The use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12...Who is speaking to whom?

At first glance the way the author of Hebrews 1 uses Psalm 102:25-27 may seem perplexing. Continuing from 1:8 ("But to the son..."), he seems to be quoting Psalm 102:25-27 as words directed by God to the Son, the Christ or Messiah. Yet when we first read the words of the Psalm, they may seem more like they are directed towards God rather than the Messiah, especially as much of the rest of the Psalm seems to be the words of someone, say the Messiah, speaking to God, rather than the other way around (cf the opening words in verse 1, "Hear my prayer, O LORD, let my cry come to you!"). So how do we make sense of the use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12?

Here are the main options I have found:

1. The author of Hebrews boldly and matter-of-fact-ly takes a clear reference to God, the LORD, and attributes it to Jesus. While it may seem like a misuse of Scripture, the argument goes that it is done on sound theological basis and logical syllogism: since Jesus is God, even LORD (= YHWH), therefore any reference to God or LORD in the Old Testament can be legitimately also transferred to Jesus. It doesn't matter at all whether there are any specific indicators for the quotation that it has reference to the Christ, because the basis of usage is not on the "Messiah-ship" of Jesus, but rather just to do with his "LORD-ship". It can also take its lead from the argument of Jesus in John 10:35-36. This is a position we see in the commentary by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (pp.67-68).
2. The author of Hebrews attributes to Jesus a reference to God because the reference also has Messianic indicators. This option is a bit more focused and nuanced than the first option, but includes the argument of the first option. Not only does the author feel free to use a reference to God on the basis of the divinity of Christ, but also because the Psalm is referring to God in ways that should also be considered Messianic or relating to the work and coming of the Christ. Calvin's commentary takes this approach. He says, "I indeed allow that Christ is not named in any part of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is so pointed out, that no one can doubt but that his kingdom is there avowedly recommended to us. Hence all the things which are found there, are to be applied to his person; for in none have they been fulfilled but in Christ...".
3. The author of Hebrews understands the quotation to actually be words of God addressed to the Messiah. This option sees Psalm 102:25-27 as words spoken by God addressed to the Psalmist (or perhaps some other person), understood to be the Messiah. The beginning of the quotation of God's address starts in the middle of verse 23, according to the LXX translation, and this option understands the author of Hebrews as following the same reading as does the LXX. (The difference between the LXX and traditional Hebrew rendering is accounted for by the question of what Hebrew vowels to use in a certain word.) This option also finds strength in accounting for the general Messianic nature and recognition of the Psalm, as well as less awkwardly assimilating into the presentation of the author Hebrews, since it straight-forwardly takes Psalm 102:25-27 as words of God addressed to the Son (if we accept the meaning of the LXX translation, and then we have all the quotations of 1:5, 1:6, 1:8-9, 1:10-12 and 1:13 as words of God to the Son). This is an approach espoused by Don Carson in his devotional reading notes. Also in an article by Stephen Voorwinde in Vox Reformata. It still has a little awkwardness in that it may seem anachronistic for God to address the Messiah as "God" and "YHWH". However, this is not insurmountable, for similar reasons as in the options above. Also, anachronistic reading is mainly an issue if we have problems with the divine authorship of the Scriptures.

In thinking about this question, I also toyed with another option. Perhaps the author of Hebrews was making a more oblique reference, or that this quotation was not meant to be taken on its own merits, but in combination with the other quotations. Perhaps he did understand that Psalm 102 was referring to God, but that the same things are transferred by inheritance to the Son, since the Son sits at the right hand of God, being exalted to the same authority (cf 1:4 and 1:13). Such an option squares more naturally with the traditional Hebrew reading of Psalm 102 while avoiding the difficulties of not sufficiently distinguishing between God and the Son (which the author clearly does distinguish in chapter 1). However, on balance, given that it is a somewhat convoluted option, it is probably best to go with option 3 above, as a more straight-forward and very acceptable option.

Chris Wright on the significance of Christ's resurrection

I have been reading through some of Chris Wright's book, Salvation Belongs To Our God. Among many other good thoughts, I thought this point could be laboured, as we too often understate the resurrection:

It is is important not to say things like 'Jesus died and came back to life' -- as if he were merely resuscitated to a prolonged spell of earthly life before dying in the end. Jesus did not die and 'come back'. Jesus died and went forward--forward into the new resurrection life of the age to come. He is the firstfruits of the new creation. So his resurrection is the guarantee of ours, and of the whole new creation life we will enjoy with him, when he 'will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body' (Phil. 3:21). 

And of course it is the risen Christ who has sent his Spirit, as he promised, whose primary work... is to apply God's salvation in our hearts, bearing witness to our sonship, bearing fruit in our lives, strengthening and comforting us in our witness to Christ.

So the woman left her water jar (John 4:28)

I think the apostle John likes to use historical detail and physical realities to illustrate, emphasise and point to divine realities and spiritual truth. For example, he notes that the jars used to turn water into wine were for Jewish rites of purification (John 2:6), I think alluding to the true purification that will come through Jesus' blood, when his hour has come. Or when the healing of the blind man leads to discussion of spiritual blindness (John 9). Or the simple statement, "And it was night" (John 13:30), as Judas departs to betray the Christ. We might also think of the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11) or other instances.

When we were reading through John 4 on Thursday night, I was struck by how the Samaritan woman, after hearing Jesus speak of "living water" (4:10) he can give, which, if someone drinks of it, that person "will never be thirsty again", and it "will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (4:14), after hearing these words, she "left her water jar" (4:28) and told others about the Christ, directing them to him, so that they too could hear and meet "the Saviour of the world" (4:42). While John doesn't explicitly tell us that the woman received eternal life, or that she drank of those living waters, I think the note that she "left her water jar", which was to carry the kind of water of which if we drink, we "will be thirsty again", is meant to show us that she has indeed drunk of the living waters that only Christ can give, that she herself now has that spring in her, so that through her, others also may hear the words of Christ and drink as well.

Have we left our water jars, or do we still need to listen to the One who can satisfy our real thirsts?

J I Packer on Preaching: Knowing Notions or Knowing God?

"The first requirement for authoritative, perceptive communication of the word of God is that you yourself should be experiencing the power of it. The Puritan John Owen said, 'A man only preaches that sermon well which first preaches itself in his own soul.' He was profoundly right, I would verify that from my own ministry... If we are not ourselves living in and under the Scriptures, those who hear us speak on fellowship with God will soon realize that we do not know what we are talking about... The quantity of theological notions in one's mind, even correct notions, doesn't say anything about one's relationship with God. The fact that one knows a lot of theology doesn't mean that one's relationship with God is right or is going to be right. The two things are quite distinct... My times with the Bible, like those of all pastoral leaders, indeed all Christians, are meant to be times for knowing God."
-- J I Packer, Knowing Notions or Knowing God

[Knowing Notions or Knowing God is from The Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer: Volume 3: Honouring the Written Word of God by J. I. Packer (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999), pp. 241-246.  Knowing Notions or Knowing God was originally published in Pastoral Renewal 6.9 (March, 1982), pp. 65-68.]

Conduct yourselves with fear, knowing that you were ransomed with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:17-19)

"And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."  (1 Peter 1:17-19; ESV)

What you think about a thing determines what you do with it.

If I showed you a cup that had become a family heirloom, which I explained to you had both intense nostalgic value, and which after becoming lost, my grandfather paid thousands of dollars to retrieve it, and I presented it to you to handle, what would you do with it? I think the way you handled it would be vastly different than if you thought that cup was simply bought for a dollar at the local supermarket. You would handle that cup with carefulness, with reverence, and with fear, knowing how much value it had been given, because of the price that was paid for it.

In 1 Peter 1:17 we are told to "conduct yourselves with fear", and following immediately after speaking of our Father who "judges impartially according to one's deeds", we might assume Peter is speaking of that kind of terror of judgement, that trembling of appearing in the holy court room, which we have commonly heard about. However, Peter's sentence doesn't stop at verse 17, but he further explains why we are to conduct ourselves with fear, because we know God has ransomed us with the precious blood of Christ. I think it is the kind of fear which is more like the handling of that cup given a value beyond obvious comprehension. We do not flee in terror, but are drawn to it in marvel and awe, and yet very carefully, very hesitantly. As we think about our lives, redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, we handle ourselves with great care. Because we know that if God would judge us only on our own merits, we would suffer deservedly his terrible wrath. And yet, nevertheless, he gave his one and only Son, that Christ's death--his precious blood--was the ransom-price to redeem as from our slavery in sin.

If that is what we think about our life, what will we do with it?

Greatest love? Laying down your life for your friend... (John 15:12-17)

"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another."
(John 15:12-17; ESV)

Yesterday we had a rich time looking at God's word, in preparation for small group bible studies at an upcoming camp. Looking together at John 15:1-17, one of the people shared about how this was a new and striking thought, that we are not just servants of Jesus, but also friends of Jesus. And we pondered then about how that changes things, if we think of ourselves as Jesus' friends?

As Jesus is about to go and die for his friends, he tells the disciples, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends" immediately followed by "You are my friends if you do what I command you." At one level, we can understand this in helping us answer the question, "Who are the people that Jesus dies for, who are his friends?" They are the ones who do what he says, they are the ones who love one another. So Christians should show love to one another, and that's how they show themselves to be Christ's disciples, and Jesus' friends.

But then Jesus also said to love one another "as I have loved you". How did Jesus love? He died for his friends. Are the other disciples my friends too? Am I ready to lay down my life for them? Or even more to the point, is Jesus my friend? Am I ready to lay down my life for my friend Jesus? As Jesus spoke these words to his friends, he knew not only that he was going to die soon for them, but he also knew that it wouldn't be long before most (perhaps not John), would also have to die for him (cf John 15:18-21). And certainly all would suffer for him, at the hands of others, for the sake of Christ, and Christ's body, the church.

Now we should well come to the point where we also are ready to say, "Yes, I will lay down my life for my friend Jesus". But perhaps (for some of us) we may take comfort in the fact that not many of us have to physically die for Jesus' sake, or even barely suffer physically, and will probably just die of old age. Putting our life on the line for Jesus isn't really an everyday thing for many of us. Hmm. Or maybe it is.

The thought occurred to us yesterday, maybe dying for Jesus is an every day thing. What if Jesus also means that dying for him means dying to self and doing what Jesus commands? What if we should look at obedience from a different perspective, not just as master and servant, but also from the perspective of being Jesus' friend. Are we ready to die to self, putting away our own desires and dreams, or our own pleasures and passions, because we love our friend, Jesus? Will we love one another, because we are ready to die to self out of our great love for our friend Jesus, who died for us?

A servant may die for his master because he has to. But he may not want to. A friend wants to die for the friend he loves. Do I want to die to self every day, because I love my friend Jesus? How great is my love for Jesus?

This simple song by Robin Mark is one of my favourites:

Jesus, all for Jesus,
All I am and have and ever hope to be.
Jesus, all for Jesus,
All I am and have and ever hope to be.

All of my ambitions, hopes and plans
I surrender these into Your hands.
All of my ambitions, hopes and plans
I surrender these into Your hands.

For it's only in Your will that I am free,
For it's only in Your will that I am free,
Jesus, all for Jesus,
All I am and have and ever hope to be.

Jesus as Message, Model and Motive (Titus 2-3)

For the last ten years or so, I have had the privilege of reading through the Bible each week with people whose first language isn't English, many of them not Christians and little exposed to the Scriptures. Through their questions, with fresh views of the texts, perhaps over the years I have learnt more than they did!

Most of the time we read through the four Gospels. And I am very glad to have "forced" myself into fresh exposure to Jesus. One of the things that has struck me again and again in Jesus' teaching, is that when it looks like he is telling others what they should do, at the same time, perhaps even more so, he is telling others what he does and will do. Whether it is in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, or the in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, etc.

In preparing for a recent sermon on Titus, this idea struck me freshly. That Jesus is not only the message to us, not only the motivation for us to do what he said, but he is also the model.

As I was trying to read through the text in Greek, one thing that stood out was the correspondence between what Paul said God did, and what he calls us to do and desires for us. Specifically how God was abundantly good to all people ("to all men", Titus 2:11; "the love of God our Saviour toward man", Titus 3:4), and he calls us to do good for the benefit of all people ("showing all humility to all men", Titus 3:2; "good and profitable unto men", Titus 3:8). Here, what God did was not only the message of the gospel which motivates us to do what he asks of us in subsequent commands, at the same time, the message is also the model of what he wants us to do.

Jesus is the message, because what who is is and what he did is the content of our trust and belief as Christians. Jesus is the model, because he also sets the example and shows us what it looks like to live out that belief. Jesus is the motive, because at the same time he is the reason, when we understand his love to us, we want to live that different way, and in what he did we discover the power to enable us to put sin to death and live the resurrection life.

We can sometimes argue in principle about whether it is necessary for a leader to lead by example, or the led just need to do what is said because the leader has that authority. But there can be no doubt that God sets a powerful precedent, by putting forth the gospel of Jesus Christ, as message, model and motive, all in one.

Who is the good Samaritan? (Tullian Tchividjian and the Good Samaritan)

As has become something of a habit, I was browsing through the Gospel Coalition site's "Right Now" list of links. I came across Tullian Tchividjian's blog post on the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). His conclusion was, "Yes, Jesus and Jesus alone is the Good Samaritan". Like many others, I couldn't really buy it.

This is what I said on a friend's Facebook account when they linked to the article:

"As with many things, I think it is a both/and and not either/or situation. Yes, I think when Jesus speaks parables like this, he is in a purposeful way calling attention to himself and what he does and will do. But I don't think it is only as a substitute or representative. He is also the example. When he says to "go and do likewise", it is not only to expose sin, by some kind of confronting dead end, but it is also to point us in the right direction (cf Calvin's third use of the Law). Sometimes we can over-theologise and over-absolutise etc. I suspect Pastor Tullian's theology is getting in the road of his exegesis..."

Sometimes we can try to be too clever, and miss the obvious. Sometimes we can also be too tunnel-visioned or too monochromatic about seeing Jesus in everything. Sometimes we can be so afraid of legalism and moralism etc, that we are allergic to telling ourselves to "be careful to maintain good works" (Titus 3:8).

The Circumcision of Correct Theology

You who boast in the law dishonour God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:23-29; ESV)

As I was reading Paul's words from Romans 2 (above), and thinking about how it can play out today, it occurred to me that theological correctness can be a kind of circumcision for one kind of modern day "Judaizers".

Tom Wright has used the word "badge" to talk about the way the Jews viewed circumcision (and other works of the Law/Torah, and even just the possession of the Law/Torah, if memory serves me right). This is a helpful analogy. Perhaps more in the past, but badges could serve as proud symbols of membership of your particular club. For some church members, official name tags function as badges of membership. And the thing is, there can be a subtle blurring, where the badge of membership becomes the assurance of membership (although I suppose there is something in the nature of Biblical badges as not only signs, but also seals). Worse though, is when the assurance rests entirely in the wearing of the badge, and it is forgotten that the badge is only a token, when the badge is no longer a sign pointing to something else, but assumes all the substance of assurance. I may not have any real relationships with others in the church, I may only rarely attend the various gatherings of the church, I may never represent the church in the world, but I still have the name tag, and if I'm wearing it, no-one better try and tell me that I'm not a member of the church!

Sometimes I think our confessions to theological correctness become a badge carrying too much weight, causing too much boasting. Sometimes the theological orthodoxy of our doctrinal statements, and of our confessed allegiances (as Calvinist, Evangelical, Reformed or whatever), becomes the substance of our assurance of membership in Christ, even if that alone is the bulk of the substance of that assurance. What if we have the purest summary of the gospel in our official confession, but we never really engage with others to communicate the gospel to them? What if we clearly teach predestination and grace, and are notoriously proud or arrogant as Christians? What if our stated core values proclaim the love of God and reconciliation and forgiveness in Christ, but we are always divisive and fault-finding? "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision." Our theological badge indeed is of value if we live out our theology. But if our theological confessions are only a badge, maybe there is little value in wearing it. And perhaps we may also see that some others who don't wear the same badge, actually do better at living out the theology. May our praise not be from man but from God.

How to respond to sin in the church?

If we check in with reality, we know that sin is always going to occur in the church, until Jesus returns, the resurrection comes, and we sin no more. The New Testament is clear about this, and so is personal experience. This will especially be true if evangelism is going well, and people are being converted out of all sorts of backgrounds. Then you can be sure that the church is going to be confronted with all sorts of uncomfortable situations!

So how do we respond to sin in the church? Especially, what do we do when there is something that cannot - and perhaps should not - be hidden? Perhaps a church member will be convicted of a crime. Perhaps an ugly fight breaks out in a church meeting. Perhaps some gossip is spreading around Facebook for too many to see. The scenarios can be multiplied.

As I was grappling with this, I came up with the following list of "in principle" considerations and questions to ask...

1. All sin is not the same. It is a common mistake that we think all sin is the same. All sin is sin, but not all sin is the same. In the OT, some sins (eg sexual ones, rebellion against parents, idolatry) required the death penalty, others did not. Jesus spoke about how some would receive more severe judgement than others (eg Mark 12:40, Matthew 11:20-24; cf  Hebrews 10:29). Also, in the NT not all sins are given the same “coverage” (I haven’t checked the stats, but I suspect sexual sin gets comparatively a lot of “air time”).
2. Helping the individual. Is the sinning individual being helped as best as possible? The first step of course is admission of sin. Is there already personal repentance and forgiveness, or not? Are we satisfied there is appropriate understanding of sin and repenting of sin? Are they assured of forgiveness? 1 John 1:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 etc. Are there consequences of sin that we need to help work through (eg pregnancy, civil law issues)? Is there unrepentance that needs discipline? We also need to be careful so as not to cause unnecessary suffering to the repentant and forgiven individual.
3. Helping the community. Biblical Christianity is not only individualistic, but it is community-oriented, as a family. Are there community needs that have to be addressed? What about gossip (about the sinning individual, or against the leadership, etc)? Will there be significant temptation of others to sin in the same way or to see sin as condoned (cf 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:27)? How will the community view the sinning individual, and how will that one feel in their presence (cf 2 Corinthians 2:6-11)? How does it affect the other congregations in the same church or denomination?
4. Leadership. How does the eldership take the lead in such situations? Do we need to make use of the “keys of the kingdom”, whether to forgive or exclude (cf Matthew 16:19, 18:18)? What are responsibilities and privileges as Christ’s under-shepherds?
5. Blamelessness/Fear of the LORD. Not about being sinless or perfectionism. Another important Scriptural principle is that Christians need to not only do what is right, but they have to be seen to be doing what is right, so as to be without blame (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:20-21; Philippians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:7). A key witness of the church is not just in doing what is right, but in how we handle it when we fail. This is not so much about our personal shame and honour, as how it reflects upon the name of the LORD, and the fear of him (cf 2 Samuel 12:14). Also, in all this, in our motives etc we need to maintain a fear of the LORD and not a fear of men.
6. Culture. How does our culture view the issue? Are there cultural expectations that need to be addressed, or cultural norms that need to be countered?
7. Pastoral Opportunity. Most (all?) of the NT epistles are occasioned by some problem in the church. Those problems were a pastoral opportunity that became a public teaching legacy to benefit the whole church for every generation to come. Is there a pastoral teaching opportunity that we need to take hold of?
8. Who needs to know? There are complexities relating to members and non-members (we may even have many non-members who are active and even leaders). And even with regard to new people, there are two perspectives. On the one hand, it may not be their business, or they may be put off by hearing. On the other hand, perhaps they need to know what Christianity is really like, and how the church works. Also, is it a private sin, that everyone doesn't need to know about, or something everyone knows about already?

If the leadership comes to a point where something needs to be said, what sort of things should be said? Here are some general suggestions:

• Clear acknowledgement of the reality of ongoing sin in the lives of Christians. (Let's not pretend it doesn't happen.)
• Clear position against sin, including the need for discipline if required. (Let's also not pretend it never needs to happen either. And let us never take delight in it when it does.)
• Clear position of free and full forgiveness and reconciliation and acceptance of the repentant sinner.
• A call to support a repentant sinner however we can as they work through the consequences of their sin.
• A call to support each other in the face of temptation (especially remembering others who might be tempted to fall into similar sin).
• Warnings against gossip etc.
• An offer from the leadership to help where possible with the general ongoing problem of sin (including admission of our own weaknesses and failings).

Jonathan Edwards on Old Men

Was somewhat randomly reading some diary entries from Jonathan Edwards, and found these observations about what old people can be like, and his resolutions for the future...

"Monday , Sept 23 [1723?]. I observe that old men seldom have any advantage of new discoveries, because they are beside the way of thinking to which they have been so long used. Resolved, if ever I live to years, that I will be impartial to hear the reasons of all pretended discoveries, and receive them if rational, how long soever I have been used to another way of thinking." (Memoirs Chapter IV)

"Saturday, Feb. 22 [1724]. I observe that there are some evil habits, which do increase and grow stronger, even in some good people, as they grow older; habits that much obscure the beauty of Christianity: some things which are according to their natural tempers, which in some measure prevail when they are young in Christ, and the evil disposition having an unobserved control, the habit at last grows very strong, and commonly regulates the practice until death. By this means, old Christians are very commonly, in some respects, more unreasonable than those who are young. I am afraid of contracting such habits, particularly of grudging to give, and to do, and of procrastinating." (Memoirs Chapter V)

 (I think he was about 20 years old when he wrote these... not sure how old is "old"..!!)

Does every Christian have a Spiritual Gift?

I remember a few years ago at a home group bible study, we were looking at the question of Spiritual gifts. It is usually assumed that every Christian has at least one "Spiritual gift" (however many different kinds of gifts you think there are), often bundled together with the concept of the "priesthood of all believers". A question I raised at the time, and one which is still not 100% resolved for me, is whether that assumption is really the biblical position? Does the Scripture really teach that everyone has some gift? The three key passages are 1 Corinthians 12-14,  Romans 12:3-8, and 1 Peter 4:10-11. With phrases like "distributing to each one individually as He wills" (1 Corinthians 12:11), "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us" (Romans 12:6), "As each one has received a gift" (1 Peter 4:10), it seems to imply that everyone ("each one") has one of these gifts. But strictly, this may not be necessary. Perhaps it may only mean "each one who has received a gift..." The point in each case is not so much whether each Christian has received some gift, but whether those who have gifts must have the same gift. Indeed, the point in each case is about the diversity of gifts, and that all should work together in unity.

The other question is about how we perceive such gifts. I suspect the default for some of us is as if a gift is like some kind super power (the recent preponderance of superhero movies probably doesn't help). Therefore it must somehow be spectacular or overtly exciting in some way, or at least our fascination is upon gifts that seem more like that. And yet, some of the gifts seem hardly so, thinking perhaps of the gifts of giving, or of showing mercy. More so if we think of the artisans in Moses day who were "filled.. with the Spirit of God", endowed with many skills of craftsmanship (see Exodus 31:1-11 and 35:30-34).

It also seems easier for those with gifts like teaching or preaching (or for that matter, healing or speaking in tongues), to know what they should do, but it seems that for many other Christians, those who don't seem to be gifted in such obvious ways, it can be more of a struggle to find their place in using their gift, whatever it may be.

In any case, there is still a lot to be said for each Christian having at least some gift of the Spirit. The jury is still out, and I'm still pondering :)

Calvin on the work of the Spirit in Old Testament times

Amidst a discussion about the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian, Calvin makes these remarks regarding the question of how the Spirit worked in Old Testament times, in comparison to New Testament times...

But it may be asked, whether there was under the Law a sure and certain promise of salvation, whether the fathers had the gift of the Spirit, whether they enjoyed God’s paternal favor through the remission of sins? Yes, it is evident that they worshipped God with a sincere heart and a pure conscience, and that they walked in his commandments, and this could not have been the case except they had been inwardly taught by the Spirit; and it is also evident, that whenever they thought of their sins, they were raised up by the assurance of a gratuitous pardon. And yet the Apostle, by referring the prophecy of Jeremiah to the coming of Christ, seems to rob them of these blessings. To this I reply, that he does not expressly deny that God formerly wrote his Law on their hearts and pardoned their sins, but he makes a comparison between the less and the greater. As then the Father has put forth more fully the power of his Spirit under the kingdom of Christ, and has poured forth more abundantly his mercy on mankind, this exuberance renders insignificant the small portion of grace which he had been pleased to bestow on the fathers. We also see that the promises were then obscure and intricate, so that they shone only like the moon and stars in comparison with the clear light of the Gospel which shines brightly on us.

If it be objected and said, that the faith and obedience of Abraham so excelled, that hardly any such an example can at this day be found in the whole world; my answer is this, that the question here is not about persons, but that reference is made to the economical condition of the Church. Besides, whatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them. Hence it was not without reason that the Apostle, in comparing the Gospel with the Law, took away from the latter what is peculiar to the former. There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question. [Source: Commentary on Hebrews 8:10] 

 

Calvin on the Holy Spirit writing the law on our hearts (Psalm 143:10 etc)

I was reading Calvin's comments on Psalm 143, and noticed his remarks on verse 10, and how he explains the work of the Holy Spirit in changing a Christian to do God's will. While Calvin's comments on Romans 2:15 go in a different direction, speaking of God's work in the unregenerate Gentile, when he comments on this Psalm he uses the language of "engraving instruction upon our hearts", consistent with his expositions of Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10.

[Comments on Psalm 143:10]: Teach me that I may do thy will. He now rises to something higher, praying not merely for deliverance from outward troubles, but, what is of still greater importance, for the guidance of God’s Spirit, that he might not decline to the right hand or to the left, but be kept in the path of rectitude. This is a request which should never be forgotten when temptations assail us with great severity, as it is peculiarly difficult to submit to God without resorting to unwarrantable methods of relief. As anxiety, fear, disease, languor, or pain, often tempt persons to particular steps, David’s example should bad us to pray for divine restraint, and that we may not be hurried, through impulses of feeling, into unjustifiable courses. We are to mark carefully his way of expressing himself, for what he asks is not simply to be taught what the will of God is, but to be taught and brought to the observance, and doing of it. The former kind of teaching is of less avail, as upon God’s showing us our duty we by no means necessarily follow it, and it is necessary that he should draw out our affections to himself. God therefore must be master and teacher to us not only in the dead letter, but by the inward motions of his Spirit; indeed there are three ways in which he acts the part of our teacher, instructing us by his word, enlightening our minds by the Spirit, and engraving instruction upon our hearts, so as to bring us observe it with a true and cordial consent. The mere hearing of the word would serve no purpose, nor is it enough that we understand it; there must be besides the willing’ obedience of the heart. Nor does he merely say, Teach me that I may be capable of doing, as the deluded Papists imagine that the grace of God does no more than make us flexible to what is good, but he seeks something to be actually and presently done.

He insists upon the same thing in the next clause, when he says, Let thy good Spirit lead me, etc., for he desires the guidance of the Spirit not merely as he enlightens our minds, but as he effectually influences the consent of our hearts, and as it were leads us by the hand. The passage in its connection warns us of the necessity of being sedulously on our guard against yielding to inordinate passions in any contests we may have with wicked persons, and as we have no sufficient wisdom or power of our own by which to check and restrain these passions, that we should always seek the guidance of God’s Spirit, to keep them in moderation. More generally, the passage teaches us what we are to think of free will; for David here denies the will to have the power of judging rightly, till our hearts be formed to a holy obedience by the Spirit of God. The term leading, which I have already adverted to, proves also that David did not hold that middle species of grace which Papists talk so much about, and which leaves man in a state of suspension or indecision, but asserts something much more effectual, agreeably to what Paul says, (Philippians 2:13) that “it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

[Comments on Jeremiah 31:33]: He afterwards says, I will put my Law in their inward parts By these words he confirms what we have said, that the newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the substance, but as to the form only: for God does not say here, “I will give you another Law,” but I will write my Law, that is, the same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers. He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only. But he states the same thing in two ways, and says, that he would put his law in their inward parts, and that he would write it in their hearts. We indeed know how difficult it is that man should be so formed to obedience that his whole life may be in unison with the Law of God, for all the lusts of the flesh are so many enemies, as Paul says, who fight against God. (Romans 8:7) As then all our affections and lusts thus carry on war with God, it is in a manner a renovation of the world when men suffer themselves to be ruled by God. And we know what Scripture says, that we cannot be the disciples of Christ, except we renounce ourselves and the world, and deny our own selves. (Matthew 6:24; Luke 14:26, 27) This is the reason why the Prophet was not satisfied with one statement, but said, I will put my Law in their inward parts, I will write it in their hearts.

We may further learn from this passage, how foolish the Papists are in their conceit about free-will. They indeed allow that without the help of God’s grace we are not capable of fulfilling the Law, and thus they concede something to the aid of grace and of the Spirit: but still they not only imagine a co-operation as to free-will, but ascribe to it the main work. Now the Prophet here testifies that it is the peculiar work of God to write his Law in our hearts. Since God then declares that this favor is justly his, and claims to himself the glory of it, how great must be the arrogance of men to appropriate this to themselves? To write the Law in the heart imports nothing less than so to form it, that the Law should rule there, and that there should be no feeling of the heart, not conformable and not consenting to its doctrine. It is hence then sufficiently clear, that no one can be turned so as to obey the Law, until he be regenerated by the Spirit of God; nay, that there is no inclination in man to act rightly, except God prepares his heart by his grace; in a word, that the doctrine of the letter is always dead, until God vivifies it by his Spirit.

[Comments on Hebrews 8:10]: The first is, that God calls us to himself without effect as long as he speaks to us in no other way than by the voice of man. He indeed teaches us and commands what is right but he speaks to the deaf; for when we seem to hear anything, our ears are only struck by an empty sound; and the heart, full of depravity and perverseness, rejects every wholesome doctrine. In short, the word of God never penetrates into our hearts, for they are iron and stone until they are softened by him; nay, they have engraven on them a contrary law, for perverse passions rule within, which lead us to rebellion. In vain then does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. It hence appears of what avail is freewill and the uprightness of nature before God regenerates us. We will indeed and choose freely; but our will is carried away by a sort of insane impulse to resist God. Thus it comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2 Corinthians 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect.

John Owen on the Deadly Deceptiveness of Sin

Sin is always deceptive and deadly. It may start looking harmless enough, but it will stealthily lead towards utter destruction. We need to kill sin or be killed by it! Here is a quote from the English Puritan, John Owen:

Sin will not only be striving, acting, rebelling, troubling, disquieting, but if let alone, if not continually mortified, it will bring forth great, cursed, scandalous, soul-destroying sins. The apostle tells us what the works and fruits of it are, Gal. v. 19–21, “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.” You know what it did in David and sundry others. Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts, — that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villany: it is like the grave, that is never satisfied. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin, Heb. iii. 13, — it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presseth on to some farther degrees in the same kind. This new acting and pressing forward makes the soul take little notice of what an entrance to a falling off from God is already made; it thinks all is indifferent well if there be no farther progress; and so far as the soul is made insensible of any sin, — that is, as to such a sense as the gospel requireth, — so far it is hardened: but sin is still pressing forward, and that because it hath no bounds but utter relinquishment of God and opposition to him; that it proceeds towards its height by degrees, making good the ground it hath got by hardness, is not from its nature, but its deceitfulness. Now nothing can prevent this but mortification; that withers the root and strikes at the head of sin every hour, so that whatever it aims at it is crossed in. There is not the best saint in the world but, if he should give over this duty, would fall into as many cursed sins as ever any did of his kind.

[src: Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers, Chapter 2, heading 3]

Tim Keller via Dan Stevers Video on how Jesus is the True and Better

Saw this video at church last Sunday.. great summary video of how the Old Testament looks ahead to Jesus (I think the words are based on a talk by Tim Keller). 

John Calvin on "Heaven", the Resurrection, and the Immortality of the Soul

As usual, Calvin has some helpful comments regarding the human "soul" and what happens after death. These days a number of people have high-lighted the fact that as Christians we often speak too much about heaven in a sense that is less than fully Biblical, with an emphasis on our disembodied spirits "going to heaven" immediately after we die. As Calvin reflected in his commentary on the parallel passages of Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-40, we see that this concern is not just novel for our times. This is what he says:

And, indeed, if we consider properly the doctrine of Scripture, the life of the soul, apart from the hope of the resurrection, will be a mere dream; for God does not declare that, immediately after the death of the body, souls live, — as if their glory and happiness were already enjoyed by them in perfections — but delays the expectation of them till the last day. I readily acknowledge that the philosophers, who were ignorant of the resurrection of the body, have many discussions about the immortal essence of the soul; but they talk so foolishly about the state of the future life that their opinions have no weight. But since the Scriptures inform us that the spiritual life depends on the hope of the resurrection, and that souls, when separated from the bodies, look forward to it, whoever destroys the resurrection deprives souls also of their immortality.

The apostolic church was captivated with the hope of the resurrection, at Christ's return. May that also be our hope, and may we not be so short-sighted, as to merely look forward to that imperfect, temporary state, in between the death of the body and the resurrection of the body.

What are you enslaved to, Mr Rudd?

I was appalled when I heard the brief response of our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to a Christian Pastor on ABC's Q&A last night. The snippet is on YouTube here:



I don't want to have disrespect for our Prime Minister, but if he claims to be a Christian I wish he would show more respect for God and his word, and at least try to interpret the Bible more sensibly and responsibly. His comments regarding what the Bible says about slavery and homosexuality are at best very naive...

Kevin Rudd's reasoning was sound if he wanted to say things that many people like to hear, and that are in step with a non-Christian way of looking at things. But I think it would be very difficult to intelligently show how his words could really be consistent with what Christ intended (or his apostle Paul etc).

Not sure how to put this briefly. The PM's logic seems to be this:

1. Slavery is not a bad condition in the Bible.
2. Now we have advanced in Christian love to a changed view, understanding slavery is actually bad.
3. Homosexuality is a bad condition in the Bible.
4. Now we have advanced in Christian love to a changed view, understanding homosexuality is actually not a bad condition.
5. In both cases they follow the same pattern, and this is consistent with the central trajectory of the Gospel.

Non sequitur, Mr Rudd. Here a just a few of the problems with this logic:

1. In OT and NT freedom from slavery is one of the main motifs used, saying that slavery is a bad condition
2. As above, fighting against human slavery is actually consistent with what is seen throughout the Bible, not a surprising advance or change.
3. Homosexuality is not portrayed as a good condition in the Bible.
4. Nothing anticipates a future acceptance of homosexuality as being consistent with Bible teaching
5. The Bible does consistently teach freedom from both slavery and homosexuality as consistent with the central trajectory of the Gospel, which is about rescue by Jesus to free us from bad conditions so that we can truly and freely love others.

I think if one was to read through all the references to both slavery and homosexuality in all the Bible, and properly consider what each one says in context, I can't see how Mr Rudd's logic could honestly be justified as consistent with the Bible.

If the PM was merely making a naturalistic case concluding that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality etc, ignoring the Bible, then what he said has some internal consistency and logic. My problem with Mr Rudd is that he didn't do that. He tried to say that his view was consistent with Christian teaching, aka the Bible. It makes no sense to say something is Christian which ignores or rejects the Bible. The Bible defines Christianity. It is like saying something is Moslem which ignores or rejects the Quran. Or saying something is socialist which really espouses capitalism. Or like the "atheist" I once met at a uni Atheist Society, who later told me he was really a pantheist. Etc.

And by the way, the Bible doesn't give "natural condition" as an "out" for immorality etc. The Bible also talks about people who have a tendency to be abusive and hot-tempered (or we could pick any number of other things). But the Gospel is about the possibility of being freed from such "natural conditions", and being forgiven and empowered to make a clean start. It really is good news :D

Okay, that wasn't brief. Oops!

A Model of the Covenants (Old vs New etc)

The question of the distinctions and inter-relationships between the "covenants" in the Bible is complex and far from simple. Issues of continuity vs discontinuity etc. It is not spelled out neatly or simply in the Scriptures, and hence our difficulty in coming to grips with it all. Definitely lots of nuancing required. Back in 2000, out of discussions with an old friend, I tried to articulate some of my position on this matter. I decided to dig it up again and post it here for posterity (with only minor changes/clarifications). It is in the form of two diagrams with some accompanying dot points, reproduced below.

One other comment about my approach to all this sort of thing, a slightly-reworded note of what I said to my friend at the time: This may be a cop-out, but I tend to try to hold the whole complex thing in 'tension', without simplification or minimalization. I guess because I'm more of a details man than a 'big picture' person. Hence I tend to think either way we start systematizing into a model we lose some information, and end up with an imperfect model (like all models - science background speaking). The trick is working out which things are 'reducible' and which are not (borrowed that concept from IT background, "elementary facts" and all that). When we try to make things simpler and more clear-cut than the Bible we tend to lose information, and reduce the irreducible. In other words, I think models ("gospel economy", moral/civil/ceremonial, etc) are useful to emphasise and teach one aspect, but will always fall down if we want them to replace the real thing. If God wanted to make it simpler, he would have done it for us in the Scriptures. If he didn't, we need to be careful not to presume we can do a better job of it than him!

Diagrams of Model:

Notes on the Model:

• The ‘eternal truth’ relating to the character of God and how He relates to creation, is common to all covenants
• Purest and fullest revelation of this ‘eternal truth’ occurs now in the New Covenant. However, this is not final or perfect, and there will be a different temporal administration in the consummation, in the new heavens and new earth after the resurrection at Christ's return.
• In previous covenants (eg Abrahamic, Mosaic) that revelation is shadowy and incomplete, with some aspects clearer than others. A particular covenant may emphasise different aspects from another covenant. This preserves the progressiveness of revelation.
• The ‘temporal administration’ of a covenant is the outworking of the ‘eternal truth’ in a necessary and binding way appropriate to that time, place and extent of revelation. (Principles of anthropomorphism, condescension, ‘context sensitive revelation’ etc.)
• Such a model allows for different particular outward administrations, obligations and promises from covenantal ‘epochs’, while maintaining consistent aspects of revelation (eg a common ‘covenant of grace’, ‘way of salvation’, etc).
• Consistency of ‘eternal truth’ allows for continuity of moral principles (ie law), as well as similarities between different ‘temporal administrations’ (eg Passover/Lord’s Supper, Circumcision/Baptism, Sabbath/Lord’s Day, Temple Cultus/Church Worship, etc).
• Clear revelation in an earlier covenant of the same ‘eternal truth’ can be assumed in the New Covenant (and thus promotes a ‘whole Bible’ attitude, and does not need everything to be explicitly restated in the New Testament for it to be contemporary).
• Differences in ‘temporal administrations’ allow for ‘discontinuities’ in outward observances associated with a particular ‘epoch’.

A Reflection after William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss Debate: Why are atheists so passionate?

This week I attended the Brisbane instalment of the William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss debate. Craig was generally patient and tried to engage Krauss on important and relevant issues. He made good points about the importance of God and Christianity in providing an environment and framework in which science can flourish and have an ethical framework. To these Krauss just seemed to take cheap shots and not really engage with the core arguments. (Krauss wanted to say “thanks for what you’ve done for us, but now you can go and we’ll take it from here”, but I suspect he doesn’t properly appreciate the “hand who feeds him”.)

Sadly, Craig’s theology let him down with the “genocide” issue. From when I have looked at his website previously, he seems too committed to libertarianism, and perhaps overemphases the place of rationality vs revelation. (I was a little surprised that AFES/CBF/QTC invited Craig, given his different theological perspective, but good on them for ecumenism!) However, I was glad that Craig clearly declared God’s prerogative to give and take life, although some more proclamation, especially about Christ, may have been better.

However, as I reflected afterwards on Krauss' attitude, I wondered how he rationalized his passionate atheism. I may well be ignorant on this, but he, like Dawkins, seem to espouse an evolutionist materialism, yet at the same time vigorously demanding the value of logic, reason, and "scientific process". What I don't get is, how can you justify putting value on anything, if everything is just a matter of physical and chemical processes etc? If any sense of value, worth or passion is just an illusion, some evolutionary "benefit", really just some kind of existential vapour of electrochemcial sparks in the brain, about to become meaningless history at some arbitrary point in the future, then who should really care? What is "care" afterall? How do they justify such moral high-ground, and give their own reason such a high standing? How do they really know that "religion" is not a better evolutionary product? It seems to me that the true logical conclusion of materialism is uncaring nihilism. There is no place for moral high-ground, even the moral high-ground of having no moral high-ground.

I remain illumined by the wisdom of God, who tells us that, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1)