Recently I had to read a paper by Fritz Guy, in a book advocating a non-Calvinistic, Arminian position, called The Grace of God, The Will of Man. In Guy's chapter (called "The Universality of God's Love"), he describes the Divine love as "God wills what is best for every created entity". Guy upholds this definition, and essentially says that God must do everything within his (limited!) power to achieve the best for every single created entity, there can be no selectiveness. But this does not hold up to Scriptural scrutiny, as nice as it might sound.
For a start, such a definition immediately breaks down when one considers the devil and his demons. God gives them no opportunity for salvation at all (cf. Heb. 2:16), and they are not treated the same as humans. Already God is selective in his love and doesn't seem to "will what is best for every created entity". Further, the Scriptures are unambiguous that God is also discriminating and selective in some ways he shows his love towards mankind, such as in his loving selection of Israel rather than other nations (Deut. 7:7-8; 10:15), or in reference to Jacob and Esau (Mal. 1:2-3; cf Rom. 9:10-13). And this is just dealing with very clear texts, without specifically even getting into the whole issue of individual election unto salvation, or of considering the implications of real experience (like the fact that some people never hear the gospel, or that some people might die from famine, drought or disease, but others do not, etc).
Therefore to flatten out God's love to say there can be no particularity at all is to impose a false conception onto the Scriptures, rather than let them speak for themselves. Better to say with J. I. Packer that there is both particularity and universality in God's love: "it appears, first, that God loves all in some ways..., and, second, that he loves some in all ways... This is the clear witness of the entire Bible" (quoted out of his article entitled "The Love of God: Universal and Particular").
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Abbott & Costello Learn Hebrew
This is a great bit of nerd humour if you have learnt a little Hebrew. Follow this link!
(I came across it when someone on the B-Greek email list posted about Dr. Seuss Learns Greek. But I think the Hebrew one is better!)
(I came across it when someone on the B-Greek email list posted about Dr. Seuss Learns Greek. But I think the Hebrew one is better!)
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Ephesians 2:15 and Torah Abolished?
I was discussing Ephesians 2:15 on the Theology List, and thought I would include a compiled copy here. Essentially, the question being addressed is: What does Paul mean by the term 'the law' and in what sense is it abolished?
A common Reformed approach is to use the threefold division of the law and say that Paul is here really talking about the ceremonial law when he uses the term 'law'. Hence the ceremonial law is abolished, but the moral law remains. But while I think categorizing it to the ceremonial aspects of the Torah and not the moral law is a helpful simplification to explain what is going on, I don't think it does full justice to the text. In Eph 2:15 I think Paul means the Torah generally and as a whole, rather than a more theological distinction between ceremonial and moral law.
If we use the language of threefold distinction into moral law (ML), ceremonial law (CL) and civil law (SL), we would like to say that Torah = ML + CL + SL, as if it could be so neatly divided that way. Eg the decalogue would be ML, holiness code CL, and rules relating to Israel as a nation-state SL. And in fact, probably we can categorize it like that if it is helpful. But now let me make another category called Universal Law (UL), coining my own terminology, and define it as the universal expression of God's eternal character as it applies to humanity. The simplification we would like is to equate 'moral law' with 'universal law', as if we can seamlessly move between this concept of Universal Law, and what we can select out as Moral Law from the Torah, and really they are one and the same. But I don't think it is so simple. I would instead say that the kernel of this 'Universal Law' is contained within the husk of the Torah. In fact, ML, CL and SL (if we take them to be the constituent parts of Torah) are all expressions of UL within that husk, though perhaps ML seems most clearly so. But each are specially packaged expressions of UL adapted specifically to the OT Israel situation. When the Scriptures use the word 'law', I think usually it has Torah specifically in mind, but the emphasis may vary between UL, ML, CL, SL or Torah as a package possibly extending to the whole OT (though I can't think of a case where SL would be emphasized, except perhaps where the emphasis is on some of the penalties). Now this is still a simplification, but to me, a better nuanced one than simply ML, CL, SL.
Coming back to Eph 2:15, as mentioned already, I think Paul means Torah as a whole package in this case, and not even just the CL aspects, although they might be more prominent. I don't think he means you could literally cut up all the words of Torah, and just remove the ceremonial ones, and that is all that was abolished. IMO the Torah is the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14). The ceremonial law was the superficial and tangible expression of that difference, but I think it is much deeper than that. The Jews prided themselves as in possession of the Law as a whole (cf Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Deut 4:8) and that possession, as well as the content of the law itself, set them apart from the Gentiles, and excluded the Gentiles. But the abolishment of the husk does not mean that the kernel of 'universal law' is abolished, nor even that the Torah is abolished in some absolute sense, so as to have no direct relevance to the Christian. Rom 3:31 makes clear there is some sense in which Torah is not abolished but rather the opposite. As does Matt 5:17ff. So I think in Eph 2:15, with respect to the Gentiles, the abolishment of Torah has to do with abolishing it as a legal or constitutional document which divides Jew and Gentile, thus also separating the Gentiles from God (according to Torah).
Actually, I would clarify further and say that Paul is actually speaking at two levels at the same time. Not only did the Torah exclude the Gentile, it also condemned the unbelieving Jew, and was a burden of death to them (and I don't think it would be just the ceremonial aspects that condemned them, cf Rom 2-3). Without the Torah being written on their hearts, the Torah only condemned them, and led to hostility between Jews and God also. Hence while the Torah held the prospect of peace with God and access to God (cf Eph 2:12), in practice it still left most Jews condemned before God. And hence also in that sense Christ not only brings peace and reconciliation to the Gentile, but also to the Jew who was already 'near' (Eph 2:16-17).
So in what sense is Torah abolished, and in what sense does it remain? In the tradition of Covenant Theology, with an emphasis on continuity, I don't think things have to be repeated in the NT for something in the OT to be relevant. What the OT teaches regarding God and man (to use Calvin's paradigm) still remains relevant today, and is by no means abolished. It is only the strict legal or constitutional character that has been abolished, which by no means undermines the revelatory character of the OT. I think Paul means to talk of the Torah as a whole being abolished, but that is not to be taken as a stand-alone, absolutised statement. The best analogy I can think of is the distinction between spirit and letter of the law. The letter is abolished, but the spirit remains. Kind of like what commonly happens when one pastor replaces another in a church. In letter the old pastor may have no official relationship with the church, but in spirit he often still remains an influence (whether in person or just as a memory), though it is not usually a good thing for the new pastor ;-) But here, what remains of the Torah is a good thing and we can and should keep going back to the letter of the Torah to find that spirit. And in fact the preservation of every letter of it is important to preserve the spirit of it also.
A common Reformed approach is to use the threefold division of the law and say that Paul is here really talking about the ceremonial law when he uses the term 'law'. Hence the ceremonial law is abolished, but the moral law remains. But while I think categorizing it to the ceremonial aspects of the Torah and not the moral law is a helpful simplification to explain what is going on, I don't think it does full justice to the text. In Eph 2:15 I think Paul means the Torah generally and as a whole, rather than a more theological distinction between ceremonial and moral law.
If we use the language of threefold distinction into moral law (ML), ceremonial law (CL) and civil law (SL), we would like to say that Torah = ML + CL + SL, as if it could be so neatly divided that way. Eg the decalogue would be ML, holiness code CL, and rules relating to Israel as a nation-state SL. And in fact, probably we can categorize it like that if it is helpful. But now let me make another category called Universal Law (UL), coining my own terminology, and define it as the universal expression of God's eternal character as it applies to humanity. The simplification we would like is to equate 'moral law' with 'universal law', as if we can seamlessly move between this concept of Universal Law, and what we can select out as Moral Law from the Torah, and really they are one and the same. But I don't think it is so simple. I would instead say that the kernel of this 'Universal Law' is contained within the husk of the Torah. In fact, ML, CL and SL (if we take them to be the constituent parts of Torah) are all expressions of UL within that husk, though perhaps ML seems most clearly so. But each are specially packaged expressions of UL adapted specifically to the OT Israel situation. When the Scriptures use the word 'law', I think usually it has Torah specifically in mind, but the emphasis may vary between UL, ML, CL, SL or Torah as a package possibly extending to the whole OT (though I can't think of a case where SL would be emphasized, except perhaps where the emphasis is on some of the penalties). Now this is still a simplification, but to me, a better nuanced one than simply ML, CL, SL.
Coming back to Eph 2:15, as mentioned already, I think Paul means Torah as a whole package in this case, and not even just the CL aspects, although they might be more prominent. I don't think he means you could literally cut up all the words of Torah, and just remove the ceremonial ones, and that is all that was abolished. IMO the Torah is the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14). The ceremonial law was the superficial and tangible expression of that difference, but I think it is much deeper than that. The Jews prided themselves as in possession of the Law as a whole (cf Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Deut 4:8) and that possession, as well as the content of the law itself, set them apart from the Gentiles, and excluded the Gentiles. But the abolishment of the husk does not mean that the kernel of 'universal law' is abolished, nor even that the Torah is abolished in some absolute sense, so as to have no direct relevance to the Christian. Rom 3:31 makes clear there is some sense in which Torah is not abolished but rather the opposite. As does Matt 5:17ff. So I think in Eph 2:15, with respect to the Gentiles, the abolishment of Torah has to do with abolishing it as a legal or constitutional document which divides Jew and Gentile, thus also separating the Gentiles from God (according to Torah).
Actually, I would clarify further and say that Paul is actually speaking at two levels at the same time. Not only did the Torah exclude the Gentile, it also condemned the unbelieving Jew, and was a burden of death to them (and I don't think it would be just the ceremonial aspects that condemned them, cf Rom 2-3). Without the Torah being written on their hearts, the Torah only condemned them, and led to hostility between Jews and God also. Hence while the Torah held the prospect of peace with God and access to God (cf Eph 2:12), in practice it still left most Jews condemned before God. And hence also in that sense Christ not only brings peace and reconciliation to the Gentile, but also to the Jew who was already 'near' (Eph 2:16-17).
So in what sense is Torah abolished, and in what sense does it remain? In the tradition of Covenant Theology, with an emphasis on continuity, I don't think things have to be repeated in the NT for something in the OT to be relevant. What the OT teaches regarding God and man (to use Calvin's paradigm) still remains relevant today, and is by no means abolished. It is only the strict legal or constitutional character that has been abolished, which by no means undermines the revelatory character of the OT. I think Paul means to talk of the Torah as a whole being abolished, but that is not to be taken as a stand-alone, absolutised statement. The best analogy I can think of is the distinction between spirit and letter of the law. The letter is abolished, but the spirit remains. Kind of like what commonly happens when one pastor replaces another in a church. In letter the old pastor may have no official relationship with the church, but in spirit he often still remains an influence (whether in person or just as a memory), though it is not usually a good thing for the new pastor ;-) But here, what remains of the Torah is a good thing and we can and should keep going back to the letter of the Torah to find that spirit. And in fact the preservation of every letter of it is important to preserve the spirit of it also.
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Apostles at Jerusalem?
In Acts 8:1 it says "At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles" (NKJV). Why did the apostles stay at Jerusalem, while the rest of the Christians scattered?
Within the book of Acts, Jerusalem seems to remain as the base of operations for the Twelve Apostles (cf. 8:14, 15:2, 15:4, 16:4). Luke doesn't seem to explicitly criticize the apostles for staying in Jerusalem.
With recent discussions about eschatology and millennialism, it got me thinking. I wonder if the Luke's portrayal of the apostles in Jerusalem is meant to be symbolic of the new Israel with its centre in Jerusalem, reminding us of the OT prophecies about the future glory of Jerusalem/Zion (the twelve apostles seeming to be the equivalent representation of the twelve tribes of Israel).
It is a common theme in the OT Prophets that Jerusalem will be restored as part of the Messianic age, after its destruction in judgement. Jerusalem will be the focal point and centre of the new kingdom to come, reigning over all the earth. Consider some of these as samples:
For now, in the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom of God has come and begun, and something greater than the OT Jews could have visualised has been inaugurated, things the prophets and angels desired to know about (1 Peter 1:10-12). Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), and sits at the right hand of the throne of God (Acts 2:30-36; Ephesians 1:19-23; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22), ruling as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14). And the NT emphasis speaks of a new Israel (cf. Hebrews 8:8-13) and a new Jerusalem (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24). So in Revelation we see a new Jerusalem replacing the one that is to be destroyed (Revelation 21-22). Certainly we still await the consummation of the kingdom, but it has nonetheless already begun.
So it seems (at least to me!) quite fitting to have the Apostles symbolically based in the earthly Jerusalem, to show that the OT prophecies are being fulfilled in Christ and the Kingdom he has brought into being, with the Apostles being his representatives of that reality.
Within the book of Acts, Jerusalem seems to remain as the base of operations for the Twelve Apostles (cf. 8:14, 15:2, 15:4, 16:4). Luke doesn't seem to explicitly criticize the apostles for staying in Jerusalem.
With recent discussions about eschatology and millennialism, it got me thinking. I wonder if the Luke's portrayal of the apostles in Jerusalem is meant to be symbolic of the new Israel with its centre in Jerusalem, reminding us of the OT prophecies about the future glory of Jerusalem/Zion (the twelve apostles seeming to be the equivalent representation of the twelve tribes of Israel).
It is a common theme in the OT Prophets that Jerusalem will be restored as part of the Messianic age, after its destruction in judgement. Jerusalem will be the focal point and centre of the new kingdom to come, reigning over all the earth. Consider some of these as samples:
- "For the LORD will comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste places; He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness will be found in it, thanksgiving and the voice of melody... So the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing, with everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness; sorrow and sighing shall flee away... Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of His fury; you have drunk the dregs of the cup of trembling, and drained it out... Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city! For the uncircumcised and the unclean shall no longer come to you. Shake yourself from the dust, arise; sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!... How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings glad tidings of good things, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” Your watchmen shall lift up their voices, with their voices they shall sing together; for they shall see eye to eye when the LORD brings back Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, you waste places of Jerusalem! For the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD has made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." (from Isaiah 51-52, NKJV; note how it leads into the proclamation of the Suffering Servant who will accomplish these things)
- "For ZionÂ’s sake I will not hold My peace, and for JerusalemÂ’s sake I will not rest, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burns. The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will name. You shall also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God." (Isaiah 62:1-3, NKJV)
- "Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion the law shall go forth, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." (Micah 3:12-4:2, NKJV)
- "“Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD. “Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. And the LORD will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!”" (Zechariah 2:10-13, NKJV)
For now, in the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom of God has come and begun, and something greater than the OT Jews could have visualised has been inaugurated, things the prophets and angels desired to know about (1 Peter 1:10-12). Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), and sits at the right hand of the throne of God (Acts 2:30-36; Ephesians 1:19-23; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22), ruling as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14). And the NT emphasis speaks of a new Israel (cf. Hebrews 8:8-13) and a new Jerusalem (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24). So in Revelation we see a new Jerusalem replacing the one that is to be destroyed (Revelation 21-22). Certainly we still await the consummation of the kingdom, but it has nonetheless already begun.
So it seems (at least to me!) quite fitting to have the Apostles symbolically based in the earthly Jerusalem, to show that the OT prophecies are being fulfilled in Christ and the Kingdom he has brought into being, with the Apostles being his representatives of that reality.
Friday, August 11, 2006
He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him
I was thinking again recently about this verse from Hebrews 11: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (11:6; NKJV). Particularly the last part which tells us we must believe that God is the kind of God who is a rewarder of those who seek Him. It could be easy here to get side-tracked about ideas of merit, that rewarding is pointing to the receiving of something deserved. But I think the emphasis is not about us getting, but rather about God giving. The object of our faith is a God who gives good gifts, who rewards his people generously. The picture presented in the Scriptures is not that we have a God who merely deals in terms of justice, some kind of strict legalist, not able to exceed the boundaries of the letter of the law. There is no doubt that justice is important to God, that law is important and proper, and yet God is not a God only of justice. We could well say that as Christians we ought to diligently seek God out of mere duty, that God deserves our service, and we should not expect any reward, that we have no right to any reward. And yet how wonderful it is that we have a God who does reward, and who will reward even if there were no strict requirement to do so.
While I think there is significant appropriateness in speaking of Christ as meriting our salvation (though perhaps 'merit' can also have problematic connotations), and of understanding God's covenantal dealings with us, yet I think it would be an inadequate representation of our great God if we thought of His plans and purposes in Christ merely in terms of strict legal or commercial-like transactions. If nothing else, we should remember that in all Christ did for us, strict justice would have compelled him to do nothing for us at all, except condemn us because of our sin. If we are to speak of any compulsion, it would have to be the free love of God that compelled Father, Son and Holy Spirit to act on our behalf, for our benefit.
When God reveals himself to Moses, he accentuates that he is a God "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (Exodus 34:6-7, NKJV). The Scriptures abound with testimonies to God's love, kindness, generosity and goodness. As John writes, if we know God at all, then we will know that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). This is a truth underlined in the Bible, as if the Scriptures were using that favourite preachers' line, "If there is only one thing you remember from all that I am saying to you, remember this, God is love!"
I've also just recently worked through the book of Jonah again in the last two weeks, in a study with overseas students. Jonah knew this truth about God, concerning the loving nature of God, when he contemplated God's command to preach to the wicked city of Nineveh (Jonah 4:2). And yet while he knew the truth formally, and no doubt as a Jew and a prophet of God, had even experienced God's love as a beneficiary, he didn't really comprehend or understand this fundamental truth. Jonah did not appreciate the reality of the fact sufficiently. He was a living illustration of what not to do, concerning what the apostle John later wrote (1 John 4:8). If he really knew that God is love, then Jonah would have loved. But when he considered the possibility that God might have compassion and love towards the people of Nineveh, Jonah was filled with bitterness and hatred, angry enough to die (cf. Jonah 4:3). It is all too easy for us to be like Jonah. We know formally that God is a loving, gracious, rewarding God, yet the reality of that fact does not sink into the depths of our being and doesn't change our life. Perhaps we are like Jonah, not desiring God's graciousness towards others, because of racism, prejudice, or whatever kind of pride or selfishness it may be. In our own irrational and contradictory way, we can be miserly with God's generosity. Or perhaps we just doubt God, lacking faith concerning our own situations, that he will have no time to listen to us, or be unwilling to give of himself to us, or that his love towards us might come to an end sometime, as if the generous and rewarding God were really a stingy and miserly God. And yet many passages remind us otherwise, such as Romans 8:32, Romans 5:10, James 1:5. As also does Hebrews 11:6.
Well, really it is nothing very complex, nothing too intellectual, but something I think I need to take more time to stop and remember. I must really believe that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. At least for me, it is something too easily forgotten or passed over. I guess it is as the old Kelloggs slogan goes, "The simple things in life are often the best"!
While I think there is significant appropriateness in speaking of Christ as meriting our salvation (though perhaps 'merit' can also have problematic connotations), and of understanding God's covenantal dealings with us, yet I think it would be an inadequate representation of our great God if we thought of His plans and purposes in Christ merely in terms of strict legal or commercial-like transactions. If nothing else, we should remember that in all Christ did for us, strict justice would have compelled him to do nothing for us at all, except condemn us because of our sin. If we are to speak of any compulsion, it would have to be the free love of God that compelled Father, Son and Holy Spirit to act on our behalf, for our benefit.
When God reveals himself to Moses, he accentuates that he is a God "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (Exodus 34:6-7, NKJV). The Scriptures abound with testimonies to God's love, kindness, generosity and goodness. As John writes, if we know God at all, then we will know that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). This is a truth underlined in the Bible, as if the Scriptures were using that favourite preachers' line, "If there is only one thing you remember from all that I am saying to you, remember this, God is love!"
I've also just recently worked through the book of Jonah again in the last two weeks, in a study with overseas students. Jonah knew this truth about God, concerning the loving nature of God, when he contemplated God's command to preach to the wicked city of Nineveh (Jonah 4:2). And yet while he knew the truth formally, and no doubt as a Jew and a prophet of God, had even experienced God's love as a beneficiary, he didn't really comprehend or understand this fundamental truth. Jonah did not appreciate the reality of the fact sufficiently. He was a living illustration of what not to do, concerning what the apostle John later wrote (1 John 4:8). If he really knew that God is love, then Jonah would have loved. But when he considered the possibility that God might have compassion and love towards the people of Nineveh, Jonah was filled with bitterness and hatred, angry enough to die (cf. Jonah 4:3). It is all too easy for us to be like Jonah. We know formally that God is a loving, gracious, rewarding God, yet the reality of that fact does not sink into the depths of our being and doesn't change our life. Perhaps we are like Jonah, not desiring God's graciousness towards others, because of racism, prejudice, or whatever kind of pride or selfishness it may be. In our own irrational and contradictory way, we can be miserly with God's generosity. Or perhaps we just doubt God, lacking faith concerning our own situations, that he will have no time to listen to us, or be unwilling to give of himself to us, or that his love towards us might come to an end sometime, as if the generous and rewarding God were really a stingy and miserly God. And yet many passages remind us otherwise, such as Romans 8:32, Romans 5:10, James 1:5. As also does Hebrews 11:6.
Well, really it is nothing very complex, nothing too intellectual, but something I think I need to take more time to stop and remember. I must really believe that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. At least for me, it is something too easily forgotten or passed over. I guess it is as the old Kelloggs slogan goes, "The simple things in life are often the best"!
Monday, August 07, 2006
John of Damascus on Romans 7-8
I found this good quote from John of Damascus, 8th century Christian writer. At least at face value it seems like a good interpretation of Romans 7-8, of sin dwelling in our members, in conflict with our renewed inner man, able only to overcome through the power of the Holy Spirit. Here is the quotation:
And so the law of God, settling in our mind, draws it towards itself and pricks our conscience. And our conscience, too, is called a law of our mind. Further, the assault of the wicked one, that is the law of sin, settling in the members of our flesh, makes its assault upon us through it. For by once voluntarily transgressing the law of God and receiving the assault of the wicked one, we gave entrance to it, being sold by ourselves to sin. Wherefore our body is readily impelled to it. And so the savour and perception of sin that is stored up in our body, that is to say, lust and pleasure of the body, is law in the members of our flesh.
Therefore the law of my mind, that is, the conscience, sympathises with the law of God, that is, the precept, and makes that its will. But the law of sin, that is to say, the assault made through the law that is in our members, or through the lust and inclination and movement of the body and of the irrational part of the soul, is in opposition to the law of my mind, that is to conscience, and takes me captive (even though I make the law of God my will and set my love on it, and make not sin my will), by reason of commixture: and through the softness of pleasure and the lust of the body and of the irrational part of the soul, as I said, it leads me astray and induces me to become the servant of sin. But what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (for He assumed flesh but not sin) condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but in the Spirit. For the Spirit helpeth our infirmities and affordeth power to the law of our mind, against the law that is in our members. For the verse, we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered, itself teacheth us what to pray for. Hence it is impossible to carry out the precepts of the Lord except by patience and prayer.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Vern Poythress and Millennial Views
Vern Poythress has got some really thoughtful and stimulating stuff to read, not least of which is some things I had found of his concerning views on the millennium. I probably should includes some quotes and discussion, but for now I'm just going to post links. Maybe later I'll edit this entry and add some more of my own detail. Anyhow, here are the links:
- Currents within Amillennialism
- 2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism
- Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6
The Changing Face of Theology and Denominationalism
I think one of the blessings that has come out of post-modernism etc, is that people aren't as 'stuck in their camps' as they used to be. There is more dialogue between different theologies, and people from different theological and denominational backgrounds. Of course, we still get stuck in our ways, but I think it is a healthy thing that people don't feel as afraid to hear from other perspectives, rather than just being close-minded because 'they must be wrong' because 'they are different from us'. At the Presbyterian theological college where I currently study, it is good to also have a Pentecostal or a Baptist etc in some of my classes. It is good when we can have civil discussions on Yahoo groups with others of different theological perspectives. I remember a guest lecturer I once had, Henry Krabbendam, who kept saying, "Fellowship is not based on agreement, it is based on Jesus Christ." There are good and right ways to express a true Biblical ecumenism reflecting the objective unity we have if we are all in Christ Jesus. "Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 15:5-6 NKJV).
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Tagged for a Book Meme!
Well, I realised I've been tagged for a book meme by Barb..! What is a book meme? I don't really know :-) I think it just means I'm supposed to do the same and pass it on. It looks like an ANE covenant chain letter without the blessings and curses at the end. My gut reaction is: IT WILL STOP WITH ME AND GO NO FURTHER! But I probably need to learn to be more sociable so I'll go with it anyhow.. only problem is I'll reveal how few books I really read...
1. One book that changed your life:
1 Corinthians
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life, by John Calvin
(Well... I think I read it more than once... It's small enough that I probably did... ;-)
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
How to Check Email Even on a Desert Island, by U. R. Addicted
4. One book that made you laugh:
I Take My Religion Seriously, by Charles M. Schulz
(I found it on my shelf again not too long ago...)
5. One book that made you cry:
The Gospel According to Matthew
6. One book that you wish had been written:
Every Single Decision Made For You, by I. M. Trustworthy
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Robert's Rules of Order, by Henry M. Robert
(Okay, it's not really that bad I suppose...)
8. One book you’re currently reading:
The Stone that became a Mountain, by Richard Bewes
(A better question, but even harder for me to answer, would be: One book you've recently finished reading...)
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin
(One day I'll finish reading the whole lot... yes, this is my Augustinian confession...!)
10. Now tag five people:
Chad
David
Donna
Mick
(How blog-lonely I am! Anyone else waiting to be tagged...? I'm still kinda new to the blog thing... :-)
[Insert Blessings and Curses here?]
1. One book that changed your life:
1 Corinthians
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life, by John Calvin
(Well... I think I read it more than once... It's small enough that I probably did... ;-)
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
How to Check Email Even on a Desert Island, by U. R. Addicted
4. One book that made you laugh:
I Take My Religion Seriously, by Charles M. Schulz
(I found it on my shelf again not too long ago...)
5. One book that made you cry:
The Gospel According to Matthew
6. One book that you wish had been written:
Every Single Decision Made For You, by I. M. Trustworthy
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Robert's Rules of Order, by Henry M. Robert
(Okay, it's not really that bad I suppose...)
8. One book you’re currently reading:
The Stone that became a Mountain, by Richard Bewes
(A better question, but even harder for me to answer, would be: One book you've recently finished reading...)
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin
(One day I'll finish reading the whole lot... yes, this is my Augustinian confession...!)
10. Now tag five people:
Chad
David
Donna
Mick
(How blog-lonely I am! Anyone else waiting to be tagged...? I'm still kinda new to the blog thing... :-)
[Insert Blessings and Curses here?]
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Is the Church in Exile?
In one of my lectures yesterday, the lecturer made the comment that the picture of Exile still translates to the church today. The church is still in a sense in exile, in that the church are strangers in a foreign land.
My first reaction to this was, "No, the church is not in exile!" After all, is not the key emphasis of exile about judgement? Israel was exiled because of unfaithfulness? Doesn't the exile parallel being expelled from the garden, or maybe Israel in bondage in Egypt? Surely the church cannot stand under condemnation in any sense, or under that kind of oppression?!
But as we discussed it further, and as I thought about it some more, I think it is another one of those 'yes and no' answers. I think there is a dual imagery involved in the exile. From the perspective of the unfaithful, it is about judgement. From the perspective of the faithful, it is about still being faithful in a foreign land, waiting for a return to the promised land, trusting in the promises of God, walking by faith and not by sight. The former is not applicable to the church, but the latter is.
Perhaps another way to look at it is to say that the church is not sent into exile (under discipline), as Israel was, but the church does parallel Israel in the resulting situation of having been exiled, of being the people of God in a strange land (while at the same time the whole earth really belongs to the church as her inheritance!). That is because Israel's exile was not only meant to be a single image of expulsion from the land, but after being expelled, the faithful become sojourners like Abraham or even those wanderers (Joshua, Caleb and the next generation of Israelites) who waited to enter the promised land (in fact the wilderness wandering was also a mixed image, of judgement against the unfaithful and patience for the faithful). The problems arise when we try to too neatly collapse the whole Biblical event into a single image.
Anyhow, the point is that I don't as strongly say 'no' to the church being in exile as I initially did :-)
My first reaction to this was, "No, the church is not in exile!" After all, is not the key emphasis of exile about judgement? Israel was exiled because of unfaithfulness? Doesn't the exile parallel being expelled from the garden, or maybe Israel in bondage in Egypt? Surely the church cannot stand under condemnation in any sense, or under that kind of oppression?!
But as we discussed it further, and as I thought about it some more, I think it is another one of those 'yes and no' answers. I think there is a dual imagery involved in the exile. From the perspective of the unfaithful, it is about judgement. From the perspective of the faithful, it is about still being faithful in a foreign land, waiting for a return to the promised land, trusting in the promises of God, walking by faith and not by sight. The former is not applicable to the church, but the latter is.
Perhaps another way to look at it is to say that the church is not sent into exile (under discipline), as Israel was, but the church does parallel Israel in the resulting situation of having been exiled, of being the people of God in a strange land (while at the same time the whole earth really belongs to the church as her inheritance!). That is because Israel's exile was not only meant to be a single image of expulsion from the land, but after being expelled, the faithful become sojourners like Abraham or even those wanderers (Joshua, Caleb and the next generation of Israelites) who waited to enter the promised land (in fact the wilderness wandering was also a mixed image, of judgement against the unfaithful and patience for the faithful). The problems arise when we try to too neatly collapse the whole Biblical event into a single image.
Anyhow, the point is that I don't as strongly say 'no' to the church being in exile as I initially did :-)
Saturday, July 15, 2006
What is the Goal of Prayer?
This is a Theology paper I wrote on the goal of prayer:
The_Goal_of_Prayer.pdf
This paper seeks to evaluate Bloesch's description of the goal of Christian prayer (“the goal of prayer is not absorption into the being of God but the transformation of the world for the glory of God”) and determine whether this is an adequate description of the goal of Christian prayer. When Bloesch's description of the goal of prayer is understood not only in what is said explicitly, but also in what he no doubt intends implicitly, his description is considered to be generally adequate. However, there are deficiencies in what is not explicit enough. An alternate description of the goal of Christian prayer is offered, recognising that prayer is fundamentally about asking for a response from God.
The_Goal_of_Prayer.pdf
This paper seeks to evaluate Bloesch's description of the goal of Christian prayer (“the goal of prayer is not absorption into the being of God but the transformation of the world for the glory of God”) and determine whether this is an adequate description of the goal of Christian prayer. When Bloesch's description of the goal of prayer is understood not only in what is said explicitly, but also in what he no doubt intends implicitly, his description is considered to be generally adequate. However, there are deficiencies in what is not explicit enough. An alternate description of the goal of Christian prayer is offered, recognising that prayer is fundamentally about asking for a response from God.
Leviticus 16 and the Two Goats?
This is my Old Testament Exegesis paper from last semester:
Exegesis_Lev_16v15-22.pdf
This paper looks at the significance and meaning of the two goats on the Day of Atonement, focusing on Leviticus 16:15-22 particularly. As part of the discussion I consider such things as: the meaning of the Hebrew word kaphar, the distinction of emphasis between the two goats, some implications regarding a theology of particular atonement, and the significance of atoning for the tabernacle as symbolising the atonement of creation (not just humanity). I also found this paper to be a lot harder than I expected and certain sections ended up being too rushed :-(
Here is a quote from the end of the paper:
Exegesis_Lev_16v15-22.pdf
This paper looks at the significance and meaning of the two goats on the Day of Atonement, focusing on Leviticus 16:15-22 particularly. As part of the discussion I consider such things as: the meaning of the Hebrew word kaphar, the distinction of emphasis between the two goats, some implications regarding a theology of particular atonement, and the significance of atoning for the tabernacle as symbolising the atonement of creation (not just humanity). I also found this paper to be a lot harder than I expected and certain sections ended up being too rushed :-(
Here is a quote from the end of the paper:
There is no doubt that the role of the two goats on the Day of Atonement was to symbolise and typify the dealing with sin amongst the people of God. While the two goats were involved in two distinct and different rituals, they should be seen as two aspects of the one atonement, rather than two completely different atonements. Just as the numerous types of the Old Testament meet in the one person of Jesus Christ, each adding a different aspect or image picturing his work, so too in this microcosm of the Day of Atonement, the multiple events are just different aspects of the one reality in Christ, and not completely unrelated. Rather than confuse, the multiplicity of symbols helps enrich our understanding of God's gracious work in redemptive history. On the Day of Atonement, the role of the two goats can be summarised as follows:
- Both goats represented the atonement for all the sins of all the people of God.
- The goat for the LORD emphasises the need for cleansing and sanctification by means of death, atoning for both the people and the tabernacle
- The goat for azazel emphasises the complete removal of sin from amongst the people.
- The eschatological hope is for a place and a people of God where all sin is purged and removed.
Hittitology and the Pentateuch
This is an Old Testament paper on the relevance of Hittitology to the understanding of the Pentateuch:
Hittitology_and_the_Pentateuch.pdf
In the last 100 years Hittitology has moved from virtual non-existence to a significant field of study. This paper seeks to explore some of the findings of Hittitology, and evaluate their relevance to the understanding of the Pentateuch. The paper follows this outline: Introduction, Biblical References to Hittites, Extra-Biblical Historical Survey (Hittite History, Neo-Hittites History, Pre-Hittite History, Hittite Treaties), The Chronology Problem, Pentateuchal Significance (Who were the the Biblical Hittites, Hittite Treaties and Biblical Covenant), Conclusions. A cautious approach to the use of historical and archaeological studies is taken, while still recognising the valuable contributions they make to Pentateuch studies.
(I actually found this paper very hard to write, but the research was very helpful and an eye-opener for me regarding the value and level of confidence we can have in historical and archeological studies...)
Hittitology_and_the_Pentateuch.pdf
In the last 100 years Hittitology has moved from virtual non-existence to a significant field of study. This paper seeks to explore some of the findings of Hittitology, and evaluate their relevance to the understanding of the Pentateuch. The paper follows this outline: Introduction, Biblical References to Hittites, Extra-Biblical Historical Survey (Hittite History, Neo-Hittites History, Pre-Hittite History, Hittite Treaties), The Chronology Problem, Pentateuchal Significance (Who were the the Biblical Hittites, Hittite Treaties and Biblical Covenant), Conclusions. A cautious approach to the use of historical and archaeological studies is taken, while still recognising the valuable contributions they make to Pentateuch studies.
(I actually found this paper very hard to write, but the research was very helpful and an eye-opener for me regarding the value and level of confidence we can have in historical and archeological studies...)
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
John of Damascus on the Doctrine of God
This is my Church History paper looking at John of Damascus' teaching from the first book of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, as a representative of Eastern Orthodox theology:
John_of_Damascus_on_the_Doctrine_of_God.pdf
After a brief sketch of the historical setting of the work, it is divided up for consideration. The book is categorised into three sections: 1. What can and cannot be known about the Triune God; 2. Logical proofs concerning the Triune God; 3. Beliefs explained concerning the Triune God. Each of these sections is discussed, also considering the historical and contemporary relevance of what John writes. The value of an appreciation of the mystery of God is noted, as are the contributions and distinctions of John's Trinitarian conceptions. Some similarities with Scholastic writings are also pointed out.
John_of_Damascus_on_the_Doctrine_of_God.pdf
After a brief sketch of the historical setting of the work, it is divided up for consideration. The book is categorised into three sections: 1. What can and cannot be known about the Triune God; 2. Logical proofs concerning the Triune God; 3. Beliefs explained concerning the Triune God. Each of these sections is discussed, also considering the historical and contemporary relevance of what John writes. The value of an appreciation of the mystery of God is noted, as are the contributions and distinctions of John's Trinitarian conceptions. Some similarities with Scholastic writings are also pointed out.
Worldview and Theology
This paper discusses the relationship between the concept of worldview and the practice of theology:
Worldview_and_Theology.pdf
Some definitions and descriptions of both worldview and theology are provided, followed by an examination of ways worldview interacts with theology. Firstly in relation to Biblical Hermeneutics as the building blocks for theology, and then also in relation to the final and overall shape that theology takes on within different worldviews. As illustrations, the theologies of Eastern and Western Christianity are considered, as well as the changes to theology arising out of transitions from Modernism to Postmodernism within Western evangelical Christianity. The paper seeks to show that the concept of worldview, and an understanding of it, is essential to the theological endeavour, because of the organic and dynamic relationship between worldview and theology at every level.
Worldview_and_Theology.pdf
Some definitions and descriptions of both worldview and theology are provided, followed by an examination of ways worldview interacts with theology. Firstly in relation to Biblical Hermeneutics as the building blocks for theology, and then also in relation to the final and overall shape that theology takes on within different worldviews. As illustrations, the theologies of Eastern and Western Christianity are considered, as well as the changes to theology arising out of transitions from Modernism to Postmodernism within Western evangelical Christianity. The paper seeks to show that the concept of worldview, and an understanding of it, is essential to the theological endeavour, because of the organic and dynamic relationship between worldview and theology at every level.
Some Messianic Themes from Genesis
Here is another paper I wrote on 'Some Messianic Themes from Genesis':
Some_Messianic_Themes_from_Genesis.pdf
This paper seeks to touch on some of the Messianic themes that arise out of the book of Genesis. The phrase “Messianic themes” is deliberately chosen, because it can otherwise be easy to think too narrowly when we hear the term “Messianic”, forgetting that the Messiah is an eschatological figure. After a brief consideration of typology as a method for interpreting the Scriptures, the following passages are discussed making use of established typological approaches: Gen. 1:1-2:3; Gen. 2:4-17:27; Gen. 22:1-19; Gen. 37:1-50:26. By way of this limited survey and exploration, it should be evident that Genesis contains the beginnings of the Messianic hope, and that there are Messianic themes interwoven throughout the book.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Holy War in Deuteronomy?
Here is a copy of a paper I wrote recently as part of my studies. It discusses the concept of 'Holy War' in relation to the book of Deuteronomy, also touching on the issues of 'genocide':
Holy_War_in_Deuteronomy.pdf
Holy_War_in_Deuteronomy.pdf
Monday, June 05, 2006
Australian Copyright Law Reforms!
Well, this is kind of off-topic for my blog, but it is MY blog ;-)
The Australian government is finally seeking to reform the copyright laws to legalise what many people already do anyway. Things like time-shifting (video TV programs to watch later) and format-shifting (copy old VHS tape to DVD, copy music tape to CD). Here are some links about the proposed reforms:
The Australian government is finally seeking to reform the copyright laws to legalise what many people already do anyway. Things like time-shifting (video TV programs to watch later) and format-shifting (copy old VHS tape to DVD, copy music tape to CD). Here are some links about the proposed reforms:
- shurl.org/QZHcJ (Link to Govt Media Release)
- www.efa.org.au/Issues/IP/#current
PS While adding my recent Poythress blog entry, I came across an interesting article by him on copyright: Copyrights and Copying - Why the Laws Should Be Changed. Now I have redeemed this entry with a more overtly theological gloss :-)
Vos on the Purpose of Israel's Theocracy
I found some useful quotes from Geerhardus Vos, on the eschatological purpose of Israel, as a theocratic nation-state. I think what he says is very helpful as we try to harmonize or relate the Old Testament revelation with the New Testament revelation...
Nor was it merely a question of teaching religion for the present world. A missionary institution the theocracy never was intended to be in its Old Testament state. The significance of the unique organization of Israel can be rightly measured only by remembering that the theocracy typified nothing short of the perfected kingdom of God, the consummate state of Heaven. In this ideal state there will be no longer any place for the distinction between church and state. [Biblical Theology, 126]
As stated above, the abode of Israel in Canaan typified the heavenly, perfected state of God's people. Under these circumstances the ideal of absolute conformity to God's law of legal holiness had to be upheld. Even though they were not able to keep this law in the Pauline, spiritual sense, yea, even though they were unable to keep it externally and ritually, the requirement could not be lowered. When apostacy on a general scale took place, they could not remain in the promised land. When they disqualified themselves for typifying the state of holiness, they ipso facto disqualified themselves for typifying that of blessedness, and had to go into captivity. [Biblical
Theology, 127]
The eschatological idea influencing the constitution of the theocracy becomes dependent on the interaction of the type and the antitype. The future state imposes its own stamp on the theocracy, an actual institution of Israel. The theocratic structure projects its own character into the picture of the future. Heaven reflected itself on Israel and Israel became part of the future. The type inevitably influences the conception of the antitype. The future is depicted in terms drawn from the present, earthly, material reality. There is somewhat of the shadowy, inadequate character of the prefiguration that passes over into the description of what the eschatological will be like when it comes. The antitype impresses its stamp upon the theocratic structure and imparts to it somewhat of its transcendent, absolute character. The theocracy has something ideal or unattainable about it. Its plan, as conceived by the law, hovers over the actual life of Israel. The theocracy in the idea transcends its embodiment in experience. [Eschatology of the OT, 117-8]
To summarize this in other words: it was impossible for the people of that time to separate the essence from the form. The essence grasped in the form is different from the form being grasped at the expense of the essence. We find the picture of the eschatological state in terms of the holy land, Jerusalem, the rule over the nations, familiar offices and organization and rites, and temporal blessedness. Nonetheless, all this, while expressed in similar terms, was felt to be different from the present because it was represented as eternal. To the mind of God, all earthly apparatus employed is purely symbolical. To the people, and in part to the prophets, the symbolical nature was not always perspicuous. [Eschatology of the OT, 120]
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Packer on Eschatology
Eschatological is one of those words which gets used a lot, but IMO most of the time most people don't know what it really means :-) For me, I think it is only over the last few years that I have begun to get a proper handle on the significance of eschatology. Now I think it is of fundamental importance in better understanding the Scriptures, and God's purposes in Christ. Too often, in a man-centred way, we just think of eschatology in terms of what will eventually happen to me, in the future, as it relates to me: life after death, heaven and hell, bodily resurrection, last judgement when Christ returns. However, there is a bigger picture with eschatology, which has to do with the whole Biblically anticipated age to come. This age to come includes the list of things I just mentioned previously, but is also more expansive that that. And the real crunch point is that the age to come is not just future, but it has already and really begun in the coming of Christ. In Christ's resurrection, the new creation has already begun. And as we are born again of the Spirit, the new creation has already begun in us, yet still waiting for perfection and completion. So every Christian is an interface or intersection between this present evil age and the age to come, and all the Christians together (ie the church) are a preview of the new humanity of the age to come, constituted in Christ. It seems to me it is very important to understand both the 'now and not yet' as well as the ultimate goal or telos of eschatology, if we are to better understand the perspective and meaning of Scripture. For example, I think we often think about OT Israel being fulfilled in the NT church. Yet I think ultimately both Israel and the church are better understood as pointing to the ultimate reality of the new humanity of the kingdom of God in eternity, in the consummated age to come. The church is a better representation of the new creation than is Israel, but it is still not a perfect representation.
Anyhow, recently I read some J. I. Packer on eschatology, and he made some helpful comments I thought I would record here. They come from Honouring the Written Word of God (Paternoster, 1990), in the chapter entitled "The Challenge of Biblical Interpretation: Eschatology"...
Anyhow, recently I read some J. I. Packer on eschatology, and he made some helpful comments I thought I would record here. They come from Honouring the Written Word of God (Paternoster, 1990), in the chapter entitled "The Challenge of Biblical Interpretation: Eschatology"...
Eschatology is the study of the last things, God's future, God's fulfillment of his purpose of perfecting his creation by eliminating from it the disorder brought into it by sin and reconstructing everything in its final perfect form. Further, the biblical presentation of this great theme is like an ellipse with two foci, a single oval figure with two points inside it each of which is just as central in its significance as the other. The two foci are global eschatology (which has to do with the future of our Lord Jesus Christ and this whole world) and personal eschatology (which has to do with the future of the individual Christian and the individual unbeliever). [p.200]
The perspective set forth in the New Testament is what is usually called inaugurated eschatology, that is, the belief that the kingdom of God is here and the powers of the kingdom are at work already. The gospel is the good news that heaven has already begun here on earth for those who are Christ's. The long expected king of Old Testament prophecy has come. [p.200]
Never underestimate the theological significance of eschatology. In the schools, very often eschatology has been the poor relation in the theology courses. Coming last it has often been, to speak frankly, skimped in teaching. Partly, I think, this is because professors have not always known what to say. In addition, everyone who works in the classroom knows things often take longer to teach than you anticipate, so that the final bit of any course nearly always gets skimped. That's universal teaching experience. But it is a very sad thing that eschatology should ever be skimped because, as you can already see, it is a matter of enormous importance, very much a part of the glory of the gospel and very important for every Christian to understand... Eschatology is first the key to understanding the unity of the Bible... Eschatology is, further, the clue to understanding the nature of the Christian life. That life is essentially a life of hope, a life in which nothing is perfect yet but the hope of perfection is set before us... Third, eschatology is the key to understanding the shape of world history... The people of God have always been at the centre of world history... Finally, eschatology is supremely relevant for teaching the gospel in these days, considering what we are up against. On the one hand, there are utopian hopes, false hopes of different kinds offered by different people... On the other hand, we face a great deal of pessimistic hopelessness on the part of people who feel that they have seen through the false hopes of society and now have no hope at all... We need to speak loudly and clearly about the glory of the Christian hope. The world needs to hear that word from our lips. [pp.201-202]
the Bible is an Oriental book, and its testimony to the future is given in Oriental fashion. It is given in a pictorial, evocative, evaluative and imaginative way, rather than in the sort of reportorial prose which is informative in the way that a newspaper report of things is informative. This is the way that the Oriental mind, through which God gave us his Word, focuses and formulates and presents these coming realities. [p.203]
As wise persons preparing for vacations tidy up, pack their bags and get ready well in advance, so should we prepare for the meeting with Jesus that will close our lives in this world. Keep short accounts with God and 'live every day as if thy last', just as the hymn says. And while our life continues, let us work and pray for the advancing of the kingdom. When Christ appears publicly in this world, in what posture should he find the church? Praying for revival and planning world evangelism, surely. Let us see that when he comes for us, whether it is soon or late, those are the tasks in which he finds us engaged. [p.212]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)