Hebrews 12:2-3 and the Need for Hope

"Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls." (Hebrews 12:1-3; NKJV)

I was thinking about Hebrews 12:2-3 recently, prompted by a sermon I listened to on Isaiah 60. It is amazing to realise that Jesus needed hope. It was because of the "joy that was set before him" that Jesus was able to endure the cross and all the hostility from sinners that he suffered. At times we can get so familiar with the idea that Jesus is 100% God, that we forget that he is also 100% human. In his perfect humanity, Jesus needed hope to enable him to endure all the adversity that he experienced. Sometimes some of us might think that we don't really need that thing called "hope". We might say that "duty" is enough, that God's "bare command" is enough. We can and should just keep on keeping on, just because we should. But God doesn't think it is enough. Jesus needed hope and so do we. To hope is to be human. I'm sure we can always benefit from a fresh recovery of the Biblical concept of hope, of looking forward to the good things God has in store for us in the future, so that we can endure the various tough times we experience in the here and now. The NT abounds with expressions of hope, especially of that day when Jesus returns, all are resurrection, and there is a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. No more sin, and perfect dwelling with God forever. This is not just pie in the sky wishful thinking, but Biblical reality. Thank God for the perfect hope we have in Christ, who is "our hope" (1 Timothy 1:1)!

Phillip Jensen on Systematic Theology and Preaching

Amongst many Evangelicals today there seems too little an appreciation of Systematic Theology. You can easily imagine people saying, "Let's not talk about doctrine, I just teach the Bible" Granted, there is a big danger for our theologizing to be too speculative, or too much about what other people think, rather than a proper consideration of what God tells us as we consider the whole of the Scriptures. Nonetheless, as they say, we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. In an essay I was reading by Phillip Jensen, he provides a helpful corrective for those who try to avoid doing Systematic Theology in relation to preaching. His words come under the heading of "Preaching God's Word Depends on Systematic Theology":

Again, because the Word of God is unitary, preaching God's Word will always display our systematic theology. Expository preaching is sometimes put in opposition to systematic theology. This is a sad mistake. Expository preaching in particular will reveal our competence or incompetence as systematic theologians.

The preacher who prides himself on being "a simple Bible man" does not understand himself. He may claim to just "preach the passage" in front of him without being bogged down by theology or doctrine or systems. yet he rarely preaches the passage in front of him. Rather, he will unconsciously preach the church tradition from which he comes. Or worse, he will preach his own hobbyhorses and ideas. For without a consciously self-aware and well-considered theology that is open to being framed, corrected, and developed by the text of Scripture, the preacher's own frame of reference will overwhelm the text. That frame of reference may be his church's tradition or maybe his own personal experience, but it will not be the Bible.

(This excerpt has been taken from "Preaching the Word Today" in Preach the Word: Essays on Expository Preaching in Honor of R. Kent Hughes, p.163.)

Noah as a new Adam: Creation Redemption and Renewal

I was just reading the account of Noah again (see Genesis 6-9). The echoes of Adam and the creation account are very strong. Once again there is only water, a great deep over the face of the whole earth. Out of that water God brings a new beginning to life, to repopulate the world. God's covenant with Noah has the familiar words "be fruitful and multiply" as well as the familiar idea of dominion.

But there are also some striking differences.

In the case of Noah there is a new sense of hope. Never again will God send a flood to destroy the earth, or curse the ground for man's sake, even though the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth (Gen. 8:21-22, 9:11-16). The first creation account carried the gloomy shadow of the curse. At the very beginning of this renewed creation, the LORD covenants not to curse. This is a better covenent!

After the first creation account, the reign of death also begins, and there is a marring of the whole scene by the black marks of Cain killing Abel (Gen. 4:1-15), and Lamech's murderous boastings (Gen. 4:23-24). This culminates in God sending the flood to purge a world filled with violence (Gen. 6:11-13). And significantly, in this new creation account, from the beginning God pre-empts murder and violence with strong explicit law, not present in the first creation account (Gen. 9:5-7). The prospect of a better creation!

But at the end of this new creation account, there is failure again, as the creation is disfigured by th shame of sin and curse (Gen. 9:20-25). While there are clear pictures in this account of redemption and renewal, of God healing the creation he loves, rather than completely abandoning it, Noah is not the true answer to problems of humanity. The continuing presence of sin in the world after Noah tells use that something even better is still to come. The account of Noah is not the end of God's work of redemption, but only the beginnings of showing us what really needs to happen.

Now in our age we have the privilege of seeing more fully what God had in store the whole time, of what is and will be perfectly accomplished in Christ. And so we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, as we say "Come, Lord Jesus!"

Love as a Response of Gratitude

"I love the LORD, because He has heard My voice and my supplications. Because He has inclined His ear to me, therefore I will call upon Him as long as I live." [Psalm
116:1-2; NKJV]

Sometimes we talk of love as needing to be unconditional, of loving not conditioned on anything in the other, but just because we choose to love. It is totally voluntary, an act of grace, a free gift with no strings attached. Certainly God loves us in that way, he loved us while we were his enemies, while we were unattractive and otherwise unlovable (cf. Romans 5:6-10). But God makes it a lot easier for us to love him. He doesn't ask us to love him simply out of our own virtuousness. The psalmist reminds us that God makes it very easy to love him. "We love Him because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). In this case it is because God hears us and answers our prayers, that we are so full of gratitude and thankfulness, that we don't feel like anything except loving him. And how many other blessings could we count to remind us of God's goodness towards us, especially in Christ Jesus? May we meditate on his love towards us often, so that a love for him would well up inside of us. And may it drive us to pray and keep praying, calling upon the LORD as long as we live.

Passover and the "New Covenant in My Blood"

I was thinking again recently about Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper (read about it in Mark 14:22-25, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-26). What did he mean when he said "the new covenant in my blood" in the midst of him celebrating the Passover with his disciples? It seems to me that the Passover for the Jew is the remembrance of them becoming the people of God. It is the symbol of the exodus, and the preparation for Sinai. Even though the promise was to Abraham, it is the Passover the brings it to fruition. The Passover remembers how they were rescued out of slavery in Egypt, through the death of a firstborn lamb in the place of their firstborn sons, to be constituted the official new people of God in the covenant at Sinai. It seems that Jesus is saying that he is the reality of what the Passover pointed to. He is the lamb that was slain to rescue us from slavery to sin and the devil. And through his shed blood and death, we become the new people of God, united in the one body of Christ, after having been redeemed from the death that awaited us. In Christ we have become the new people of God, indeed the new humanity, united in him. It is the new covenant just as the Passover remembered what was then the new covenant as Abraham's physical descendants became the people of God. For some we can get caught up in the legalities of what it means to change from "old covenant" to "new covenant". But perhaps this misses the bigger picture emphasis of being one new people of God in Christ, through his blood shed for us (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17, Eph. 2:11-16). The challenge is how to live out that new unity as a true expression of new covenant life...

Iain Murray on what Presbyterians can learn from John Wesley

A while ago I read some of Iain Murray's book called Old Evangelicalism - Old Truths for a New Awakening. Below are some excerpts I found challenging, particularly in regard to having a too convenient view of ministry...

"The system Wesley inaugurated, instead of reviving debate on whether churches should be Episcopal, Independent, Presbyterian or whatever, aimed first at spreading the gospel by every available means. And the Methodist structure was flexible enough to operate effectively across the world - whether in England, or among the black slaves of the American South, or in Fiji, Tonga and other islands of the Pacific. What is beyond dispute is that in gospel effectiveness Wesleyan Methodism often outstripped other bodies; it reached slaves, soldiers, convicts and cannibals; it gave birth to vibrant churches which multiplied themselves as missionary agencies. This should at least make us cautious about dismissing the structure in terms of mere expediency... I am not about to suggest that we should all exchange our church structure for the one-time Methodist pattern. But I think Wesley prompts us to re-examine the relationship between zeal for the salvation of souls and church practices and procedures. We are prone to think that variations and changes in church order means laxity, but could it be that we need to re-examine what is most suited for the advance of the gospel in our generation? Is it not possible we could be in danger of allowing theory to prevent the introduction of changes that could be of blessing to people who are presently lost and far from God?" [pages 148-149]

"Wesley was accused of lowering the position of the minister. It is true that men were sometimes admitted as Assistants and itinerants who were unworthy, but taking the early Methodist history as a whole, failures were not the norm. The men who constituted the norm were often men of a standard which puts us to shame. The life of the itinerant preacher was a far harder one than the life of a man settled quietly to minister just to the needs of a local congregation. The itinerant had to find a pulpit wherever he could, whatever the weather, whatever the hostility. He was far more on horseback than ever he was at a fireside. Self-denial and sacrifice were a regular part of his existence, and, being married, he could not continue unless he had a wife of equal spiritual determination. We might think that they sometimes carried self-discipline too far, but there is no denying that they came closer than most to Paul's description of the gospel ministry in 2 Corinthians 6:4-9: 'In all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distress, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in distresses ... By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying and behold we live.'" [pages 149-150]

John Calvin on the primacy of Christ's work vs our faith regarding our salvation and justification

I like these words of Calvin, which highlight the primacy of what God has done in Christ, rather than our faith, as the ground of our justification:

We see that the first place is assigned to the love of God as the chief cause or origin, and that faith in Christ follows as the second and more proximate cause. Should any one object that Christ is only the formal cause [Note: The French adds, “C’est a dire, qui n’emporte en soy vrai effect;”—that is to say, which in itself produces no true effect], he lessens his energy more than the words justify. For if we obtain justification by a faith which leans on him, the groundwork of our salvation must be sought in him. This is clearly proved by several passages: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” (1 John 4:10). These words clearly demonstrate that God, in order to remove any obstacle to his love towards us, appointed the method of reconciliation in Christ. There is great force in this word “propitiation”; for in a manner which cannot be expressed, God, at the very time when he loved us, was hostile to us until reconciled in Christ. To this effect are all the following passages: “He is the propitiation for our sins;” “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;” “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;” “He has made us accepted in the Beloved,” “That he might reconcile both into one body by the cross.” The nature of this mystery is to be learned from the first chapter to the Ephesians, where Paul, teaching that we were chosen in Christ, at the same time adds, that we obtained grace in him. How did God begin to embrace with his favour those whom he had loved before the foundation of the world, unless in displaying his love when he was reconciled by the blood of Christ? As God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:21). He intimates, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and by sin estranged from him. This distinction is also noted whenever the grace of Christ is connected with the love of God (2 Cor. 13:13); whence it follows, that he bestows upon us of his own which he acquired by purchase. For otherwise there would be no ground for the praise ascribed to him by the Father, that grace is his, and proceeds from him. (Institutes, 2.17.2)

Circumcision and Keeping the Law

I've been working through 1 Corinthians in four different settings this year, and here is another comment related to chapter 7, having looked at it again recently. But this post is about 7:19. I think the verse has significant relevance to distinguishing between ceremonial and other aspects of the "Law" (e.g. threefold or tripartite division of the Law), and reminds me of of Romans 2:26-27. Here are the two references in full:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19; NKJV)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (Romans 2:26-27; NKJV)

What is significant is that Paul distinguishes between being circumcised and keeping the commandments of God, or fulfilling the requirements of the law. Someone can be said to keep God's commandments and law, without having to be circumcised. Yet, in other places, such as Galatians 5:3, circumcision seems to be identified as a part of the law. Hence Paul can sometimes speak of "the law", not including particularly Jewish markers like circumcision. Sounds a bit like distinguishing between "ceremonial" and "moral" aspects, doesn't it? There are those those who don't like dividing up or distinguishing between different aspects of the law, treating it as all or nothing, saying that is more "Biblical". But in doing so they are not actually being true to Paul's own non-simplistic references to the law (Torah)...

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.