Genesis 1:1-2:3... Seeing the light of day*

I was reflecting on Genesis 1:1-2:3 again today (and surprisingly found that I preferred the RSV translation in this case). Particularly my thoughts were around the meaning of the repeated refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning, [xxx] day". It is often telling to compare different translations, and verse 1:5 is a case in point, eg:

"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." [RSV]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." [KJV]

"God called the light ‘day’, and the darkness he called ‘night’. And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day." [NIV]

"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." [ESV]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." [ASV]

"God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day." [NET]

Of course, there are all sorts of discussions about the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1. There are at least two distinct and clear meanings in Genesis 1 & 2 (and neither of which equals exact 24-hour period):

• "God called the light ‘day’, and the darkness he called ‘night’" (Genesis 1:5; NIV) = the light period during a 24-hour period, as opposed to the dark period
• "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4; RSV) = indistinct period or point in time, not one 24-hour period

So what does God intend to convey to us when he says that "there was evening, and there was morning, one day" etc?

First, a few grammatical, structural and translation points to highlight:

• The repetition in 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 (and lack of use in 2:1-3) is surely significant.
• In the Hebrew, the verb "to be" (eg "there was") is repeated twice, so literally RSV translation seems more literal than say the KJV.
• Also notable in the Hebrew is the use of a cardinal number for the first day, but ordinals for the other days (which the RSV conveys; admittedly this is not straight forward and there is dispute here about how much to make of it).
• Something which the RSV doesn't fully convey is the use of the Hebrew article only for the sixth and seventh days (cf ASV). This also is likely significant, pointing to climax.
• "Evening" is mentioned before "morning" (often misquoted by people who say "morning and evening" instead).
• "Evening" and "morning" may refer to points in time (ie nightfall/sunset and daybreak/dawn) rather than periods or durations of time.

Previously I had thought the meaning was about a "work-day", and God spoke here in a pattern and structure that people would readily recognise, working during the day and not at night (cf John 9:4). So God did his day's work, then night falls, and morning comes, ready for the next day's work. In this view the evening and morning do not refer to the time of the day of work that was just done, but rather to the sequence of events that follow that day's work. But there are some problems with this, and I am re-thinking. For one, it seems to be a common Jewish understanding (although I still need to research the Biblical perspective) that a 24-hour day starts at sunset and ends at the following sunset. This might give a sense that when evening came, the next day had begun, and so if that were intended, it would have been better sequence to say something like "The Nth day, then evening came and then morning came", but that's not how the text puts it.

So now I'm thinking that a better understanding may be to take the whole sentence "there was evening and there was morning, one day" to refer as a kind of summary statement of what just happened. Certainly the reference to "one day" or the "nth day" indicates what had just happened and not what follows (clear because in 2:1-3 the seventh day follows the six days, otherwise it would be the sixth day not the seventh). In  this case the coming of evening and morning also refer to what had happened rather than what followed. This seems consistent with the use of the cardinal in 1:5 as well as the definition of "day" at the beginning of the verse, and also the whole situation conveyed in 1:2-4. In 1:2 there was darkness which is followed by the coming of light, the same sequence of evening followed by morning (or daybreak).

This fresh (at least for me) understanding has a lot of potential richness associated with it. There is a theme of progression from darkness/night to light/day, with light and day being by far the better of the two. And with the seventh day of rest, there is no repeated refrain, and the implication of continuing day of rest, with no nightfall ever coming to that day. And so throughout the whole creation account, from the first declaration of a day, there is progression of improvement until reaching endless perfection (what was formless and empty becomes formed and filled, day after day, being good, then very good, then holy and finished). And this has wonderful resonance with the trajectories in Scripture of the day of rest (cf treatment in Hebrews 3:7-4:11),  of everlasting light/day in the new Jerusalem (cf Isaiah 60 especially eg 60:1-3, 60:11, 60:19-20, and where it is picked up again in Revelation 21:23-25 and 22:5), as well as other pictures in Scripture of day vs night (eg John 1:4-9, John 3:19-21, John 9:4, Romans 13:11-13, Ephesians 5:8-14, 1 Thessalonians 5:4-7, 1 Peter 2:9 etc).

Well, maybe more on this another day...!


* Had fun thinking about a post title, but hard to decide :) Some other contenders that may also see the light of day... "Plain as day", "Will you give me the time of day?", "As different as night and day", "From day one", "All in a days work", "Let's call it a day", "The good old days", "As honest as the day is long", "One day at a time", "Not enough hours in the day". Actually, even thinking about all these common English phrases sparks all kinds of thoughts about Genesis 1:1-2:4..!

Methodists and Church Buildings

Came across this interesting blog post about Pastors’ Salaries and Church Buildings. Brief but resonating. Here is some historical Methodist policy that he quotes...

It shall be the duty of every preacher belonging to this conference to use his influence against constructing expensive meeting houses.
[Source: 1816 New England Conference of the Methodist Church] 

Let all our chapels be built plain and decent; but not more expensive than is absolutely unavoidable: otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us. But if so, we must be dependent upon them, yea; and governed by them. And then farewell to the Methodist discipline, if not doctrine too.
[Source: Discipline (of the American Methodist Church), 1784]

J I Packer and Mistakes We Make in Seeking God's Guidance

I'd have to say that J I Packer is my long-time favourite Christian writer and teacher. Always one of the first people I'll check with if I can. And one of his most classic books I've had for a long time, and known about for longer, is Knowing God. But of course, I've never read it cover to cover :O! So today I was doing some more dipping into it, and read some of the stuff about discerning God's will, or getting guidance from God. I'm sure I've never read it before, but even more certainly there is great stuff to read there, lots of sound wisdom. Here is a section he wrote about "Six Common Pitfalls", or mistakes we often make as Christians, when trying to seek and follow God's will for our lives...

First, unwillingness to think. It is false piety, super-super-naturalism of an unhealthy and pernicious sort, that demands inward impressions that have no rational base, and declines to heed the constant biblical summons to ‘consider’. God made us thinking beings, and He guides our minds as in His presence we think things out – not otherwise. ‘O that they were wise…that they would consider…’ (Deuteronomy 32:29).

Second, unwillingness to think ahead, and weigh the long-term consequences of alternative courses of action. ’Think ahead’ is part of the divine rule of life no less than of the human rule of the road. Often we can only see what is wise and right (and what is foolish and wrong) as we dwell on its long-term issues. ‘O, that they were wise…that they would consider their latter end.’ 

Third, unwillingness to take advice. Scripture is emphatic on the need for this. ’The way of the foolish is right in his own eyes; but he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel’ (Proverbs 12:15, RV). It is a sign of conceit and immaturity to dispense with taking advice in major decisions. There are always people who know the Bible, human nature, and our own gifts and limitations, better than we do, and even if we cannot finally accept their advice, nothing but good will come to us from carefully weighing what they say. 

Fourth, unwillingness to suspect oneself. We dislike being realistic with ourselves, and we do not know ourselves at all well; we can recognise rationalisations in others and quite overlook them in ourselves. ‘Feelings’ with an ego-boosting, or escapist, or self-indulging, or self-aggrandising base, must be detected and discredited, not mistaken for guidance. This is particularly true of sexual, or sexually conditioned, feelings. As a biologist-theologian has written: 

The joy and general sense of well-being that often (but not always) goes with being ‘in love’ can easily silence conscience and inhibit critical thinking. How often people say that they ‘feel led’ to get married (and probably they will say ‘the Lord has so clearly guided’), when all they are really describing is a particularly novel state of endocrine balance which makes them feel extremely sanguine and happy (O. R. Barclay, Guidance, p. 29). 

We need to ask ourselves why we ‘feel’ a particular course to be right, and make ourselves give reasons – and we shall be wise to lay the case before someone else whose judgment we trust, to give his verdict on our reasons. We need also to keep praying, ‘Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting’ (Psalm 139:23f.). We can never distrust ourselves too much. 

Fifth, unwillingness to discount personal magnetism. Those who have not been made deeply aware of pride and self-deception in themselves cannot always detect these things in others, and this has from time to time made it possible for well-meaning but deluded men with a flair for self-dramatisation to gain alarming domination over the minds and consciences of others, who fall under their spell and decline to judge them by ordinary standards. And even when a gifted and magnetic man is aware of the danger and tries to avoid it, he is not always able to stop Christian people treating him as an angel, or a prophet, construing his words as guidance for themselves, and blindly following his lead. But this is not the way to be led by God. Outstanding men are not, indeed, necessarily wrong, but they are not necessarily right, either! They, and their views, must be respected, but may not be idolised. ‘Prove (test) all things; hold fast that which is good’ (1 Thessalonians 5:12). 

Sixth, unwillingness to wait. ‘Wait on the Lord’ is a constant refrain in the Psalms, and it is a necessary word, for God often keeps us waiting. He is not in such a hurry as we are, and it is not His way to give more light on the future than we need for action in the present, or to guide us more than one step at a time. When in doubt, do nothing, but continue to wait on God. When action is needed, light will come. 

[Source: Knowing God with Study Guide (1993), pp269-271.] 

Bill Donahue and Leadership that Kills Community

I came across a brief but helpful blog post on dangerous kinds of leadership, "Leadership the kills community". It is by Dr Bill Donahue, a Christian who works in the area of developing leadership. Here is a copy of the four types of deadly leadership that he mentions...

Blinded by Vision
A vision is only as good as the reality it produces. Leaders obsessed with an ideal picture of what “could be” fail to embrace what is. They live on vision fumes. Teammates and followers become frustrated, and trust in the leader vaporizes. It’s reminiscent of Bonhoeffer’s dictum that “he who loves his dream of community more than the community itself destroys the latter.” We could paraphrase: “He who loves his vision more than the people to whom he is casting it, alienates them.”  It is easy to idealize a neighborhood community, for example, and ignore its socio-economic realities, relational challenges, stages of life issues, and leadership needs. 

Pre-occupied with Structure
When the model becomes the master community life’s a disaster (a cute rhyme but a deep truth). I have witnessed this in too many churches led by model-driven (versus value-led) point leaders and pastors. This happens when we forget a mantra we used at Willow for years: The structure serves the people; the people don’t serve the structure. 

Decidedly Irresponse-able
Any initiative requires strong leadership from the point person designated to carry out the venture. He or she is the voice for the initiative and the guide to others seeking to build it. But there’s more. A leader who shuns the input of others and fails to consider their collective wisdom and insights is no longer response-able, leaving followers disconnected and devalued. 

Focused on “Self”- Improvement
The inclination to use people instead of empowering them kills any community. When a leader makes decisions out of self-interest or self-promotion others lose respect for the leader and passion for the mission fizzles. Group leaders design meetings to meet personal needs or interests; staff members focus mostly on numbers and events; senior leaders make decisions to enhance their platform or promote their materials, often at the expense of the community they are called to shepherd.

J C Ryle on Zeal (Jealousy) for God

I was reminded today of this old quote by J C Ryle, from Practical Religion, about have a zeal or jealousy for God..

Zeal in religion is a burning desire to please God, to do His will, and to advance His glory in the world in every possible way. It is a desire, which no man feels by nature--which the Spirit puts in the heart of every believer when he is converted--but which some believers feel so much more strongly than others that they alone deserve to be called "zealous" men.

This desire is so strong, when it really reigns in a person, that it impels them to make any sacrifice-to go through any trouble-to deny themselves anything--to suffer, to work, to labour, to toil, to spend themselves and be spent, and even to die--if only they can please God and honour Christ. 

A zealous man in religion is pre-eminently a man of one thing. It is not enough to say that he is earnest, hearty, uncompromising, thorough-going, whole-hearted, fervent in spirit. He only sees one thing, he cares for one thing, he lives for one thing, he is swallowed up in one thing; and that one thing is to please God. Whether he lives, or whether he dies—whether he has health, or whether he has sickness—whether he is rich, or whether he is poor—whether he pleases man, or whether he gives offence—whether he is thought wise, or whether he is thought foolish—whether he gets blame, or whether he gets praise—whether he get honour, or whether he gets shame—for all this the zealous man cares nothing at all. He burns for one thing; and that one thing is to please God, and to advance God’s glory. If he is consumed in the very burning, he cares not for it--he is content. He feels that, like a lamp, he is made to burn; and if consumed in burning, he has but done the work for which God appointed him. Such a one will always find a sphere for his zeal. If he cannot preach, work, and give money, he will cry, and sigh, and pray. Yes: if they are extremely poor, on a perpetual bed of sickness, they will make the activity of sin around him slow to a standstill, by continually interceding against it. If he cannot fight in the valley with Joshua, he will do the work of Moses, Aaron, and Hur, on the hill (Exodus 17:9-13). If he is cut off from working himself, he will give the Lord no rest till help is raised up from another quarter, and the work is done. This is what I mean when I speak of ‘zeal’ in religion.

Augustine via Calvin on False Humility

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" [Colossians 2:18, tr. Calvin]

Calvin takes an insightful quote from Augustine in his Commentary on Colossians 2:18, regarding the puffing up that comes from false humility. He writes, "as Augustine elegantly writes to Paulinus, by wonderful means, as to the soul of man, that it is more puffed up from a false humility than if it were openly proud".

[The quote comes from Augustine's letter to Paulinus, #149/CXLIX, 2.28, fit enim miris modis in anima hominis, ut de falsa humilitate magis infletur, quam si apertius superbiret]

Quoting Hymns in Sermons

I was at the last day of QTC's preaching week, and sat in on the last session of Mike Raiter's elective on preaching from Hebrews. In one of his sample sermons, it ended with a lengthy quote of four or five verses or so from an old hymn. It got me wondering about the quoting of hymns in sermons. Perhaps more in the past, it was quite a common practice. I remember being in a church where we basically only sang hymns, so you were quite familiar with a lot of hymns. When someone quoted a hymn, often you could think, "Yeah, I know that one". I wonder in the past if preachers quoted hymns because they knew people were familiar with them and sang them, or just because of the powerful choice of words etc in a particular hymn? And what about today? Hymns aren't so common any more. When preachers quote them, do they expect people to be familiar with them? Or do they hope to introduce them to songs they hadn't heard before? Recently I led communion at our church, and I quoted from a modern song, which perhaps our people were not familiar with, but I thought the expressions were quite potent, and captured the sense I wanted to convey. And I liked the song as well (and I suppose it would be nice if the church learned that song some time..!)

I also just looked up an old sermon, which happened to come with my selection of songs for that service. It included a hymn that I liked, but haven't sung for a long time. I share the words here to enjoy them again in this moment :D

Lo! he comes, with clouds descending,
Once for favored sinners slain;
Thousand thousand saints attending
Swell the triumph of his train:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
God appears on earth to reign.

Ev'ry eye shall now behold him,
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold him,
Pierced, and nailed him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

Ev'ry island, sea, and mountain,
Heav'n and earth, shall flee away;
All who hate him must, confounded,
Hear the trump proclaim the day;
Come to judgment! Come to judgment!
Come to judgment, come away!

Now Redemption, long expected,
See in solemn pomp appear!
All his saints, by man rejected,
Now shall meet him in the air:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
See the day of God appear!

Yea, Amen! let all adore thee,
High on thine eternal throne;
Saviour, take the pow'r and glory,
Claim the kingdom for thine own:
O come quickly, O come quickly:
Alleluia! come, Lord, come.

(Original Trinity Hymnal, #237)

A song inspired by Psalm 119:57

There was a fair bit of cringing going on in my house recently, when I announced to my family that I had written a song, or at least some lyrics. Along with the cringes were cries of "Cliche!" and "Lame!" etc. Oh dear! Well I've never really been into song-writing, so why a song? I'm sure the fact that I'd been reading Simone's blog posts (here and here) about song-writing had a lot to do with it. But also there was just something about when I was reading some of Psalm 119, particularly verse 57, I just felt inspired that it should be sung (it is a Psalm I guess...!), and for some reason some words starting coming to mind. So here it is (I was never good at "killing my darlings")...

You are my portion
You are my peace
You are everything that I need
Teach me LORD to follow your way

My life is full of burdens
But you can carry the load
I am wearied and weighed down
But you can give me wings

A hole is in my heart
But you can fill the void
My life is full of sin
But you have paid the price

I don't know where to go
But you have paved the road
I cannot speak the words
But you have made my mouth

I stumble and I fall
But your Spirit raises me
My enemies surround
But my sword and shield you'll be

I cannot see my hope
But Christ will return for me
Our world seems such a mess
But when you speak all will be new

(Sorry Simone, I'm sure I broke all the rules of good song-writing!)

Calvin vs Cessationism

I'm not yet sure about Calvin's full view of miracles, spiritual gifts, etc. But it seems clear that he was not a 100% pure cessationist. At the least, he allowed for the possibility of apostles, prophets and evangelists after the New Testament apostolic age:

According to this interpretation, which appears to me consonant both to the words and the meaning of Paul, those three functions [ie apostles, prophets, evangelists] were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ; although I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist. [Institutes 4.3.4]  

Also, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he didn't interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 in the common cessationist manner. Calvin did understand these gifts as temporary, but not to the apostolic age, but rather in this whole period prior to the final judgement:

Now our imperfection will one day have an end. Hence the use, even of those gifts, will, at the same time, be discontinued, for it were absurd that they should remain and be of no use. They will, therefore, perish...  But when will that perfection come? It begins, indeed, at death, for then we put off, along with the body, many infirmities; but it will not be completely manifested until the day of judgment, as we shall hear presently. Hence we infer, that the whole of this discussion is ignorantly applied to the time that is intermediate. [Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:9-13]

Of course, Calvin does not see such gifts as necessary, normative, or permanent, for every church and every period of history etc. But that does not necessarily make him a cessationist either.

Preaching on the Trinity

I'm not usually one for topical sermons, but I thought it would be useful for myself, and hopefully also for others, to preach a sermon on the Trinity. Many times I have been asked about the Trinity, and I have never quite been satisfied with the answers I gave. Especially how to show the practical relevance, without just being all philosophical and abstract. (Although of course, if the Bible taught something like that, than that would be enough...) I made use of a lot of online resources in preparation, and especially was helped by some stuff by Tim Keller. I am thankful for the things God taught me, and the fresh perspectives.I am more than ever convinced that the Trinity is something we need to be clear about as Christians, as a fundamental point of orthodoxy, even if we will never fully comprehend it :)

(The final result is available at our church website here.)

John Owen on Christ's Satisfaction, not "ipso facto" or pecuniary

I was just reading through John Owen's tract on the Trinity, where he also considers the nature of Christ's satisfaction for our sins, and goes into further detail in an appendix. I was reminded of previous discussions with friend of mine (and his supporters), who argued that Owen's view of the satisfaction necessitated an "ipso facto" justification etc, and that Owen really had a pecuniary view of the atonement, and that hence God's pardon was not really free (see also this previous post).I think the quote below is fairly clear of Owen's position, and representative of the latter part of his life (the tract was published in 1669). Essentially Owen says that the satisfaction cannot automatically justify or save since it is not like a pecuniary (monetary) debt. There needs to be some kind of compact or agreement by God to accept the satisfaction, and part of that agreement can therefore include stipulations, such as faith on the part of the sinner etc. We find the same kind of understanding in Dabney etc. Here is the extended quote:

Neither does it follow, that, on the supposition of the satisfaction pleaded for, the freedom, pardon, or acquitment of the person originally guilty and liable to punishment must immediately and “ipso facto” ensue. It is not of the nature of every solution or satisfaction, that deliverance must “ipso facto” follow. And the reason of it is, because this satisfaction, by a succedaneous substitution of one to undergo punishment for another, must be founded in a voluntary compact and agreement. For there is required unto it a relaxation of the law, though not as unto the punishment to be inflicted, yet as unto the person to be punished. And it is otherwise in personal guilt than in pecuniary debts. In these, the debt itself is solely intended, the person only obliged with reference whereunto. In the other, the person is firstly and principally under the obligation. And therefore, when a pecuniary debt is paid, by whomsoever it be paid, the obligation of the person himself unto payment ceases “ipso facto.” But in things criminal, the guilty person himself being firstly, immediately, and intentionally under the obligation unto punishment, when there is introduced by compact a vicarious solution, in the substitution of another to suffer, though he suffer the same absolutely which those should have done for whom he suffers, yet, because of the acceptation of his person to suffer, which might have been refused, and could not be admitted without some relaxation of the law, deliverance of the guilty persons cannot ensue “ipso facto,” but by the intervention of the terms fixed on in the covenant or agreement for an admittance of the substitution.

It appears, from what has been spoken, that, in this matter of satisfaction, God is not considered as a creditor, and sin as a debt; and the law as an obligation to the payment of that debt, and the Lord Christ as paying it; — though these notions may have been used by some for the illustration of the whole matter, and that not without countenance from sundry expressions in the Scripture to the same purpose. But God is considered as the infinitely holy and righteous author of the law, and supreme governor of all mankind, according to the tenor and sanction of it. Man is considered as a sinner, a transgressor of that law, and thereby obnoxious and liable to the punishment constituted in it and by it, — answerably unto the justice and holiness of its author. The substitution of Christ was merely voluntary on the part of God, and of himself, undertaking to be a sponsor, to answer for the sins of men by undergoing the punishment due unto them. To this end there was a relaxation of the law as to the persons that were to suffer, though not as to what was to be suffered. Without the former, the substitution mentioned could not have been admitted; and on supposition of the latter, the suffering of Christ could not have had the nature of punishment, properly so called: for punishment relates to the justice and righteousness in government of him that exacts it and inflicts it; and this the justice of God does not but by the law. Nor could the law be any way satisfied or fulfilled by the suffering of Christ, if, antecedently thereunto, its obligation, or power of obliging unto the penalty constituted in its sanction unto sin, was relaxed, dissolved, or dispensed withal. Nor was it agreeable to justice, nor would the nature of the things themselves admit of it, that another punishment should be inflicted on Christ than what we had deserved; nor could our sin be the impulsive cause of his death; nor could we have had any benefit thereby. And this may suffice to be added unto what was spoken before as to the nature of satisfaction, so far as the brevity of the discourse whereunto we are confined will bear, or the use whereunto it is designed does require.

[Source: Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity, pp443-445.] 

There was also a wonderful remark by the Editor in the Prefatory Notes, regarding Owen's writing style :) Here it is:

This little work is farther remarkable for the almost total absence of the tedious digressions, which abound in the other works of Owen. Such logical unity and concentration of thought is the more remarkable, when we find that the treatise was written, as he tells us, “in a few hours.” But it was a subject on which his mind was fully stored, and his whole heart was interested. The treatise which follows, therefore, was not the spark struck in some moment of collision, and serving only a temporary purpose, but a steady flame nourished from the beaten oil of the sanctuary.
[Source: Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity, Prefatory Note.]

J I Packer on the Need to Know about Sin

Striking quote by J I Packer on the importance of understanding sin...

The subject of sin is vital knowledge. To say that our first need in life is to learn about sin may sound strange, but in the sense intended it is profoundly true. If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God's answer to the problem of human sin, and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says. Apart from the first two chapters of Genesis, which set the stage, the real subject of every chapter of the Bible is what God does about our sins. Lose sight of this theme, and you lose your way in the Bible at once. With that, the love of God, the meaning of salvation, and the message of the gospel, will all become closed books to you; you may still talk of these things, but you will no longer know what you are talking about.
[from God's Words (1981; also 18 Words)]

Amy Carmichael on Saving Body and Soul Together

Heard this quote in a talk last Sunday evening, about more than just a "bare words gospel"...

"One can't save and then pitchfork souls into heaven...Souls are more or less securely fastened to bodies... And as you can't get the souls out and deal with them separately, you have to take them both together."
[Amy Carmichael, 1867-1951]

A W Tozer on how God doesn't need us...

A W Tozer writes in his book from 1961, about the self-sufficiency of God. Interesting how he perceived things back then. What would be different today..?

"Were all human beings suddenly to become blind, still the sun would shine by day and the stars by night, for these owe nothing to the millions who benefit from their light. So, were every man on earth to become atheist, it could not affect God in any way. He is what He is in Himself without regard to any other. To believe in Him adds nothing to His perfections; to doubt Him takes nothing away.

"Almighty God, just because He is almighty, needs no support. The picture of a nervous, ingratiating God fawning over men to win their favor is not a pleasant one; yet if we look at the popular conception of God that is precisely what we see. Twentieth century Christianity has put God on charity. So lofty is our opinion of ourselves that we find it quite easy, not to say enjoyable, to believe that we are necessary to God. But the truth is that God is not greater for our being, nor would He be less if we did not exist. That we do exist is altogether of God’s free determination, not by our desert nor by divine necessity.

"Probably the hardest thought of all for our natural egotism to entertain is that God does not need our help. We commonly represent Him as a busy, eager, somewhat frustrated Father hurrying about seeking help to carry out His benevolent plan to bring peace and salvation to the world, but, as said the Lady Julian, “I saw truly that God doeth all-thing, be it never so little.” The God who worketh all things surely needs no help and no helpers.

"Too many missionary appeals are based upon this fancied frustration of Almighty God. An effective speaker can easily excite pity in his listeners, not only for the heathen but for the God who has tried so hard and so long to save them and has failed for want of support. I fear that thousands of younger persons enter Christian service from no higher motive than to help deliver God from the embarrassing situation His love has gotten Him into and His limited abilities seem unable to get Him out of. Add to this a certain degree of commendable idealism and a fair amount of compassion for the underprivileged and you have the true drive behind much Christian activity today.

"... To be right we must think worthily of God. It is morally imperative that we purge from our minds all ignoble concepts of the Deity and let Him be the God in our minds that He is in His universe. The Christian religion has to do with God and man, but its focal point is God, not man. Man’s only claim to importance is that he was created in the divine image; in himself he is nothing. The psalmists and prophets of the Scriptures refer sad scorn to weak man whose breath is in his nostrils, who grows up like the grass in the morning only to be cut down and wither before the setting of the sun. That God exists for himself and man for the glory of God is the emphatic teaching of the Bible.

"... Let us not imagine that the truth of the divine self-sufficiency will paralyse Christian activity. Rather it will stimulate all holy endeavor. This truth, while a needed rebuke to human self-confidence, will when viewed in its Biblical perspective lift from our minds the exhausting load of mortality and encourage us to take the easy yoke of Christ and spend ourselves in Spirit-inspired toil for the honor of God and the good of mankind. For the blessed news is that the God who needs no one has in sovereign condescension set Himself to work by and in and through His obedient children.

"... our inner fulfilment lies in loving obedience to the commandments of Christ and the inspired admonitions of His apostles. “It is God which worketh in you.” He needs no one, but when faith is present He works through anyone. Two statements are in this sentence and a healthy spiritual life requires that we accept both. For a full generation the first has been in almost total eclipse, and that to our deep spiritual injury."

[From the Knowledge of the Holy]

J I Packer on the Bible as God's Torah or Law

Another quote from J I Packer's book Truth & Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (1996)...

It needs to be said, before we move on, that living by biblical torah can be costly. Society will press Christians to do things that God's law forbids and to omit things that God's law requires. Christian nonconformity to others' ways will be felt as an insult and a threat. In the early centuries Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire because they would not join in emperor worship. Persecution is rife today in Muslim and Marxist countries where toleration is not part of the culture and Christians are seen as subversive of national goals. In the West, Christian physicians who will not do abortions are marginalized in their own profession, and in many circles Christians who still see homosexual practice as sin are, to say the least, disliked. Christians, however, must obey God rather then humans when there is a clash (see Acts 4:19; 5:29), and if that means trouble, so be it: we have to learn to commit our cause to God and stand steady, seeing the situation as a testing of our faith. But living by Scripture as one's law in this way can cost a great deal, and we must face that fact realistically.

Further, it needs to be said that living by biblical torah can be disturbing. It has been said that either the Bible will keep you from sin or sin will keep you from the Bible. What is meant is that the Bible will jolt us to the roots of our being by zeroing in on our weaknesses, shortcomings, vices, disobediences and neglects and will sensitize our consciences to the displeasure of God and the imperative need to make changes. At such times we will find that the temptation to stop taking the Bible seriously will be very strong indeed.

... Also it needs to be said that living by biblical torah can be very humbling. Pride is the sinful infection of all our hearts, and to a degree we are all proud of our opinions. But if, as we let Scripture instruct us, we find it teaching something different from what we have hitherto assumed and contradicting what, as we say, we "like to think" (ominous phrase!), then it is so much the worse for our former thoughts, and we have to change our minds. To admit that you were wrong can be painful, but those who take Scripture as law for their lives must be prepared for this.

(Packer in this book offers seven ways to think of the Bible as we approach it: A Library, A Landscape, A Letter, A Listening Post, A Law, A Light, A Lifeline. Packer describes torah as "affectionate instruction on behaviour as from a father to his family, given in the expectation that the children will take it to heart and faithfully obey their father's directives".)

J I Packer on knowing God's will in life

From J I Packer's book Truth & Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life...

... a Christian can always find in the Bible guidance as to the next step in obedience, whatever perplexities his or her life situation may currently present. Walking by the light of Scripture is not like walking by daylight, any more than shining your flashlight is like the rising of the sun. Beyond the little circle of vision that your flashlight gives you, the darkness remains, and it is through this continuing darkness that you travel. You are regularly in the dark, in the everyday slang sense, unable to find meaning in the things that happen around you. But Scripture enables you to see each next step that you must take, so on you are able to go. All of us, I am bold to say, walk through life with a quiverful of unanswered questions about the ways of God. Why this? Why that? What is really going on here? We don't know, for God does not tell us. All he tells us, as we consult his Word, is how to cope Christianly with this and that as it comes and to get on with our life of worship and service through it all.

J I Packer on Christian Fellowship

Great quote from J I Packer on the Biblical concept of fellowship:

A body in which the blood does not circulate well is always below par, and fellowship corresponds to the circulation of the blood in the body of Christ. The church gains strength through fellowship, and loses strength without it... Christians today need fellowship. All Christians of every age do. None is spiritually self-sufficient; God does not make us so. Without fellowship, whether we are conscious of this or not, we shall be and remain feeble Christians. This is a law of the spiritual life.

(from God's Words, also 18 Words)

Matthew Henry quote, "I AM THAT I AM"

Great Matthew Henry quote I heard in a C J Mahaney talk...

the greatest and best man in the world must say, By the grace of God I am what I am; but God says absolutely--and it is more than any creature, man or angel, can say--I am that I am.

[taken from Matthew Henry's commentary on Exodus 3:14]

J I Packer on Holiness and Materialism

Neat quote by J I Packer from the chapter on "Holiness and Sanctification" in his book, God's Words...

A holy person's life will not centre on things: instead, a certain frugality will mark it, an eschewing of luxury and display, a sense of stewardship of all possessions, and a readiness to let them go if need be for the Lord's sake. Holy people do not undervalue this world's good things, as if God did not make or provide them (Manicheism, the belief that material things are bad, is no part of holiness), but they refuse to be enslaved to them. Nor do they squint sideways to compare their material showing with that of others; they know that keeping up with the Joneses is not holiness, even if Jones goes to their church or is in orbit in some Christian celebrity circuit. The holy person lives free from the passion for possessions, just as he does from other forms of self-seeking and self-indulgence. His treasure is with God, and his heart too (cf. Mt. 6:19-21). The cheerfulness of his disregard of the world's scale of values, and the straight-forward, single-minded, spontaneous ardour of his love for God may make him somewhat unnerving company, though if so it is because he is so much more honest and human than we who watch him, not because he is odd and we are normal.

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the state of the Christian Church (Ephesians 5:2)

Quote from D Martyn Lloyd-Jones from her sermon on Ephesians 5:2 (preached sometime between 1954 and 1962):

I can tell you why the Christian Church is as she is. She has been evacuating the biblical doctrine of the cross from the death of the cross, and has been describing it as some vague manifestation of love. Then she has been weeping in sorrow and in sympathy for Him. But he said to the women of Jerusalem, "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves"; do not be sorry for Me, he said, I have come to do this. "I am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." All the Scriptures, from beginning to end, emphasise the same thing, that it is in Christ's sacrificial work that we see the love of God; that God sent, and gave Him up even to the death of the cross, and laid upon Him, His only begotten Son, the sins of men. "God so loved the world that he gave" - to the shame, the agony, the suffering, the separation between His Son and Himself when He was made sin - "He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". That is the measure of the love!
["Darkness and Light: An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17-5:17", The Banner of Truth Trust (1982), pp309-310]

Paul's formula, of Christ's love and giving of himself

There is a phrase Paul uses three times in the New Testament, almost like a formula, and I can't help but think it is a favourite phrase or expression of his, something he loved to dwell-on, and a "game-changer" for his life. It is simple but profound, and occurs these three times:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me [Galatians 2:20]

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Ephesians 5:2]

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her [Ephesians 5:25]

Often the Scriptures speak of God giving his one and only Son, and also of the those evil men who gave Jesus over to be crucified. But in Paul's expression he makes clear that Jesus gave himself, and that was a measure of his great love for sinful, undeserving people. The LXX uses some similar wording in Isaiah 53:12, and perhaps Paul's phrase arose out of a meditation upon that verse, as well as a consideration of Jesus' own words in John 10:18 etc. Whatever the origin may have been in Paul's thinking, it is a truth that God has recorded in the Scriptures to change our lives. How much are we willing to give to him who loved us so?

The Church in the House in Dura-Europos

Came across this interesting article by Ben Witherington about the extensive archaeological evidence of one of the oldest known church meeting places. The article has lots of brief but interesting analyses of the site, as well as a few pictures and diagrams :)

There is also a wikipedia entry on oldest churches discovered. (And similar entry on oldest synogogues.)

Sometimes we make things too complicated..

Just a somewhat random reflection.. sometimes we make our theology too complicated! I think especially as "Reformed" and "Evangelical" types we are excessively careful to be too academic and too analytical etc. I suspect it also some kind of hang-over from Modernism or Foundationalism or Idealism something like that. (Hmm, not really sure what I'm talking about here, right, haha!) It seems we always want to have our theology in neat boxes, with perfect straight edges, very controllable etc. We seem to want our theology to be clearer than Scripture is. Maybe actually it is driven by a fear of the unknown, or perhaps a pride in being (more) right. Worse is when we spend all out time making sure we are (more) right, and neglect the basics of prayer (with emphasis on being relationals with God!), Bible reading, obedience. We can be afraid of experience because it is not objective enough, but perhaps we often don't have enough experience in the basics, such that all our theologizing smacks too much of ivory tower syndrome. Well, no more details today. Will just say, I'm a control freak, very particular and analytical, but hopefully reforming... semper reformanda!

Jim Boice on Christian Singing in Worship

A quote from James Montgomery Boice's Commentary on Romans (relating to 1:1-2)...

Have you ever considered how characteristic it is of Christianity that such large portions of our worship consist of singing praises to God? There is singing in other religions, of course; but it is usually mere chanting, which is itself a religious exercise designed to make the worshiper more "holy" or bring him closer to the deity. Christians do not sing as a good work or as a spiritual discipline. We do not sing to find God. We sing because he has found us and we are happy about it.

D A Carson comments on Australia & Individualism

I stumbled across this snippet by Don Carson, commenting on Australia. Thought I'd file it here...

But a very open country like Australia, in which the “cut down the tall poppy syndrome” flourishes, allows plenty of freedom for gospel ministry but really dislikes individuals who stand out too strongly—and it too is not very hospitable to the gospel. Isn’t something to be said in favor of individualism?

[Source: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35-3/editorial-contrarian-reflections-on-individualism]

NT Worship & 1 Corinthians 14:24-25

The debate has resurfaced again about the propriety of the use of the word "worship" to describe things the church does when it gathers. This time it was triggered because some Sydney Anglican Evangelical types invited a Sovereign Grace Ministries type to speak at a TWIST conference. The trail began when my wife saw something in a friend's blog, and you can see some of the resurfacing here and here. Part of the argument is around the use (or lack thereof) of the Greek word proskynein which is often translated in English as worship. The argument basically says that because we don't see proskynein used in association with the assemblies of the church, therefore we shouldn't use the English word worship to describe singing or other activities in the assemblies, or to describe the assemblies in general. Pardon my disrespectfulness in all this, but it just seems like a no-brainer. Apart from the issues of semantic range of overlap between words in different languages, how odd it seems that someone can argue from silence that Christians don't worship God when they gather, even though the Bible does give examples of and exhortations to worship by individuals and assemblies in the OT, Jesus is worshipped in the Gospels, Paul as an apostle can still worship in Jerusalem (Acts 24:11), Jesus is to be worshipped by angels (Hebrews 1:6), and there are the great assemblies of worship in the book of Revelation (eg 4:10, 5:14, 7:11, etc). And on top of that, in the midst of one of the few sections which specifically talk about what happens when Christians gather in their Lord's Day assemblies, 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 talks about an unbeliever coming amongst them, being convinced by the believers, and then responding in worship, presumably a very fitting response amongst those other believers. And yet it is as if some want to say that unbeliever would be the only one worshipping because all the believers certainly wouldn't be worshipping during one of their assemblies??? Anyhow, for some reason this inspired me to sketch a cartoon about this passage and here it is :P

Calvin on God's Will and Permitting Adam's Sin

Sometimes we are a bit too soft when we speak of God "permitting" sin and evil to enter the world through Adam (as well as ongoing suffering etc). Yes we are right to so distance sin and evil from God, as to never attribute evil and sin to God. He is perfect in purity, holiness, goodness and love. In him is light and there is no darkness at all. But at the same time, we do not have to sacrifice his perfect sovereignty and control, just because we can't make it all fit in our heads, in our philosophising or thinking. As if in some way we think we have a better idea of what constitutes what would be right and fair and good, more than God does. And the Bible is not backward in many places asserting God's absolute authority and right to do whatever he pleases, and leave us in our part to trust him fully in his perfect fairness, righteousness and goodness.

Below is a quote from Calvin, from his commentary on Genesis chapter 3, where he touches on this issue, as he considers the fact that God allowed Satan to tempt man...

All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be man’s future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been too free in sinning.

Calvin on the Death of Animals Before the Fall

I have heard people say before that John Calvin didn't support the idea of no death of animals before the fall.

Here are his comments on Genesis 1:28...

"Some infer, from this passage that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification. For they judge prudently who maintain that the earth was so marred by the deluge, that we retain scarcely a moderate portion of the original benediction. Even immediately after the fall of man, it had already begun to bring forth degenerate and noxious fruits, but at the deluge, the change became still greater. Yet, however this may be, God certainly did not intend that man should be slenderly and sparingly sustained; but rather, by these words, he promises a liberal abundance, which should leave nothing wanting to a sweet and pleasant life. For Moses relates how beneficent the Lord had been to them, in bestowing on them all things which they could desire, that their ingratitude might have the less excuse."

So it seems here that his main argument is about whether it was lawful to kill animals for food before the flood (not before the fall). His main argument seems to be that the lawfulness of killing animals for sacrifices would imply that it cannot ever be inherently wrong or sin to kill animals (before or after the flood or fall). And therefore Genesis 1:28 does not *necessarily* say that animals could not be eaten for food before the fall.

However, his comments on Isaiah 11 seem pretty clear of his view (at least at the time of writing) of animals killing other animals before the fall:

Calvin's comments on Isaiah11:6..

"But the Prophet’s discourse looks beyond this; for it amounts to a promise that there will be a blessed restoration of the world. He describes the order which was at the beginning, before man’s apostasy produced the unhappy and melancholy change under which we groan. Whence comes the cruelty of brutes, which prompts the stronger to seize and rend and devour with dreadful violence the weaker animals? There would certainly have been no discord among the creatures of God, if they had remained in their first and original condition. When they exercise cruelty towards each other, and the weak need to be protected against the strong, it is an evidence of the disorder (ἀταξίας) which has sprung from the sinfulness of man... For this reason, he says, that straw will be the food of the lion as well as of the ox; for if the stain of sin had not polluted the world, no animal would have been addicted to prey on blood, but the fruits of the earth would have sufficed for all, according to the method which God had appointed. (Genesis 1:30.)"

Similarly his comments on Isaiah 65:25..

"“The lion” shall eat harmlessly, and shall no longer seek his prey. The serpent, satisfied with his dust, shall wrap himself in it, and shall no longer hurt by his envenomed bite. In a word, all that is disordered or confused shall be restored to its proper order. Yet beyond all controversy the Prophet speaks allegorically of bloody and violent men, whose cruel and savage nature shall be subdued, when they submit to the yoke of Christ. But first we must carefully consider that confusion which befell all the creatures in consequence of the fall of man; for if this were not taken into view, it would be impossible for us to have sufficiently just and correct views of this blessing of restoration. "

Calvin on the Testimony of the Spirit in our lives

Here are some great quotes from Calvin concerning the testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit in our lives, giving us assurance of our sonship, eternal life, election and salvation...

[from Commentary on Romans 8:14...] The import of the whole is this — “all those are the sons of God who are led by God’s Spirit; all the sons of God are heirs of eternal life: then all who are led by God’s Spirit ought to feel assured of eternal life. But the middle term or assumption is omitted, for it was indubitable. But it is right to observe, that the working of the Spirit is various: for there is that which is universal, by which all creatures are sustained and preserved; there is that also which is peculiar to men, and varying in its character: but what he means here is sanctification, with which the Lord favors none but his own elect, and by which he separates them for sons to himself.

[from Commentary on Romans 8:16...] But Paul means, that the Spirit of God gives us such a testimony, that when he is our guide and teacher, our spirit is made assured of the adoption of God: for our mind of its own self, without the preceding testimony of the Spirit, could not convey to us this assurance. There is also here an explanation of the former verse; for when the Spirit testifies to us, that we are the children of God, he at the same time pours into our hearts such confidence, that we venture to call God our Father.

[from Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:12...] It is a passage that is most abundantly clear, for refuting that diabolical doctrine of the Sophists as to a constant hesitancy on the part of believers. For they require all believers to be in doubt, whether they are in the grace of God or not, and allow of no assurance of salvation, but what hangs on moral or probable conjecture. In this, however, they overthrow faith in two respects: for first they would have us be in doubt, whether we are in a state of grace, and then afterwards they suggest a second occasion of doubt — as to final perseverance. Here, however, the Apostle declares in general terms, that the elect have the Spirit given them, by whose testimony they are assured that they have been adopted to the hope of eternal salvation. Undoubtedly, if they would maintain their doctrine, they must of necessity either take away the Spirit of God from the elect, or make even the Spirit himself subject to uncertainty. Both of these things are openly at variance with Paul’s doctrine. Hence we may know the nature of faith to be this, that conscience has from the Holy Spirit a sure testimony of the good-will of God towards it, so that, resting upon this, it does not hesitate to invoke God as a Father

The Experiential Life of the Christian

I have been in some Christian cultures where we really avoid any kind of experiential kind of Christianity. We wanted everything to be "objective" and "intellectually grounded", so to speak. We didn't like to speak of "feeling God's presence", or saying things like "God told me...". We didn't like the idea of people having a "subjective call from God". We were uneasy with any talk of God speaking to us other than through the grammatico-historical exegesis of Scripture.

Well, we definitely want to understand the Scriptures correctly. And it is in the Scriptures that God always speaks of a dynamic relationship between Himself and his people. In the New Testament think of the prophet Agabus, or the Spirit telling Paul and his companions to go to Macedonia, or the interactive way that God works through prayer. The God of the Bible is an immanent and living God, intimately involved in the lives of his people. It is natural to expect God to be subjectively/ experientially involved in our lives, since we are not Deists, we do not believe that God has just set up all the rules, and then watches from a distance. So we should expect some kind of dynamic interaction in our lives, regarding how He wants us to live, and what he wants us to do. Isn't that part of the evidence of Jesus' ascension and his reigning through the sending of the Holy Spirit (cf Acts 2 etc)?

Of course there can be abuses and twists to this kind of idea, but that seems true of just about anything. And sure it is wise to give more attention to God's revealed will in his Written Word, over our fallible interpretations of God's present activities in our lives. Nonetheless, we should embrace Christian *experience* and not shy away from it.

Christians and the "Problem" of Suffering

I have recently been caused to think again about the issue of pain and suffering in the world. We definitely believe in a compassionate and merciful God. We read of Him, when Jesus walked the earth, as One who was often moved with compassion, reaching out to others, restoring and healing uncountable individuals after seeing their pain. So how do we respond to others when they are trying to come to grips with suffering in their own lives? While there are certainly intellectual, philosophical, theological, responses we can make, how do we answer their hurt, how do we bring hope? In my own hours of pain, it is not the intellectual or the philosophical that brings me hope. It is the relationship I have with my God, whom I know loves me incomprehensibly, even when I can't "see it with my own eyes". I can have hope because I can be sure that He cares when I hurt. And the God who gave his one and only Son to die so that I could live, definitely knows how to bring good out of pain. So perhaps the best answer we can give, is to invite others to meet the One who answered us when we called upon Him, so that they also might find Him to answer them when they call upon Him.

A W Tozer on Christianity "Today"

Here is some more of A W Tozer (1897-1963), on his contrast between the Christianity of his day, and NT ideals:

"Christ calls men to carry a cross; we call them to have fun in His name. He calls them to forsake the world; we assure them that if they but accept Jesus the world is their oyster. He calls them to suffer; we call them to enjoy all the bourgeois comforts modern civilization affords. He calls them to self abnegation and death; we call them to spread themselves like green bay trees or perchance even to become stars in a pitiful fifth-rate religious zodiac. He calls them to holiness; we call them to a cheap and tawdry happiness that would have been rejected with scorn by the least of the Stoic philosophers."

(This comes from a little book called "Gems from Tozer", which is a compilation of excerpts from multiple sources.)

A W Tozer on Faith

I was reading a little of A W Tozer (1897-1963), this morning. Here are some quotes relating to the topic of "faith":

"Faith now means no more than passive moral acquiescence in the Word of God and the cross of Jesus. To exercise it we have only to rest on one knee and nod our heads in agreement with the instructions of a personal worker intent upon saving our soul. Such a faith as this does not perturb people. It comforts them. The face of their ego is washed and their self-confidence is rescued from discouragement."

"People must be told that the Christian religion is not something they can trifle with. the only man who can be sure he has true Bible faith is the one who has put himself in a position where he cannot go back."

"Faith as the Bible knows it is confidence in God and His Son Jesus Christ; it is the response of the soul to the divine character as revealed in the Scriptures; and even this response is impossible apart from the prior inworking of the Holy Spirit. Faith is the gift of God to a penitent soul and has nothing whatsoever to do with the senses or the data they afford. Faith is a miracle; it is the ability God gives to trust His Son, and anything that does not result in action in accord with the will of God is not faith but something else short of it."

(These come from a little book called "Gems from Tozer", which is a compilation of excerpts from multiple sources)

John Owen on Free Pardon in Penal Substitution

Some people have issues with the idea of a penal substitution and satisfaction, with regard to Christ's death on behalf of his people. There are actually many challenges that are posed against this teaching, but one particular argument goes something like this: If Christ fully met the demands of justice in his death, then salvation is not a matter of free forgiveness from God, but rather it is God acting under legal obligation to save, since nothing is really forgiven, since full punishment was meted out, and all the debt of sin fully paid for. I was reading some of John Owen again, and this was one of the objections raised against him, as a result of his "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". This is because Owen uses language like idem (= "same") regarding Christ's satisfaction, meaning that Christ suffered the very same as that deserved by those in whose place he died. Some (eg Richard Baxter) objected that this leaves no room for forgiveness and free pardon, since pardon implies a relaxation of justice. Basically Owen says that there are two aspects to the penal requirements of justice, firstly, the particular penalty demanded by the law, and secondly, the particular person to be punished under the law. In the case of God's forgiveness in Christ, justice is not relaxed with regard to the penalty, but it is relaxed with regard to the person being punished, and therefore there is still free pardon involved.

Here is Owen's own summary, from a response to Baxter:

The freedom, then, of pardon hath not its foundation in any defect of the merit or satisfaction of Christ, but in three other things:-

(1.) The will of God freely appointing the satisfaction of Christ, John iii. 16; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iv. 9.

(2.) In a gracious acceptation of that decreed satisfaction in our steads; so many, no more.

(3.) In a free application of the death of Christ unto us. Remission, then, excludes not a full satisfaction by the solution of the very thing in the obligation, but only the solution or satisfaction of him to whom pardon and remission is granted.

[from Of the Death of Christ, p446 in Works, Vol. 10]

Sabbath, Fourth Commandment and Lord's Day for Christians today?

I have recently been in some discussions about the essence of the fourth commandment (cf Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15). I thought I would compile some of the notes here. They are very abbreviated, with little justification, but here they are anyway, as something of a summary of my present thought...

• There is an abiding application of the 4th commandment, since the creation until now. Sunday as the Lord’s Day has become the holy/special day for Christians, rather than the Saturday Sabbath, as recognised in the New Testament and early church history. This is the day that Christians regularly assembled together for worship, encouragement and edification. There seems to still be a set day, the Lord’s Day. I understant that the Lord’s Day has always been considered as the first day of the week, both in Scripture and in early church history. (I think some of the shift has to do with a practical distinction between Mosaic Jewish administration and new Christian administration, and part because the new age has already begun on the first day of the week, when Jesus rose from the dead.)
• The essence of our Christian observance of the Lord's Day is of keeping the the day holy and distinct from our other days. That day is specially the Lord’s, where the other six are in a sense more left to us and our particular needs in this age. The Sabbath day was never just about the past, but also about the future hope of entering God’s rest (of which the promised land was a typological fulfilment, clearly not being the real thing, but meant to make the people think in those terms). I understand that the Sabbath was primarily about hope (and not primarily about judgement or whatever else). And that hope is now kept holy by us on the Lord’s Day instead. The Lord’s Day is then a special day to look forward to the perfect rest to come (as the Gen 2:1-4 seventh day was the holy perfection of the creation account), and enjoy the anticipation of that. So part of the essence of the day is still a resting from this-worldly employment (to provide for our this-worldly needs), and depend upon and enjoy the Lord, living by his word alone (so to speak). A day when we shouldn’t be trying to make money, or force others to make money for us (like our slaves, servants, oxen, donkeys etc, to use Ex 20/Deut 5 terminology). It is a day of joy in the Lord. A day of delight. A day of holy desire and hope.
• There are some aspects of OT Jewish Sabbath requirement that are not required in the same way for Christian believers on the Lord’s Day. There is a greater sense of freedom, joy and closeness with God for the Christian community, than there is in the OT Jewish economy. You see that for example in the difference between restricted access to God’s throne in the tabernacle/temple system, and the free access and boldness we are given as Christians. I think part of that has to do with the “typological” distinctiveness of Israel amongst the other nations, and how that needed to be displayed outwardly and legally etc, since as a whole community they did not have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts individually. And there is this kind of shift when it comes to how we think of observing the Lord's Day as the Christian holy day.
• The difference between Ex 20 and Deut 5 also shows us that the essence of the 10 commandments is not tied to the precise and entire wording in a over-legal way.
• Hebrews 3-4 is not about a “Lutheran grace not works” type of rest. I think it is about a future rest, and actually still points to a continuing Sabbath observance as we look forward to entering the rest of God which Jesus has already entered (for himself as the new Adam, and also on our behalf).
• The Col 2, Gal 4 and Rom 14 passages are more about Jewish-type holy days, not about the Christian Lord’s Day (since the context of all these passages has to do with Jewish-influenced wrong thinking coming into the church).
• I have heard many people say that Jesus broke the Sabbath. I don't think Jesus broke any OT requirement of the Sabbath, since he had to fulfil all righteousness and perfectly keep the law. What Jesus broke was only the interpretation of the law by some contemporary Jews.
• When it comes to questions of practical situations, of what we should and shouldn't do, one principle is, if I don’t think I should do it, I shouldn't require others to do it for me, or encourage others to do what I wouldn’t do. (cf Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.) However, on the other hand there are issues of necessity, and mercy, and the dangers of Pharisaical extremes, similar to the “Corban” situation, where one thing is overemphasised at the expense of something else, and it becomes emphasis on a man-made rule, rather than issue of real sin. Or where detailed rules are contrived, which go beyond God’s requirements. And this is where things become complicated in the real situations that we face.
• Yes, technically, we could say the “Lord’s Day” is not to be called “the Sabbath”, however I don’t think it is wrong, and often is helpful, to use the shorthand of referring to it as the “Christian Sabbath”. Particularly because we don’t have the same kind of confusions with the prevalence of Jewish influence today (at least not to the same degree and in the same form, eg food laws and circumcision are not as big an issue for us today as it was in the NT)

Unity in the Church of Christ (1 Corinthians 12 etc)

In our evening church gathering, we have been working through 1 Corinthians. So recently I was reading 1 Cor 12 again. Sometimes we go to this passage looking for information about God's gifts to individuals, or to talk about the diversity amongst the people of God. Yet what strikes me about this particular section, is that it is more about unity and oneness in Christ, despite the diversity. And this makes sense when it seems that the church Paul was addressing was quite fragmented and divided (cf. 1 Cor 1:10-13, 1 Cor 3:1-4), and seemed to use the possession of particular gifts as a claim to superiority or authority (cf. 1 Cor 4:7; this seems to be a general problem with the church in a number of areas, and in chapters 12 to 14, the issue seems to focus on those who claim superiority or authority because they can speak in tongues). Instead of emphasising the value of gifts among Christ's people, Paul needs to emphasise that they are all one, and need to live as a unified community, rather than practising some kind of caste system based on gifting.

I take 1 Cor 12:3 to introduce this emphasis. God does make a significant distinction between people. But it is not based on what special gift they have from His Spirit. It is based on whether or not they have the Spirit at all, whether or not they follow Jesus at all. And if they do follow Jesus, if they do have the Spirit, then they are to be counted as fellow-members in the family of God, and none are to be despised, excluded or competed against. It is not that Paul wants them to have a low view of those who do not yet follow Jesus, but he wants them to have a high view of everyone else who does follow Jesus.

As we read through the rest of chapter 12, we should count how many times Paul uses words like 'one' and 'same'. And as we do this, and note this important emphasis in the Scriptures, we should also ask ourselves, 'How important to me is unity in Christ's church, because it is certainly important to Christ?'

I once heard someone comment that the priority of individualism was advanced by the Reformation (eg Luther's "Here I stand" and all that). There is certainly value in freedom of speech and opinion, and the significance of the value of the individual is not to be dismissed (we don't want utilitarianism either). But there is also an ugly flip side that over-emphasises the individual, and under-rates the community. And as Christians (especially as influenced by Western thinking?), we need to recapture the importance of unity amongst the wider Christian family, and the value of that community. In my experience, too often we still talk about 'us and them', whether in terms of denominational patriotism, or of loyalty to the local church we are part of, or of our own particular grouping within or across denominations. How often have we heard other Christians (even myself!) emphasise 'I'm a Pentecostal', 'I speak in tongues', 'I'm an Evangelical', 'I'm Reformed', 'I studied at this or that Theological College' etc etc. Is that what Jesus wants of us?

Of course we have to make some distinctions. There is a difference between truth and error. There are wrong understandings of Bible passages as well as correct ones. And in our imperfect existence as Christ's body, probably there is a place for different expressions (even differently labelled ones) of Christ's people, to expedite kingdom work and gospel ministry. However, somehow we have to do this while avoiding the 'us and them' mentality, and without looking down our noses at Christians in other groups. Somehow being able to still foster cooperation and partnerships amongst us all.

Sometimes we talk about how we can better do our part in more people becoming Christians, trusting Jesus, believing the gospel and following Christ. We ask, 'What sort of things can we do to make our evangelism more effective?' In our morning church gathering today, we were also reminded about another verse which gives a challenging answer to these kinds of questions, and also strikingly highlights the point of this post: 'I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their Word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.' (John 17:20-21; NJKV)

[PS: I remember doing a Bible talk a few years ago on 1 Corinthians 12. I haven't reviewed it recently, but I've uploaded a copy of the audio here anyway :-D ]

Calvin on "works of the law"

Here is a quote from Calvin, concerning Paul's phrase in Romans 3:20, "works of the law":

Therefore by the works of the law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies alone. The addition of the word law induced Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome to assent to the latter opinion;for they thought that there is a peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the expression should not be understood as including all works. But this difficulty may be very easily removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we seek by them to render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take away the power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be any, which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a reward is apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who held it as an approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic worthiness, but become meritorious by covenant. And though they were mistaken, inasmuch as they saw not that works are ever polluted with vices, which deprive them of any merit, yet this principle is still true, that the reward for works depends on the free promise of the law. Wisely then and rightly does Paul speak here; for he speaks not of mere works, but distinctly and expressly refers to the keeping of the law, the subject which he is discussing.

As to those things which have been adduced by learned men in defense of this opinion, they are weaker than they might have been. They think that by mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which belonged to ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have already explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than hypocrites, and we know that they glory only in external masks; and then circumcision, according to their view, was a sort of initiation into the righteousness of the law; and hence it seemed to them a work of primary excellence, and indeed the basis as it were of the righteousness of works. — They also allege what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul handles the same subject, and refers to ceremonies only; but that also is not sufficiently strong to support what they wish to defend. It is certain that Paul had a controversy with those who inspired the people with a false confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of this confidence, he did not confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak specifically of what value they were; but he included the whole law, as it is evident from those passages which are derived from that source. Such also was the character of the disputation held at Jerusalem by the disciples.

But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks here of the whole law; for we are abundantly supported by the thread of reasoning which he has hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are many other passages which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore a truth, which deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, — that by keeping the law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned the reason, and he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being to a man guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law. And these two things — to be justified by works — and to be guilty of transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly inconsistent the one with the other. — The word flesh, without some particular specification, signifies men;though it seems to convey a meaning somewhat more general, as it is more expressive to say, “All mortals,” than to say, “All men,” as you may see in Gallius.

(from Calvin's Commentary on Romans)

Here Calvin argues against those who confine "works of the law" to "the ceremonies alone". But Calvin says "that Paul speaks here of the whole law". I find this interesting because of recent controversies over the phrase "works of the law", as interpreted by those branded as "New Perspective". Some (along the lines of N T Wright) speak of "works of the law" as those distinctive aspects of Torah which marked out the Jews as the people of God, things such as circumcision, food laws etc. It is not about a moralistic righteousness, a "pulling oneself up by his own moral bootstraps". Particularly they are arguing against an interpretation of "works of the law" which read into Paul a context of medieval merit-emphasising theology.While probably not exactly the same, this seems similar to the interpretation of "works of the law" as referring to "the ceremonies alone" (which, significantly, Calvin attributes to pre-medieval writers, like "Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome"). Yet it seems that to hold a more confined view of "works of the law" is branded as unorthodox in some circles, and one is liable to come under fire for holding such a view, as if nobody in their right mind could think that Paul didn't mean some kind of 100% perfect, moral self-meriting of justification before God. While Calvin certainly held to a position which would perhaps be more popular amongst Reformed Evangelicals today, yet we would be wise to recognise with him that, "It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean".

Wright quote on "Easter" (from Hillsong site)

This morning I saw a quote I liked when I was looking at the blog of Brian Houston from Hillsong. It is a great quote about "Easter" by Tom Wright:

Theologian Tom Wright once said, "Easter is the central event of world history, the moment towards which everything was rushing and from which everything emerges new." (Houston source is here)

As I meditated on this thought, I was reminded that Christ's death and resurrection are not only the cosmic pivot point of all history, but they also provide the paradigm of the Christian life. First we share in suffering, before we share in the resurrection. First we must practice putting to death sin in our lives, before we experience the freedom of life in Christ. Here are a few Scriptures where God tells us this:

But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I might gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:7-11; NKJV)

For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ. Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope for you is steadfast, because we know that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so also you will partake of the consolation. For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us (2 Corinthians 1:5-10; NKJV)

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crudified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him. For the death that He died, he died so sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:1-11; NKJV)

Judgment by Works, Good Works, and James Montgomery Boice

In preparing for a Bible study on Matthew 25, I read a little of a James Boice commentary. Commenting on the parable of the talents, it was refreshing to read what he said about the necessity of good works in the Christian life (although his emphasis on the second coming may be a little misplaced at this point). It sometimes seems that we "evangelicals" are so afraid of moralism and legalism, or perhaps worse(!), Romanism, that we no longer believe in morality and good works!

Here are some excerpts from Boice:

The second, somewhat surprising lesson of this parable (and the next as well) is the emphasis on works, indeed, on a judgment by works. That sometimes troubles Protestants, who have been taught that salvation is by grace alone through faith apart from works. In the parable of the talents, however, judgment is based on the use or misuse of the talents. In the second parable, it is based on the care or neglect of those who were hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, or imprisoned.
...
Does that mean we are saved by works after all? Were the reformers wrong? No, but these passages do reveal the necessity of works following faith--if we are truly born again. There is an unbreakable connection between what we believe and what we do. We believe the gospel because we have been born again, and those who have been born again will always and inevitably begin to live out the superior moral life of Christ within them. The new nature does not manifest itself fully all at once. But if we are justified, we will have it, and it will increasingly and inevitably express itself in faithful and loving service to our Master, Jesus Christ.

We are not justified by works. If we are trying to be justified by works, we are not Christians. But neither can we claim to be Christians if we do not have works. If we are not working for Christ, we are not justified....

D. A. Carson wrote, "It is not enough for Jesus' followers to 'hang in there' and wait for the end. They must see themselves for what they are--servants who owe it to their Master to improve what he entrusts to them. Failure to do so proves they cannot really be valued disciples at all."

(from pp 534-536 of Vol. 2)

Paul wrote to Titus, "Remind them... to be ready for every good work... those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works... And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful." (Titus 3, NKJV) May God forgive my neglect of good works, and may he help us to work harder for him who loved us and gave himself for us!