluntarily transgressing the law of God and receiving the assault of the wicked one, we gave entrance to it, being sold by ourselves to sin. Wherefore our body is readily impelled to it. And so the savour and perception of sin that is stored up in our body, that is to say, lust and pleasure of the body, is law in the members of our flesh.
Therefore the law of my mind, that is, the conscience, sympathises with the law of God, that is, the precept, and makes that its will. But the law of sin, that is to say, the assault made through the law that is in our members, or through the lust and inclination and movement of the body and of the irrational part of the soul, is in opposition to the law of my mind, that is to conscience, and takes me captive (even though I make the law of God my will and set my love on it, and make not sin my will), by reason of commixture: and through the softness of pleasure and the lust of the body and of the irrational part of the soul, as I said, it leads me astray and induces me to become the servant of sin. But what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (for He assumed flesh but not sin) condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but in the Spirit. For the Spirit helpeth our infirmities and affordeth power to the law of our mind, against the law that is in our members. For the verse, we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered, itself teacheth us what to pray for. Hence it is impossible to carry out the precepts of the Lord except by patience and prayer.

An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 22

Vern Poythress and Millennial Views

Vern Poythress has got some really thoughtful and stimulating stuff to read, not least of which is some things I had found of his concerning views on the millennium. I probably should includes some quotes and discussion, but for now I'm just going to post links. Maybe later I'll edit this entry and add some more of my own detail. Anyhow, here are the links:

• Currents within Amillennialism
• 2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism
• Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6

BTW There are lots of Poythress (and John Frame) writings freely available on the web at the same site. Check there before buying any of their books ;-) And while I'm at it, here is another Poythress article that I found helpful recently, about interpreting Scripture: Divine Meaning of Scripture.

The Changing Face of Theology and Denominationalism

I think one of the blessings that has come out of post-modernism etc, is that people aren't as 'stuck in their camps' as they used to be. There is more dialogue between different theologies, and people from different theological and denominational backgrounds. Of course, we still get stuck in our ways, but I think it is a healthy thing that people don't feel as afraid to hear from other perspectives, rather than just being close-minded because 'they must be wrong' because 'they are different from us'. At the Presbyterian theological college where I currently study, it is good to also have a Pentecostal or a Baptist etc in some of my classes. It is good when we can have civil discussions on Yahoo groups with others of different theological perspectives. I remember a guest lecturer I once had, Henry Krabbendam, who kept saying, "Fellowship is not based on agreement, it is based on Jesus Christ." There are good and right ways to express a true Biblical ecumenism reflecting the objective unity we have if we are all in Christ Jesus. "Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 15:5-6 NKJV).

Tagged for a Book Meme!

Well, I realised I've been tagged for a book meme by Barb..! What is a book meme? I don't really know :-) I think it just means I'm supposed to do the same and pass it on. It looks like an ANE covenant chain letter without the blessings and curses at the end. My gut reaction is: IT WILL STOP WITH ME AND GO NO FURTHER! But I probably need to learn to be more sociable so I'll go with it anyhow.. only problem is I'll reveal how few books I really read...

1. One book that changed your life:
1 Corinthians

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life, by John Calvin
(Well... I think I read it more than once... It's small enough that I probably did... ;-)

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
How to Check Email Even on a Desert Island, by U. R. Addicted

4. One book that made you laugh:
I Take My Religion Seriously, by Charles M. Schulz
(I found it on my shelf again not too long ago...)

5. One book that made you cry:
The Gospel According to Matthew

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Every Single Decision Made For You, by I. M. Trustworthy

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Robert's Rules of Order, by Henry M. Robert
(Okay, it's not really that bad I suppose...)

8. One book you’re currently reading:
The Stone that became a Mountain, by Richard Bewes
(A better question, but even harder for me to answer, would be: One book you've recently finished reading...)

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin
(One day I'll finish reading the whole lot... yes, this is my Augustinian confession...!)

10. Now tag five people:
Chad
David
Donna
Mick
(How blog-lonely I am! Anyone else waiting to be tagged...? I'm still kinda new to the blog thing... :-)

[Insert Blessings and Curses here?]

Is the Church in Exile?

In one of my lectures yesterday, the lecturer made the comment that the picture of Exile still translates to the church today. The church is still in a sense in exile, in that the church are strangers in a foreign land.

My first reaction to this was, "No, the church is not in exile!" After all, is not the key emphasis of exile about judgement? Israel was exiled because of unfaithfulness? Doesn't the exile parallel being expelled from the garden, or maybe Israel in bondage in Egypt? Surely the church cannot stand under condemnation in any sense, or under that kind of oppression?!

But as we discussed it further, and as I thought about it some more, I think it is another one of those 'yes and no' answers. I think there is a dual imagery involved in the exile. From the perspective of the unfaithful, it is about judgement. From the perspective of the faithful, it is about still being faithful in a foreign land, waiting for a return to the promised land, trusting in the promises of God, walking by faith and not by sight. The former is not applicable to the church, but the latter is.

Perhaps another way to look at it is to say that the church is not sent into exile (under discipline), as Israel was, but the church does parallel Israel in the resulting situation of having been exiled, of being the people of God in a strange land (while at the same time the whole earth really belongs to the church as her inheritance!). That is because Israel's exile was not only meant to be a single image of expulsion from the land, but after being expelled, the faithful become sojourners like Abraham or even those wanderers (Joshua, Caleb and the next generation of Israelites) who waited to enter the promised land (in fact the wilderness wandering was also a mixed image, of judgement against the unfaithful and patience for the faithful). The problems arise when we try to too neatly collapse the whole Biblical event into a single image.

Anyhow, the point is that I don't as strongly say 'no' to the church being in exile as I initially did :-)

What is the Goal of Prayer?

This is a Theology paper I wrote on the goal of prayer:

The_Goal_of_Prayer.pdf

This paper seeks to evaluate Bloesch's description of the goal of Christian prayer (“the goal of prayer is not absorption into the being of God but the transformation of the world for the glory of God”) and determine whether this is an adequate description of the goal of Christian prayer. When Bloesch's description of the goal of prayer is understood not only in what is said explicitly, but also in what he no doubt intends implicitly, his description is considered to be generally adequate. However, there are deficiencies in what is not explicit enough. An alternate description of the goal of Christian prayer is offered, recognising that prayer is fundamentally about asking for a response from God.

Leviticus 16 and the Two Goats?

This is my Old Testament Exegesis paper from last semester:

Exegesis_Lev_16v15-22.pdf

This paper looks at the significance and meaning of the two goats on the Day of Atonement, focusing on Leviticus 16:15-22 particularly. As part of the discussion I consider such things as: the meaning of the Hebrew word kaphar, the distinction of emphasis between the two goats, some implications regarding a theology of particular atonement, and the significance of atoning for the tabernacle as symbolising the atonement of creation (not just humanity). I also found this paper to be a lot harder than I expected and certain sections ended up being too rushed :-(

Here is a quote  from the end of the paper:

There is no doubt that the role of the two goats on the Day of Atonement was to symbolise and typify the dealing with sin amongst the people of God. While the two goats were involved in two distinct and different rituals, they should be seen as two aspects of the one atonement, rather than two completely different atonements. Just as the numerous types of the Old Testament meet in the one person of Jesus Christ, each adding a different aspect or image picturing his work, so too in this microcosm of the Day of Atonement, the multiple events are just different aspects of the one reality in Christ, and not completely unrelated. Rather than confuse, the multiplicity of symbols helps enrich our understanding of God's gracious work in redemptive history. On the Day of Atonement, the role of the two goats can be summarised as follows:

• Both goats represented the atonement for all the sins of all the people of God.

• The goat for the LORD emphasises the need for cleansing and sanctification by means of death, atoning for both the people and the tabernacle

• The goat for azazel emphasises the complete removal of sin from amongst the people.

• The eschatological hope is for a place and a people of God where all sin is purged and removed.

Hittitology and the Pentateuch

This is an Old Testament paper on the relevance of Hittitology to the understanding of the Pentateuch:

Hittitology_and_the_Pentateuch.pdf

In the last 100 years Hittitology has moved from virtual non-existence to a significant field of study. This paper seeks to explore some of the findings of Hittitology, and evaluate their relevance to the understanding of the Pentateuch. The paper follows this outline: Introduction, Biblical References to Hittites, Extra-Biblical Historical Survey (Hittite History, Neo-Hittites History, Pre-Hittite History, Hittite Treaties), The Chronology Problem, Pentateuchal Significance (Who were the the Biblical Hittites, Hittite Treaties and Biblical Covenant), Conclusions. A cautious approach to the use of historical and archaeological studies is taken, while still recognising the valuable contributions they make to Pentateuch studies.

(I actually found this paper very hard to write, but the research was very helpful and an eye-opener for me regarding the value and level of confidence we can have in historical and archeological studies...)

John of Damascus on the Doctrine of God

This is my Church History paper looking at John of Damascus' teaching from the first book of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, as a representative of Eastern Orthodox theology:

John_of_Damascus_on_the_Doctrine_of_God.pdf

After a brief sketch of the historical setting of the work, it is divided up for consideration. The book is categorised into three sections: 1. What can and cannot be known about the Triune God; 2. Logical proofs concerning the Triune God; 3. Beliefs explained concerning the Triune God. Each of these sections is discussed, also considering the historical and contemporary relevance of what John writes. The value of an appreciation of the mystery of God is noted, as are the contributions and distinctions of John's Trinitarian conceptions. Some similarities with Scholastic writings are also pointed out.

Worldview and Theology

This paper discusses the relationship between the concept of worldview and the practice of theology:

Worldview_and_Theology.pdf

Some definitions and descriptions of both worldview and theology are provided, followed by an examination of ways worldview interacts with theology. Firstly in relation to Biblical Hermeneutics as the building blocks for theology, and then also in relation to the final and overall shape that theology takes on within different worldviews. As illustrations, the theologies of Eastern and Western Christianity are considered, as well as the changes to theology arising out of transitions from Modernism to Postmodernism within Western evangelical Christianity. The paper seeks to show that the concept of worldview, and an understanding of it, is essential to the theological endeavour, because of the organic and dynamic relationship between worldview and theology at every level.

Some Messianic Themes from Genesis

Here is another paper I wrote on 'Some Messianic Themes from Genesis':

Some_Messianic_Themes_from_Genesis.pdf

This paper seeks to touch on some of the Messianic themes that arise out of the book of Genesis. The phrase “Messianic themes” is deliberately chosen, because it can otherwise be easy to think too narrowly when we hear the term “Messianic”, forgetting that the Messiah is an eschatological figure. After a brief consideration of typology as a method for interpreting the Scriptures, the following passages are discussed making use of established typological approaches: Gen. 1:1-2:3; Gen. 2:4-17:27; Gen. 22:1-19; Gen. 37:1-50:26. By way of this limited survey and exploration, it should be evident that Genesis contains the beginnings of the Messianic hope, and that there are Messianic themes interwoven throughout the book.

Holy War in Deuteronomy?

Here is a copy of a paper I wrote recently as part of my studies. It discusses the concept of 'Holy War' in relation to the book of Deuteronomy, also touching on the issues of 'genocide':

Holy_War_in_Deuteronomy.pdf

Australian Copyright Law Reforms!

Well, this is kind of off-topic for my blog, but it is MY blog ;-)

The Australian government is finally seeking to reform the copyright laws to legalise what many people already do anyway. Things like time-shifting (video TV programs to watch later) and format-shifting (copy old VHS tape to DVD, copy music tape to CD). Here are some links about the proposed reforms:

• shurl.org/QZHcJ (Link to Govt Media Release)
• www.efa.org.au/Issues/IP/#current

PS While adding my recent Poythress blog entry, I came across an interesting article by him on copyright: Copyrights and Copying - Why the Laws Should Be Changed. Now I have redeemed this entry with a more overtly theological gloss :-)

Vos on the Purpose of Israel's Theocracy

I found some useful quotes from Geerhardus Vos, on the eschatological purpose of Israel, as a theocratic nation-state. I think what he says is very helpful as we try to harmonize or relate the Old Testament revelation with the New Testament revelation...

Nor was it merely a question of teaching religion for the present world. A missionary institution the theocracy never was intended to be in its Old Testament state. The significance of the unique organization of Israel can be rightly measured only by remembering that the theocracy typified nothing short of the perfected kingdom of God, the consummate state of Heaven. In this ideal state there will be no longer any place for the distinction between church and state. [Biblical Theology, 126]

As stated above, the abode of Israel in Canaan typified the heavenly, perfected state of God's people. Under these circumstances the ideal of absolute conformity to God's law of legal holiness had to be upheld. Even though they were not able to keep this law in the Pauline, spiritual sense, yea, even though they were unable to keep it externally and ritually, the requirement could not be lowered. When apostacy on a general scale took place, they could not remain in the promised land. When they disqualified themselves for typifying the state of holiness, they ipso facto disqualified themselves for typifying that of blessedness, and had to go into captivity. [Biblical
Theology, 127]

The eschatological idea influencing the constitution of the theocracy becomes dependent on the interaction of the type and the antitype. The future state imposes its own stamp on the theocracy, an actual institution of Israel. The theocratic structure projects its own character into the picture of the future. Heaven reflected itself on Israel and Israel became part of the future. The type inevitably influences the conception of the antitype. The future is depicted in terms drawn from the present, earthly, material reality. There is somewhat of the shadowy, inadequate character of the prefiguration that passes over into the description of what the eschatological will be like when it comes. The antitype impresses its stamp upon the theocratic structure and imparts to it somewhat of its transcendent, absolute character. The theocracy has something ideal or unattainable about it. Its plan, as conceived by the law, hovers over the actual life of Israel. The theocracy in the idea transcends its embodiment in experience. [Eschatology of the OT, 117-8]

To summarize this in other words: it was impossible for the people of that time to separate the essence from the form. The essence grasped in the form is different from the form being grasped at the expense of the essence. We find the picture of the eschatological state in terms of the holy land, Jerusalem, the rule over the nations, familiar offices and organization and rites, and temporal blessedness. Nonetheless, all this, while expressed in similar terms, was felt to be different from the present because it was represented as eternal. To the mind of God, all earthly apparatus employed is purely symbolical. To the people, and in part to the prophets, the symbolical nature was not always perspicuous. [Eschatology of the OT, 120]

Packer on Eschatology

Eschatological is one of those words which gets used a lot, but IMO most of the time most people don't know what it really means :-) For me, I think it is only over the last few years that I have begun to get a proper handle on the significance of eschatology. Now I think it is of fundamental importance in better understanding the Scriptures, and God's purposes in Christ. Too often, in a man-centred way, we just think of eschatology in terms of what will eventually happen to me, in the future, as it relates to me: life after death, heaven and hell, bodily resurrection, last judgement when Christ returns. However, there is a bigger picture with eschatology, which has to do with the whole Biblically anticipated age to come. This age to come includes the list of things I just mentioned previously, but is also more expansive that that. And the real crunch point is that the age to come is not just future, but it has already and really begun in the coming of Christ. In Christ's resurrection, the new creation has already begun. And as we are born again of the Spirit, the new creation has already begun in us, yet still waiting for perfection and completion. So every Christian is an interface or intersection between this present evil age and the age to come, and all the Christians together (ie the church) are a preview of the new humanity of the age to come, constituted in Christ. It seems to me it is very important to understand both the 'now and not yet' as well as the ultimate goal or telos of eschatology, if we are to better understand the perspective and meaning of Scripture. For example, I think we often think about OT Israel being fulfilled in the NT church. Yet I think ultimately both Israel and the church are better understood as pointing to the ultimate reality of the new humanity of the kingdom of God in eternity, in the consummated age to come. The church is a better representation of the new creation than is Israel, but it is still not a perfect representation.

Anyhow, recently I read some J. I. Packer on eschatology, and he made some helpful comments I thought I would record here. They come from Honouring the Written Word of God (Paternoster, 1990), in the chapter entitled "The Challenge of Biblical Interpretation: Eschatology"...

Eschatology is the study of the last things, God's future, God's fulfillment of his purpose of perfecting his creation by eliminating from it the disorder brought into it by sin and reconstructing everything in its final perfect form. Further, the biblical presentation of this great theme is like an ellipse with two foci, a single oval figure with two points inside it each of which is just as central in its significance as the other. The two foci are global eschatology (which has to do with the future of our Lord Jesus Christ and this whole world) and personal eschatology (which has to do with the future of the individual Christian and the individual unbeliever). [p.200]
The perspective set forth in the New Testament is what is usually called inaugurated eschatology, that is, the belief that the kingdom of God is here and the powers of the kingdom are at work already. The gospel is the good news that heaven has already begun here on earth for those who are Christ's. The long expected king of Old Testament prophecy has come. [p.200]
Never underestimate the theological significance of eschatology. In the schools, very often eschatology has been the poor relation in the theology courses. Coming last it has often been, to speak frankly, skimped in teaching. Partly, I think, this is because professors have not always known what to say. In addition, everyone who works in the classroom knows things often take longer to teach than you anticipate, so that the final bit of any course nearly always gets skimped. That's universal teaching experience. But it is a very sad thing that eschatology should ever be skimped because, as you can already see, it is a matter of enormous importance, very much a part of the glory of the gospel and very important for every Christian to understand... Eschatology is first the key to understanding the unity of the Bible... Eschatology is, further, the clue to understanding the nature of the Christian life. That life is essentially a life of hope, a life in which nothing is perfect yet but the hope of perfection is set before us... Third, eschatology is the key to understanding the shape of world history... The people of God have always been at the centre of world history... Finally, eschatology is supremely relevant for teaching the gospel in these days, considering what we are up against. On the one hand, there are utopian hopes, false hopes of different kinds offered by different people... On the other hand, we face a great deal of pessimistic hopelessness on the part of people who feel that they have seen through the false hopes of society and now have no hope at all... We need to speak loudly and clearly about the glory of the Christian hope. The world needs to hear that word from our lips. [pp.201-202]
the Bible is an Oriental book, and its testimony to the future is given in Oriental fashion. It is given in a pictorial, evocative, evaluative and imaginative way, rather than in the sort of reportorial prose which is informative in the way that a newspaper report of things is informative. This is the way that the Oriental mind, through which God gave us his Word, focuses and formulates and presents these coming realities. [p.203]
As wise persons preparing for vacations tidy up, pack their bags and get ready well in advance, so should we prepare for the meeting with Jesus that will close our lives in this world. Keep short accounts with God and 'live every day as if thy last', just as the hymn says. And while our life continues, let us work and pray for the advancing of the kingdom. When Christ appears publicly in this world, in what posture should he find the church? Praying for revival and planning world evangelism, surely. Let us see that when he comes for us, whether it is soon or late, those are the tasks in which he finds us engaged. [p.212]

Bloesch on Prayer

Well, I've been a bit overtaken by writing assignments. Too much enjoyment before, and not enough self-discipline :-(

Anyhow, one of the books I've been reading for a paper is "The Struggle of Prayer" by Donald G. Bloesch. Here are some quotes I found particularly interesting:

• p58: "Origen held that Christian prayer, though offered through the Son, should be directed solely to the Father. In my estimation this betrays a false subordinationism which portrays only the Father as without origin and therefore the Logos or Son as less than the Father."
• p28: "The living and almighty God of the Scriptures knows the course of the future and the fulfillment of the future (including all details), but he does know literally every single event until it happens. He knows every alternative and also exactly what will eventuate, but he does not know this experientially or concretely until he acts in and through the particular even in question."

John Owen on Justification

I've been reading a little of John Owen, and so here are some quotes I'd like to remember :-)

"This, therefore, is that which herein I affirm:— The righteousness of Christ (in his obedience and suffering for us) imputed unto believers, as they are united unto him by his Spirit, is that righteousness whereon they are justified before God, on the account whereof their sins are pardoned, and a right is granted them unto the heavenly inheritance... The foundation of the imputation asserted is union. Hereof there are many grounds and causes, as has been declared; but that which we have immediate respect unto, as the foundation of this imputation, is that whereby the Lord Christ and believers do actually coalesce into one mystical person. This is by the Holy Spirit inhabiting in him as the head of the church in all fulness, and in all believers according to their measure, whereby they become members of his mystical body. That there is such a union between Christ and believers is the faith of the catholic church, and has been so in all ages. Those who seem in our days to deny it, or question it, either know not what they say, or their minds are influenced by their doctrine who deny the divine persons of the Son and of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will grant the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least, that there is such a peculiar ground for it as is not to be exemplified in any things natural or political among men." [The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Ch9; note the emphasis on union with Christ]
"Christ and believers are one mystical person, one spiritually-animated body, head and members. This, I suppose, will not be denied; to do so, is to overthrow the church and the faith of it. Hence, what he did and suffered is imputed unto them. And it is granted that, as the surety of the covenant, he paid all our debts, or answered for all our faults; and that his righteousness is really communicated unto us. “Why, then,” say some, “there is no need of repentance; all is done for us already.” But why so? Why must we assent to one part of the gospel unto the exclusion of another? Was it not free unto God to appoint what way, method, and order he would, whereby these things should be communicated unto us?
"... Not only, therefore, the thing itself, or the communication of the righteousness of Christ unto us, but the way, and manner, and means of it, do depend on God’s sovereign order and disposal. Wherefore, although Christ did make satisfaction to the justice of God for all the sins of the church, and that as a common person (for no man in his wits can deny but that he who is a mediator and a surety is, in some sense, a common person); and although he did pay all our debts; yet does the particular interest of this or that man in what he did and suffered depend on the way, means, and order designed of God unto that end. This, and this alone, gives the true necessity of all the duties which are required of us, with their order and their ends
"... [Answering like objections that faith is also unnecessary:] the whole fallacy of this objection lies in the opposing one part of the design and method of God’s grace in this mystery of our justification unto another; or the taking of one part of it to be the whole, which, as to its efficacy and perfection, depends on somewhat else. Hereof we warned the reader in our previous discourses. For the whole of it is a supposition that the satisfaction of Christ, if there be any such thing, must have its whole effect without believing on our part; which is contrary unto the whole declaration of the will of God in the gospel... Wherefore, on the only making of that satisfaction, no one for whom it was made in the design of God can be said to have suffered in Christ, nor to have an interest in his satisfaction, nor by any way or means be made partaker of it antecedently unto another act of God in its imputation unto him. For this is but one part of the purpose of God’s grace as unto our justification by the blood of Christ, — namely, that he by his death should make satisfaction for our sins; nor is it to be separated from what also belongs unto it in the same purpose of God. Wherefore, from the position or grant of the satisfaction of Christ, no argument can be taken unto the negation of a consequential act of its imputation unto us; nor, therefore, of the necessity of our faith in the believing and receiving of it, which is no less the appointment of God than it was that Christ should make that satisfaction... And what he underwent and suffered, he underwent and suffered in our stead. But yet the act of God in laying our sins on Christ conveyed no actual right and title to us unto what he did and suffered. They are not immediately thereon, nor by virtue thereof, ours, or esteemed ours; because God has appointed somewhat else, not only antecedent thereunto, but as the means of it, unto his own glory. These things, both as unto their being and order, depend on the free ordination of God. But yet
"... It cannot be said that this satisfaction was made for us on such a condition as should absolutely suspend the event, and render it uncertain whether it should ever be for us or no. Such a constitution may be righteous in pecuniary solutions. A man may lay down a great sum of money for the discharge of another, on such a condition as may never be fulfilled; for, on the absolute failure of the condition, his money may and ought to be restored unto him, whereon he has received no injury or damage. But in penal suffering for crimes and sins, there can be no righteous constitution that shall make the event and efficacy of it to depend on a condition absolutely uncertain, and which may not come to pass or be fulfilled; for if the condition fail, no recompense can be made unto him that has suffered. Wherefore, the way of the application of the satisfaction of Christ unto them for whom it was made, is sure and steadfast in the purpose of God
"... God has appointed that there shall be an immediate foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ unto us; whereon we may be said to have done and suffered in him what he did and suffered in our stead, by that grant, donation, and imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interested in it, that it may be made ours: which is all we contend for. And this is our actual coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith. Hereon does the necessity of faith originally depend. And if we shall add hereunto the necessity of it likewise unto that especial glory of God which he designs to exalt in our justification by Christ, as also unto all the ends of our obedience unto God, and the renovation of our natures into his image, its station is sufficiently secured against all objections. Our actual interest in the satisfaction of Christ depends on our actual insertion into his mystical body by faith, according to the appointment of God." [The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Ch9; answering objections that the necessary conclusion of Owen's view would be that of 'eternal justification', where faith and repentance are unnecessary]

Gen 3:22-24 No Life without Death?

I have often heard people interpret Genesis 3:22 like this: God in his mercy prevented man from eating from the tree of life otherwise he would have lived forever in a state of sin. But I am uncomfortable with this for a number of reasons:

• It seems a too sophisticated intrepretation; there is a lot of logic involved in the statement above and beyond what is in the text.
• It attributes a 'magical' property to the tree itself, that by physically eating it eternal life is conferred, ex opere operato.
• It views 'live forever' only as meaning an unending physical life, a continuation of whatever current physical state is being experienced (kind of like the wind changing when you pull a face ;-)

Instead, I would prefer understanding Gen 3:22-24 as simply about cutting off man from life (and perfected life) as a consequence of sin. The wages of sin is death ('you shall surely die'), and not life, therefore man has no right to the tree of LIFE, and must be cut off from it. So 3:22 is not a mercy, but a judgement. The only way to life is God's way, and man lost the opportunity for life when he sinned. So man was sent out of the garden and cut off from the tree of life. (One wonders if the labour of 3:23 required of man indicates he is 'stuck' in the sixth day, and unable to enter the rest of God, in the perfected seventh day..?)
More tentively, I wonder if Gen 3:24 signifies that there will be no access to the tree of life, without first passing through suffering and death (the flaming sword wielded by the cherubim). This would seem a wonderful picture of what will happen in Christ, that he first dies before obtaining eternal life. But correctly reading typology and symbolism is always difficult!!!
I like Calvin's comments on this:

It is indeed certain, that man would not have been able, had he even devoured the whole tree, to enjoy life against the will of God; but God, out of respect to his own institution, connects life with the external sign, till the promise should be taken away from it; for there never was any intrinsic efficacy in the tree; but God made it life-giving, so far as he had sealed his grace to man in the use of it, as, in truths he represents nothing to us with false signs, but always speaks to us, as they say, with effect. In short, God resolved to wrest out of the hands of man that which was the occasion or ground of confidence, lest he should form for himself a vain hope of the perpetuity of the life which he had lost.

The Meaning of the Christ's Resurrection

Too often I think we overlook the main point of the resurrection. As evangelicals we can simply use it as a good apologetic for the courtroom validity of Christianity, or a litmus for orthodoxy, or even just as God's apologetic to show us that Christ's death was really a sufficient satisfaction for sin, almost as a gloss to Christ's death. But while Christ's resurrection can be all these things as well, I don't think any of these are the main point. Ultimately the resurrection is the reality of the new creation already bursting into this sin-infested world. Christ has priority and pre-eminence in the new creation even as He did in the old creation (cf Colossians 1:15-20). It is that which gives us a certain hope that the world's trajectory of death and utter destruction will be ultimately undone and overcome by God in Christ through the Spirit. Christ's resurrection is the firstfruits and guarantee that the Biblical age to come has already begun and will just as surely be consummated and perfected. And of course, this leaves us, as the church in the power of the Spirit, to be shining beacons of hope in an otherwise hopeless world, living out Christ's resurrection in newness of life, day by day.

Well, why do we miss this stuff? I don't know! Maybe it is because it's the end of the story and too many of us never finish the books we start reading :-) When I was looking again at Graeme Goldsworthy's book, According to Plan, I was pleased to read his section on 'The New Creation' near the end of his book. This is a popular book, but why do we still seem to talk so often about a 'disembodied' heaven as the opposite of hell, instead of the new creation, the new heavens and new earth? Maybe we get too tied up with some of the details along the way, and miss the point, forgetting where we're actually supposed to be going..?

I thought I would post a copy of Goldsworthy's section I was talking about, since I thought it was so good...

The New Creation
The bodily resurrection of Jesus dominates the New Testament understanding of the gospel. This emphasis in no way detracts from the death of Jesus as the perfect offering by which our sins are covered. The resurrection is central because it presupposes his death, and because it stands as the new beginning of the human race. It may be for this reason that the birth of Jesus as the new creation is not a theme developed in the New Testament. The new humanity rises in the resurrection of Jesus, and in our own bodily resurrection our participation in the Kingdom will cease to be one which is experienced by faith alone, and will become a fact of our total experience. Thus we are born again by Christ's resurrection (1 Pet 1:3), and through his resurrection we enter newness of life (Rom 6:4-11).

The consummation, then, is perceived as being the event that takes place when Christ is revealed in glory. The life in the Spirit, which is the life of faith, continues for a time. It is a life of suffering (Rom 8:18). At the same time the whole creation, which has been subjected to futility, waits with longing, for the final redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:11, 19-23). The resurrection of the children of God will signal the final redemption and renewal of the whole creation. This involvement of the physical body along with the physical creation in the regeneration is one main reason why regeneration should not be thought of exclusively as God giving new life to our spirits. The New Testament constantly repudiates the Greek Gnostic notions of salvation of the immortal soul alone. Texts dealing with the soul between death and resurrection are very scarce. But texts dealing with the resurrection of the whole person abound throughout the whole New Testament.

By now it should be absolutely obvious that the Old Testament references to the kingdom being on earth and populated by people cannot be spiritualized away. Once we accept that Jesus rose bodily, even though his resurrection body was not exactly as it had been before, the physical component of the Kingdom is clear. Those texts which support the ideas of souls going to heaven (for example, 2 Cor. 5:1-10) see it as a purely temporary situation. Peter's description of the new heaven (sky above) and new earth is drawn directly from Isaiah 65:17 (2 Pet. 3:13), which in turn is based on Genesis 1:1. So also, the marvellous description of the kingdom in Revelation 21 and 22 is based on a number of Old Testament passages. But there is no suggestion that is mere symbolism which must be interpreted in a spiritualized way.

For John, the consummation is the open fulfilment of the Old Testament hope. There is a new heaven and a new earth and a new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven (Rev 21:1-2). Some may think of the heavenly Jerusalem as a place in the heavens. But John describes it as from heaven and coming down onto the new earth. That which the tabernacle and temple pointed to, the dwelling of God with his people, becomes a reality (Rev. 21:3). The regeneration is now complete (Rev. 21:5), and thus there is no longer any need for 'government outposts and agencies', such as the temple which is the symbol of God's presence, for he is present and is also the source of all light (Rev. 21:22-23). The old images of Eden are there joined with those of the holy city and throne (Rev. 22:1-2, cf. Ezk. 47:1-12).

All sorts of questions no doubt spring to mind about what the new earth will be like. Most of them will have to remain unanswered in this life since scripture provides little information. One thing is for sure: the biblical view of the total regeneration of all things really beats the pagan view of an eternity spent as disembodied souls with only the odd cloud or two for support!

(Graeme Goldsworthy, According to
Plan (1991) IVP pages 298-300)

PS Since I didn't want to type it all out myself, I thought I'd search the web for someone who'd already done the job for me. Perhaps it is indicative that I could hardly find a copy. What was more interesting was where I did find most of it: on a Worldwide Church of God webpage! Now that is a really amazing story of a group many of us would have written off as a cult, but which has had such a turn around. You can read some of their story at their site, in their own words. Maybe it is another example of Christ's resurrection in action :-)

What is your response to the King?

Well, I've talked about preaching, so I thought I may as well stick my neck out, and put a link on here to the last sermon I preached. It was based on Luke 19:37-44 and entitled 'What is your response to the King?' We also had Psalm 2 as a second reading. So now everyone can tell how I don't do what I said should be done! If you happen to visit, and have some time to kill, feel free to have a listen, and offer some comment or critique, or ask anything you like about it. Only condition is that if you are critical, you have to also try and be encouraging LOL ;-)

The sermon plus reading is about 35 minutes, and the mp3 is about 8.3Mb in size.

Preaching & 'The Big Idea'?

Should Bible teaching and preaching be focused around a single central point, or 'big idea'? Well, I must admit I was very much inculcated with the 'single central point' idea. And I agree with it. (How well I do it is another question ;-) Here are some of the reasons I think it is a good approach:

• Bible teaching and preaching should be more persuasion and proclamation than just academic. Having the single idea focus adds momentum and purpose which is helpful to these ends.
• Unless I have randomly selected the verses I will expound, presumably there is something which makes those verses a unit, something (one thing) which unifies them (UNI=one). It seems consistent then that this reason I picked that textual unit (or even collection of texts) will also be at the heart of the message I preach. So I think it is treating the bible as well as I am in picking my text :-)
• We commonly understand the Bible to speak with this kind of purpose (with points, sub-points etc), and usually search for this purpose (meta-narrative if you like) in understanding the Scriptures. It again seems consistent that our preaching should follow that same model.
• If I don't know what I want to get across, how will my listeners know either?

So whatever Bible teaching I do (not just in preaching), I prefer by far to have a clear single focus. I suppose at times we can have multiple foci, but if there is nothing that really unites them, then I guess they are really each separate talks or units.

While I'm at it, here are a few more of my random thoughts about preaching...

• I think APPLICATION is really important in a sermon. But by 'application' I don't just mean things we tell people to do physically. Application can be something like 'appreciate what it means for Jesus to be the Christ'. Although application can I suppose be just knowledge (eg 'intellectually understand what it means for Jesus to be the Christ'), I think application should be more emotional and/or volitional. I prefer to see intellectual understanding as the means rather than the end. In fact, I would think that some of the best sermon applications are those that inform our heart, our worldview, and as a result powerfully change our lives, rather than those that merely and superficially tell us what to do, or just put some more third-person knowledge into our heads. So I think our 'big idea' of the sermon should answer questions like 'What response to hope to see in my hearers?'
• Having said that, I think most people need lots of nudges to move from abstract to real-life, either by way of concrete explanatory illustrations or by examples as to how non-action applications will translate into day-to-day living. Too often we are not reflective or thoughtful enough to do it ourselves after the sermon has finished.
• I also suspect that the rather formal and polished form and delivery of sermons that is usually expected today, was probably not how they did it in the apostolic church. Maybe it is my problem, but I just can't really imagine them sticking to a tight 25min shedule, making sure everything is word-perfect, writing out everything in full and practicing beforehand, making sure there is a really good introduction and conclusion etc. As for PowerPoint presentations...
• Theory is easier than practice. Do as I say, not as I do ;-)

Acts 23:2-5 Paul before the Sanhedrin

I'm up to Acts 23 with our English Bible Club. Paul's interactions with Ananias and the Sanhedrin in Acts 23:2-5 are intriguing! Here is what I'm wondering:

• If we consider Luke paralleling Paul with Christ, how do we explain the difference between Paul's defensive response as compared to Jesus' submissive response? Is it highlighting the imperfection of Paul in contrast to Christ? I don't really like this option as there doesn't seem to be any markers that Paul is doing the wrong thing. Perhaps a better explanation is the change in situation that now Christ is King on the throne, and so now on the offensive compared to His first coming as a servant..?
• Why did Paul say in 23:5 he did not know that Ananias was the high priest? Was it just because of his eye sight or because he'd wasn't thinking rationally or something? Or was it a use of irony, saying "I couldn't identify you as a high priest by looking at what you are really like"? I actually wonder if it is a subtle accusation about how the Jews did not recognise Jesus as the true high priest and ruler of the people, and reviled Him. I like this last option most, but is it stretching exegesis?

Ephesians 2:1-7 Death and Resurrection

Just reading Ephesians 2:1-10 again recently and I noticed something I'd never noticed before. The clear picture seems to be of death followed by resurrection. "And you who were dead... God made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up together" I think I must have always read it with Systematic Theology glasses. I suppose it is pretty obvious. We were dead, now we are alive. But it seemed before to just be an independent metaphor. But surely Paul is patterning it after Christ himself, who died and rose again to life? After all, it does say "with Christ" (2:5). In fact, digging around a bit more, Paul does say just immediately prior: "and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when he raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places" (1:19-20). So how natural it is for him to say that we, like Christ, have been raised from the dead with him, and seated in the heavenly places with Him, and all by the same power.

Classic Calvin on Justification

I was reading some of the Institutes today, and came across a few quotes which were keepers. Concerning Justification. Here they are (with bold highlighting of some of the classic Calvin phraseology that caught my attention)...

Osiander laughs at those men who teach that “to be justified” is a legal term; because we must actually be righteous. Also, he despises nothing more than that we are justified by free imputation. Well then, if God does not justify us by acquittal and pardon, what does Paul’s statement mean: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing men’s trespasses against them” [2 Corinthians 5:19]? “For our sake he made him to be sin who had done no sin so that we might be the righteousness of God in him.” [verse 21 p.] First, I conclude that they are accounted righteous who are reconciled to God. Included is the means: that God justifies by pardoning, just as in another passage justification is contrasted with accusation. This antithesis clearly shows that the expression was taken from legal usage. Anyone moderately versed in the Hebrew language, provided he has a sober brain, is not ignorant of the fact that the phrase arose from this source, and drew from it its tendency and implication. Where Paul says that righteousness without works is described by David in these words, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven” [Psalm 32:1; 31:1, Vg.; Romans 4:7], let Osiander answer me whether this be a full or half definition. Surely, Paul does not make the prophet bear witness to the doctrine that pardon of sins is part of righteousness, or merely a concomitant toward the justifying of man; on the contrary, he includes the whole of righteousness in free remission, declaring that man blessed whose sins are covered, whose iniquities God has forgiven, and whose transgressions God does not charge to his account. Thence, he judges and reckons his happiness because in this way he is righteous, not intrinsically but by imputation. [Institutes 3.11.11]

Here they have an ingenious subterfuge: even though they have not devised it themselves but have borrowed it from Origen and certain other ancient writers, it is still utterly silly. They prate that the ceremonial works of the law are excluded, not the moral works. They become so proficient by continual wrangling that they do not even grasp the first elements of logic. Do they think that the apostle was raving when he brought forward these passages to prove his opinion? “The man who does these things will live in them” [Galatians 3:12], and, “Cursed be every one who does not fulfill all things written in the book of the law” [Galatians 3:10 p.]. Unless they have gone mad they will not say that life was promised to keepers of ceremonies or the curse announced only to those who transgress the ceremonies. If these passages are to be understood of the moral law, there is no doubt that moral works are also excluded from the power of justifying. These arguments which Paul uses look to the same end: “Since through the law comes knowledge of sin” [Romans 3:20], therefore not righteousness. Because “the law works wrath” [Romans 4:15], hence not righteousness. Because the law does not make conscience certain, it cannot confer righteousness either. Because faith is imputed as righteousness, righteousness is therefore not the reward of works but is given unearned [Romans 4:4-5]. Because we are justified by faith, our boasting is cut off [Romans 3:27 p.]. “If a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But God consigned all things to sin that the promise might be given to those who believe.” [Galatians 3:21-22 p.] Let them now babble, if they dare, that these statements apply to ceremonies, not to morals. Even schoolboys would hoot at such impudence. Therefore, let us hold as certain that when the ability to justify is denied to the law, these words refer to the whole law. [Institutes 3.11.19]

I wonder what Calvin would say about Bishop Tom Wright and his views on justification...

(PS thanks to Bob Vincent whose page I copied from because my Battles edition of the Institutes was on a different computer...)

Gen 1:1-2:3 The end at the beginning?

I thought I would begin my blog with a thought about the beginning. I've been looking at Genesis 1 & 2 for my Hebrew exegesis class, and noticed some things which might be significant. In the numbering the days, the first day is cardinal, and the rest are ordinal. Further, the first five days have no article with the numbering, but the sixth and seventh days have the article. So a translation might be: one day (1:5)... a second day (1:8)... a third day (1:13)... a fourth day (1:19)... a fifth day (1:23)... the sixth day (1:31)... the seventh day (2:2,3). What is the significance of this? Who knows :-) But I'm wondering if the article points to the increased significance of the sixth and seventh days as the culmination of creation. [Originally I had thought only the seventh day had the article, and thought it pointed especially to the seventh day as the perfected consummation. Then I checked again and found an article with the sixth day as well. And maybe it is just my really bad Hebrew, and I've missed something else and actually there is no significance at all. LOL]