Eternal Life and the Age to Come?

As I have reflected over the phrase translated as "eternal life" (ZWH AIWNIOS), I am strongly inclined to agree with the note N. T. Wright makes in The Climax of the Covenant, p39n77, "I regard ZWH AIWNIOS as denoting not just indefinite continuing existence after death but the now-inaugurated 'age to come' of Jewish eschatalogical expectation"

Similarly, Don Carson notes in his commentary, The Gospel According to John, regarding the phrase in John 3:15, pp202f, "Properly it means 'life of the age (aion) to come' and therefore resurrection life. But in John's Gospel that life may in some measure be experienced before the end, just as in the Synoptics the kingdom dawns before the end. Moreover, those who have read the Prologue will recall that life resides in the Word: 'in him was life' (1:4). The eternal life begun by the new birth is nothing less than the eternal life of the eternal Word."

My Take on 1 Cor 7:14

For various reasons I have been looking again at 1 Corinthians 7, and thought I would post something here regarding my take on 7:14. So here is a rehash of something I wrote in 2004 for another forum...

I think an understanding of this verse should (at least) address the following issues:

[A] 7:14 begins with GAR ('for'), and so there is a connection with the preceding. How is that the issue of 'holiness'

[B] What relationship (if any) does Paul's use of 'holy'/'sanctified' and 'unclean' have to do with the similar language used in 6:9-20 (also with context of sexual union)?

[C] What is the relationship between the second part of 7:14 ('otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy') and the first (that the unbelieving spouse has been sanctified in the believing spouse)?

[D] The unbelieving spouse is said to be 'sanctified' and the child is 'holy'. Does Paul then mean the same thing concerning both spouse and child, or not?

Regarding [A], 7:14 is an argument or explanation as to why the believer should not initiate divorce against the unbelieving spouse. Some might understand it as saying in effect, "stay married because that will create a better opportunity for the spouse to know the gospel". While that makes sense as a reason against divorce, to use the term 'sanctified' seems an unusually round-a-bout way of saying it. Is there any precedent elsewhere of using 'sanctified' in that sense? Perhaps there is, the Bible is a big book :-)

In my estimation, I think the answer to [A] may have to do with [B]. Perhaps we should try to answer the question, 'Why would they want to leave the unbelieving husband?' Perhaps it could merely be that they don't particularly like the spouse, and just want to get out. If that were the case, perhaps the suggestion about evangelistic opportunity would be an appropriate answer (sacrifice for the sake of the gospel, etc). However, I think that the reason for wanting a divorce may have more to do with incorrect doctrinal understanding than mere convenience. Given the issues they had with proper sexual relations (e.g. aspects of 1 Cor 5-7) and also about right relationships with unbelievers (cf. also 2 Cor 6-7), I suspect that for some reason or other, the Corinthians might have thought it unholy, perhaps contaminating, to be in close and sexual relations with an unbelieving spouse (cf. some Jewish views of contact with Gentiles). Certainly after Paul's words in 1 Cor 6:9-20, a Christian married to a non-Christian might wonder if it would be a defiling of the temple of the Holy Spirit etc when they enter into sexual union with the unbelieving spouse. If the issue is something along those lines, it makes for a reasonable answer to say that actually the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer, rather than the believer being contaminated by the spouse. Of course the question then is, what exactly does it mean that the unbeliever is sanctified? Perhaps it merely has something to do with the Lord somehow through the covenant of marriage, sufficiently 'cleansing' the spouse, such that entering into such intimate sexual union does not somehow defile the Christian (cf. the opposite in 1 Cor 6:15-20; or Matt 23:17,19 how the holy sanctifies that which it comes into contact with, or 1 Tim 4:5 how food is sanctified before entering our bodies). Maybe this sounds too airy-fairy, or maybe we are just too modernistic :-)

So onto [C], why does Paul even mention the children? If Paul just means that the children also should be in close contact with the gospel, again, the terms 'unclean' and 'holy' seem a very strange way to state it. Also, what does that have to do with divorce? The children may well have stayed with the believing parent. Instead, I think the way it reads 'otherwise...' (the whole construction in Greek is "EPEI ARA... NUN DE..") means that if the unbelieving spouse was not sanctified, then the children would be unclean. Notice also how it reads 'but now they are holy'. The emphasis seems to be that the children are indisputably holy. Paul is saying 'If what you Corinthians thought was true, then actually your children are unclean, but we all know that really they are holy, therefore your thinking is wrong'. It seems that Paul mentions the holiness of the children to bolster his argument for not initiating divorce. He says they should not initiate divorce, because the unbelieving spouse is actually sanctified afterall. How do we know the spouse is sanctified? Well, obviously it must be the case, because it is clear that the child is holy. I think that is called a posteriori argumentation. Why is it so? I expect the reasoning is that if the spouse was so defiling as to defile the believer, then one would also expect the fruit of such a union to be defiled. On the contrary, the children are holy, therefore the unbelieving spouse must not be so defiling as they had supposed.

Well, what about [D]? I don't think they necessarily have to mean the same thing. The verb used with regard to the unbelieving spouse is hAGIAZW, the adjective describing the child is hAGIOS. Obviously the two words are closely related, and I suppose that generally speaking it is true that the act of hAGIAZW-ing something will make it hAGIOS. Yet I am sure Paul could have used the verb for both child and spouse, or the adjective for both. But he didn't. Perhaps there is some significance in his choice to make a distinction. To put it crudely, I suspect that really it is the child that is holy (hAGIOS), and the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (hAGIAZW) 'enough', to ensure that neither the believer nor the child should become unholy. Perhaps there is the sense that Paul is comfortable to label children as 'holy', as included by God in God's covenant people, whereas he would be hesitant to call an adult unbeliever 'holy'. Yet he is comfortable to use the perfect verb form in that the unbelieving spouse is sufficiently consecrated or cleansed (hAGIAZW-ed) to bring them to a state such that they should not defile the believer or children, yet not enough to label them as 'holy' (hAGIOS). (Perhaps an analogy might be seen in with the verb AGAPAW 'to love' and the adjective AGAPHTOS 'beloved'. There are those that might loved, which we might be hesistant to call 'beloved'.)

In summary then, I think the sense is this:

"You think you must separate from your unbelieving spouse, because you are holy and they are not. Maybe you even think they will contaminate you. In fact, this is not the case. For your spouse has actually been sanctified in/by you. How do I know that? It must be the case. If they were not, your children would be unclean. But it is evident that your children are holy. (So we know that your spouse must not be as corruptingly unholy as you had supposed.)"

Or in other words, "we know your children are holy, therefore your spouse must be sanctified to some extent, otherwise they would be unclean. Therefore the unbelieving state of your spouse is not so bad as you cannot be in union with him."

So, perhaps that is a possible way to understand 1 Cor 7:14 (which naturally supports paedo-baptism, that being my position!).

The Spirit in the OT vs NT

What is the significance of the coming of the Holy Spirit in the NT, and how does it differ from the way God worked in the OT? One thing I find helpful in thinking about this question is to distinguish between the corporate body and the individual. In the NC the Spirit is given corporately, so that every member has the Spirit (cf Acts 2:17-18, Heb 8:10-11), and as a body they have the Spirit. In the OT, only some individuals had the Spirit, but as a whole, Israel was bereft of the Spirit and unfaithful, generally they were unregenerate (cf Deut 5:29, Deut 31:27-29). The promise and hope of the NC is for a people who were no longer stiff-necked, and who had circumcised hearts (cf Deut 30:6). This awaited the giving of the Spirit (cf Ezekiel 36:24-27; also note Luke 11:13 and Luke's general perspective on the coming of the Spirit and how that coming is linked to the solution to Israel's problem of deep-seated wickedness and unfaithfulness).

Of course, this doesn't mean that every individual in the "visible church" has the indwelling of the Spirit. I think that has to do with "inaugurated eschatology", in that the Spirit has indeed come upon God's people, but perfection still awaits the consummation...

John Owen and Future Justification?

I was reading some John Owen and came across this intriguing reference to future justification, where he seems to distinguish between present and future justification. Given some of the current controversies about future justification, it caught my eye. The context is Owen interacting with Baxter concerning the intention of Christ's death. Owen is arguing that one should distinguish between the right of justification purchased by Christ's death, though justification is not possessed except by faith. Baxter apparently wants to say that the right to justification and its possession are one and the same thing. In the midst of this argumentation Owen seems to bring up the idea of future justification by way of analogy, to bolster his point in distinguishing between right and possession. Here is the quote:

If he shall say, that a right to a future justification at the day of judgment is the same with the possession of present actual justification, it is neither true nor any thing to the business in hand. [from Of the Death of Christ in Works, Vol. 10, p.476]

Jesus vs Apostles on the Future

One helpful illustration in trying to understand OT prophecy is the idea of two mountains, one behind the other. When pointed to these mountains, and standing in front of the first mountain, the second is completely concealed, not clear to us. But when we come to the peak of the first, we realise there is another mountain before us, which was previously hidden from view behind the first. Sometimes a prophecy may have an immediate or superficial fulfillment (the first mountain), but at the same time it may point to a further or ultimate fulfillment in the times of Jesus' first or second coming (the second mountain). Because of this kind of 'layered' or 'multiple' fulfillments, it can be difficult to properly appreciate OT prophecy and its relation to the NT. I think the same can be said of some of Jesus' prophetic teaching. In many ways, Jesus speaks like an OT prophet, to the Jews, before his death and resurrection, and before the real beginning of the apostolic church. Hence there may be a difficulty with understanding his teaching, if we try to distinguish whether he is speaking of his death and resurrection or his return at the end, all of which were still future at the time of his teaching. In this sense he taught like an OT prophet looking towards future events (not that it may not have been clear in his own mind, but that such clarity may not have been so intelligible to his listeners). On the other hand, the apostles taught in between Jesus' first and second comings. They clearly looked back to his death and resurrection, and forward to his return, and so it is not surpising that these can more easily be distinguished in their teaching. The lived and taught as ones between two great mountains, the two comings of Jesus, a vantage point with a clearer perspective on the complete landscape. Perhaps this helps us to understand why sometimes it is less clear whether Jesus is talking about his first or second coming, but the apostles speak more clearly about the return of Christ. For Jesus, as with the OT prophets, he could speak of the two events as one, while the apostles of course distinguished them.

The Coherence Of The Old Testament Covenants

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

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

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

Packer on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics

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

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

Calvinism is making a comeback?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latin and Greek Language Tools

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

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

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

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

What Is Love?

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

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

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

Abbott & Costello Learn Hebrew

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

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

Ephesians 2:15 and Torah Abolished?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apostles at Jerusalem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him

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

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

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

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

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

John of Damascus on Romans 7-8

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

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

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

Vern Poythress and Millennial Views

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

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

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

The Changing Face of Theology and Denominationalism

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

Tagged for a Book Meme!

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

1. One book that changed your life:
1 Corinthians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Insert Blessings and Curses here?]

Is the Church in Exile?

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Goal of Prayer?

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

The_Goal_of_Prayer.pdf

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